Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[DavidJames]

I agree it would be difficult for a Scotman. But how about a dark skinned Israeli soldier, like this one:



[qimg]http://re3.mm-a8.yimg.com/image/3997890599[/qimg]


If this man were hijacking your plane, dressed and acting like an Arab, including his red headband, would you know he was an Israeli, not an Arab?

A-Train - It's clear you have an anti-Israeli bent to your CT. Your posts are presenting a political opinion and so far have not presented a shred of evidence to support your claims. There is a politics forum where you can debate your problems with Israel. Unless you plan on providing evidence for your CT, it will remain simply a political rant. I suggest you take your issues to the politics forum.

 

[MortFurd]

Dang.

CTs have really got a long laundry list of problems: Poor reading comprehension, inability to express themselves, poor short term memory, poor logic and deduction skills, paranoia, racism.

Now we've got to add broken irony meters. Up above, A-Train is incredulous that the hijackers could have carried knives aboard the planes " and they did this supposedly with only knives, which they somehow smuggled on board.(A-train.)"
This despite the fact that knives were easy to carry on board prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks - no smuggling necessary.

Now A-Train is proposing that the hijackers managed to carry guns on board the planes - despite the fact that even before the attacks you could get into deep doo-doo for trying to carry a gun on board an airplane.

These guys debunk themselves.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Damn. So that's what it's all about...

Pretty much. It's the same racism that spawns, "The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids." and "The Mayans/Incas couldn't have built these temples." etc

The fact of the matter is, that these Islamic extremists were/are well funded, well educated, and have resources. That they don't fall under a traditional (para)military support structure is moot.

 

[maccy]

How do you know their identities were not stolen? Where is your proof. You are the one indicting specific people. If you were a prosecutor in a court of law, the burden of proof would be on you, not the accused.

The burden of proof on a prosecutor in a court of law is "proof beyond reasonable doubt". If you were acting as defence you would have to show evidence that an identity was stolen in order to show that the doubt was reasonable. Asking to prove a negative is not an acceptable argument in a court of law.

 

[R.Mackey]

No. They were used, to dispatch the pilots in an efficient manner.

In the confines of an airplane cockpit, either by surprise or after warning the pilots not to interfere at risk of killing passengers or a bomb bluff, they would have been unneccessary. I don't see that they are needed.

Only a few people saw them because the intention was to conceal them from the passengers, so the passengers would report knives, not guns, on their phone calls-- all in keeping with the image of a primitive Arab attack. They didn't hear them because they were equipped with silencers. Actually it, since there only needed to be one gun per plane.

Dude, I ask you for evidence, and you provide none. Instead, you provide more speculation.

Do you know anything at all about silencers? Bad choice in an aircraft. It makes the guns harder to conceal and harder to wield in close quarters. It significantly increases risk of detection, since the silencer contains as much metal as the gun itself. It's hard to imagine using a silencer without first pulling the piece and attaching it, making it more likely, not less, that someone would have seen them. Silencers also are not silent except in a relative sense, and might have been picked up on the cockpit voice recorder anyway.

Do you have any evidence for a silencer? I'll assume the answer is "no."

Besides, even if there were guns, even silencers, how do you make the equation that knives == Arabs and guns == Israelis? Are you suggesting that Arabs shun or are too incompetent to use handguns? Are you proposing that crack Israeli agents aren't dangerous with knives? There's no logic here at all.

Who said anything about Scotsmen? The phone witnesses are credible, and the hijackers did look Middle Eastern. Your mind works just like the typical American's. To you, "Middle Eastern" means Arab-Muslim. Go out and look at a map. Not all countries in the Middle East are Muslim. Many of the people living in a non-Muslim Middle Eastern country look just like Arabs, with dark skin and all.

Your presumption is astounding. To me, "Middle Eastern" can mean anything from Iranian Jewish to Turkish aristocracy. I work daily with ethnic Iranians and Armenians, and once worked for a man from Baghdad. One of my best friends is Korean, but grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Don't transfer your personal biases on me. I'm trying to understand your argument, and not getting very far. "Middle Eastern Looking" could mean a great many things, yes, but as I noted before, we have far more evidence than just the phone calls from the planes.

Went to the thread and couldn't find anything without looking too hard. Hope it isn't the same Atta footage from the Portland airport? Or the bogus footage from Dulles submitted by some law firm? Hang it up on this issue, boys, you will never find surveillance video from any of the four boarding gates. The government doesn't even have it. It was never made. That's called an improbable coincidence.

More speculation. Your say-so doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Besides, how do you account for the hijackers appearing post facto on Al-Jazeera? You didn't address that evidence at all.

How do you know their identities were not stolen? Where is your proof. You are the one indicting specific people. If you were a prosecutor in a court of law, the burden of proof would be on you, not the accused.

Hell no. You made the claim, you support it. And besides, I already did support my side of the argument. Men known to be in a terrorist organization left recordings of themselves exhorting their actions, confessing in advance. And this is just a part of the evidence.

Don't try to shift the burden of proof, it won't work here since we've all seen it at least a thousand times. Support your case. So far, you're doing very poorly.

I agree it would be difficult for a Scotman. But how about a dark skinned Israeli soldier, like this one:

[qimg]http://re3.mm-a8.yimg.com/image/3997890599[/qimg]

If this man were hijacking your plane, dressed and acting like an Arab, including his red headband, would you know he was an Israeli, not an Arab?

Oh, this is what this is about.

Look, buster, you have made no connection at all to Israel.

If I went on a plane in suitable costume, I could probably convince you I was an Arab as well. Some Arabs are quite light of complexion. So what?

As I said above, guns does not equal Israelis. Knives does not equal Arabs. You have no evidence.

So why did you make the jump to blame Israel? Be specific.

 

[Arus808]

what makes people think that silencers completely "silences" a gun? they dont; it greatly reduces the sound that comes from a gun (as a bullets is fired; because of the escaping "gas" that follows the bullet), but it doesn't completely silence a gun going off.

in a closed cabin airplane, if anyone was nearby (like the first class passengers) they'd have heard a gun go off (however, very muted).


Have any of these truthers ever fired a gun? Or just more ignorance?

 

[A-Train]

How do you get a gun onto a plane at the time? If you had anything even remotely resembling a gun, security would ask to see it. At the time, they only believed that guns were the only method of hijacking a plane.

That's my whole point. You don't get a gun on board a plane without connections in the airport security apparatus. The presence of guns on board is evidence of a much more sophisticated conspiracy that al-Qaeda. We need to look at who controlled security operations at the three airports involved. the security at all three airports-- BOS, EWR, and IAD-- was contracted out to the same foreign firm.

 

[Horatius]

Now A-Train is proposing that the hijackers managed to carry guns on board the planes - despite the fact that even before the attacks you could get into deep doo-doo for trying to carry a gun on board an airplane.

These guys debunk themselves.

Ah, but like the Heart of Gold, he's using the implausibility of it to support his contention that they had some help in smuggling the guns on board. Remember his off-hand comment about the foreign company running the security at the airports?

So you see, it really all makes perfect sense.

Except for the whole lack of evidence thing.

This is why I say "What If" games get us nowhere, no matter how much fun they may be.

ETA: I see he beat me to it!

 

[A-Train]

A-Train - It's clear you have an anti-Israeli bent to your CT. Your posts are presenting a political opinion and so far have not presented a shred of evidence to support your claims. There is a politics forum where you can debate your problems with Israel. Unless you plan on providing evidence for your CT, it will remain simply a political rant. I suggest you take your issues to the politics forum.

Please consider my comments in their original context. Another poster, like so many Americans, assumed that since the phone callers identified "Middle Eastern looking" hijackers, those hijackers had to be Arabs. When I replied that those identities could have been stolen and assumed by the real hijackers. His reply was that it would be difficult for a "Scotsman" to assume the identity of an Arab. My point is that there are a lot of non-Arab "Middle Eastern looking" people out there who could have stolen the identies and passed as "Arabs" while doing the hijacking.

 

[Horatius]

That's my whole point. You don't get a gun on board a plane without connections in the airport security apparatus. The presence of guns on board is evidence of a much more sophisticated conspiracy that al-Qaeda. We need to look at who controlled security operations at the three airports involved. the security at all three airports-- BOS, EWR, and IAD-- was contracted out to the same foreign firm.

So, which firm was it? And what country are they from? And what evidence do you have that they did anything at all?

And were the employees of this firm also foreigners, or did they employ Americans? How does the answer to this question affect your theories?

 

[Horatius]

My point is that there are a lot of non-Arab "Middle Eastern looking" people out there who could have stolen the identies and passed as "Arabs" while doing the hijacking.

So we're back to "could have". I can state, with little fear of contradiction, that "could have" will convince no one here, except our resident CTists, whom you've already dismissed as serious participants in this discussion.

 

[Arus808]

That's my whole point. You don't get a gun on board a plane without connections in the airport security apparatus.

Actually, it was (before 9/11) easy enough, if you had:
1) an inattentive security check person at the baggage xray for carry-ons
2) the gun in pieces in a case(s) spread over your carry-ons.

When returning from japan, I was able to take aboard, as carry on two replica air-soft guns. No safety color attached to them (ie, no orange muzzle). they were replica guns. The baggage checker didn't do a thing.

No inside connections. Just a normal passenger on my way home.

The presence of guns on board is evidence of a much more sophisticated conspiracy that al-Qaeda.

Again you show your racism. Al Quaeda has a long deep history of terroristic threats and acts; they have been around long enough before 9/11 and is headed by some of the most educated men. Are you saying that those who were in Al Quaeda were dumb? And you keep on saying that 9/11 was sophisticated. 9/11 wasn't complex or sophisticated. Whats hard about hijacking four planes and using them as missiles?

We need to look at who controlled security operations at the three airports involved. the security at all three airports-- BOS, EWR, and IAD-- was contracted out to the same foreign firm.

They were.
And what they found was that security AT ALL AIRPORTS in our nation suffered from over worked employees, in-attentive employees, no across the board checklist of what can and can't be allowed on planes, so on a so forth. With all of these "little" things; it adds up to one BIG security hole that one person can take advantage of.

 

[R.Mackey]

Please consider my comments in their original context. Another poster, like so many Americans, assumed that since the phone callers identified "Middle Eastern looking" hijackers, those hijackers had to be Arabs. When I replied that those identities could have been stolen and assumed by the real hijackers. His reply was that it would be difficult for a "Scotsman" to assume the identity of an Arab. My point is that there are a lot of non-Arab "Middle Eastern looking" people out there who could have stolen the identies and passed as "Arabs" while doing the hijacking.

Addressing me in the third person, eh?

How about you answer my last post?

 

[uk_dave]

Please consider my comments in their original context. Another poster, like so many Americans, assumed that since the phone callers identified "Middle Eastern looking" hijackers, those hijackers had to be Arabs. When I replied that those identities could have been stolen and assumed by the real hijackers. His reply was that it would be difficult for a "Scotsman" to assume the identity of an Arab. My point is that there are a lot of non-Arab "Middle Eastern looking" people out there who could have stolen the identies and passed as "Arabs" while doing the hijacking.

Is your theory that Israelis hijacked those planes, with help from the US govt, and killed themselves along with all of the passengers by flying the planes into the wtc towers, pentagon and shanksville?

 

[A-Train]

Do you have any evidence for a silencer? I'll assume the answer is "no."

Besides, even if there were guns, even silencers, how do you make the equation that knives == Arabs and guns == Israelis? Are you suggesting that Arabs shun or are too incompetent to use handguns? Are you proposing that crack Israeli agents aren't dangerous with knives? There's no logic here at all.

I don't need any evidence for silencers. I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call. Most of you have decided to reject it, I think because it doesn't fit in to your own official conspiracy theory. Someone pointed out that if guns were used, passengers would have heard it and reported it in their phone calls. Well, two of them did. But nonetheless I pointed out that the guns could have had silencers.

 

[WildCat]

I don't need any evidence for silencers. I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call.

Betty Ong never mentioned a gun.

 

[Horatius]

I don't need any evidence for silencers. I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call. Most of you have decided to reject it, I think because it doesn't fit in to your own official conspiracy theory. Someone pointed out that if guns were used, passengers would have heard it and reported it in their phone calls. Well, two of them did. But nonetheless I pointed out that the guns could have had silencers.

me·tic·u·lous (m-tky-ls)
adj.
1. Extremely careful and precise.
2. Extremely or excessively concerned with details.

I dare say you haven't been "meticulous" about presenting any of your evidence. You have one phone call that was ambiguous about whether the report of a gun was based on an actual view of the gun, or a threat of there being a gun. The other phone call was merely the basis for someone else's mistaken speculation that someone was "shot".

In no way have you been "Extremely or excessively concerned with details" when presenting any of this.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't need any evidence for silencers.

Yes you do, because your theory depends on it.

Except even silencers probably wouldn't be good enough. A silenced gunshot would have shown up on the CVR, unless it was a silenced .22, in which case it would have been far more trouble than it was worth.

I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call. Most of you have decided to reject it, I think because it doesn't fit in to your own official conspiracy theory.

Nope. I told you that the 9/11 Commission Report also mentions it, and though guns are not considered part of the story, they really make no difference.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how guns necessarily imply the hijackers were not Arabs. That makes no sense to me at all.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think they were Israelis.

Someone pointed out that if guns were used, passengers would have heard it and reported it in their phone calls. Well, two of them did. But nonetheless I pointed out that the guns could have had silencers.

"Could Have" doesn't cut it. Show evidence that they did.

This is just like the hijackers "Could Have" been victims of identity theft. You've supplied no evidence of that either.

"Could Have" is not an argument. It's just speculation. Why do you keep refusing to provide evidence?

 

[Arus808]

I don't need any evidence for silencers. I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call.

wow what an oxymoronic post: I dont need evidence yet i provided evidence. WTF?


Again, you provided no proof that there guns aboard. YOU misinterpreted two phone calls; one by Tom and one by Betty. Nowhere in both their calls they said that they saw guns.

Please provide proof that they saw guns.

However, it repeated calls by others, they reported stating that they thought the terrorists had guns and one threatened to have a bomb aboard.

Did anyone state that they saw an actual bomb?

Most of you have decided to reject it, I think because it doesn't fit in to your own official conspiracy theory.

No, we reject your assumption of what was being said. Nothing in those two calls confirmed any guns aboard. Yet you totally neglect that there was also a report of a bomb aboard as well.

Someone pointed out that if guns were used, passengers would have heard it and reported it in their phone calls. Well, two of them did. But nonetheless I pointed out that the guns could have had silencers.

No, they did not HEAR A gun. God, do you EVEn BOTHER To listen to what you are trying ot use as evidence to back you up? Because they actually prove you wrong.

And by this last statement, its obvious that you've never handled a gun, never fired one, nor ever fired one with a silencer attached.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't need any evidence for silencers. I meticulously presented the evidence that there were guns aboard, based on the phone calls of Tom Burnett and Betty Ong, and the initial FAA report based on Ong's call. Most of you have decided to reject it, I think because it doesn't fit in to your own official conspiracy theory. Someone pointed out that if guns were used, passengers would have heard it and reported it in their phone calls. Well, two of them did. But nonetheless I pointed out that the guns could have had silencers.

No, what you presented was anecdotal evidence of passenger comments, made under duress, that is not supported by any physical evidence.