Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[Firestone]

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.

Maybe this has already been addressed, but according to the 9/11 Commission report, security was handled by:

In Boston:
Flight AA11: Globe Security
Flight UA175: Huntleigh USA

In Washington:
Flight AA77: Argenbright Security

In Newark:
Flight UA93: Argenbright Security

Are these three the same foreign company?
Just asking ...

 

[A-Train]

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?

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc. According to that CT, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they all believe with religious fervor that all the phone calls are fake. My own intensive examination of the phone calls is that they show a hijacking did indeed take place, but they also reveal many details that do not jibe with the official story of an al-Qaeda hijacking.

 

[Horatius]

http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html

Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities. He hung up.

One mention of a gun, in his first call (which clearly was a rushed call), which never gets mentioned again - even when he starts talking about taking back the plane. Not very reliable.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls

Betty Ong. No mention of guns, lots of mentions of stabbing, and lots of confusion on that point. Totally believable that someone may have misunderstood what was going on.

 

[WildCat]

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

So you believe that 9/11 was an inside job even though there is no evidence (by your own admission) supporting it?

 

[Arus808]

Please don't ask me to present a theory.

Then why are you here?

A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven.

And when a theory is supported by evidence, its closer to being proven than a theory that is just "stated" but no evidence supports it.

We are in the former ; you're of the latter.

I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

then you are in the wrong place and on the wrong forum.
IF you make wild claims (ie guns aboard ; the hijackers were not Arabs/muslims/extremists) then you must prove why what you claim is true, through evidence.
If you dont, then you must retract your claim and apologize for making it in the first place.

You've already presented "several" theories, of which we've asked for evidence. up till now you' have presented none. So please retract your statements.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc.

Four years too late deary. And you may want to use credible sources (ie not fetzer, alex jones, kevin barret, D.R. Griffin and those who do not have any expertise or first hand knowledge of the happenings of 9/11).

 

[tsig]

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc. According to that CT, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they all believe with religious fervor that all the phone calls are fake. My own intensive examination of the phone calls is that they show a hijacking did indeed take place, but they also reveal many details that do not jibe with the official story of an al-Qaeda hijacking.

None of us really think at JREF we just follow the party line.

We will trust your evaluation for what it's worth.

May god have mercy on your soul.

 

[Horatius]

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc.

Well, then, mision accomplished, even before you posted here. There's a lot of room in the MIHOP-LIHOP spectrum, and we've heard pretty much all the variations.

So unless you're willing to move on to actually trying to prove any of your claims, we're pretty much done here.

 

[rwguinn]

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc. According to that CT, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they all believe with religious fervor that all the phone calls are fake. My own intensive examination of the phone calls is that they show a hijacking did indeed take place, but they also reveal many details that do not jibe with the official story of an al-Qaeda hijacking.

We aren't asking for PROOF. As critical thinkers, we know rthat absolute "Proof"is non-existent. Proof is not necessary for a theory to be valid. Evidence, however is a requirement.
There must be evidence supporting a theory. All evidence in opposition to it must be explainable in terms of another theory:
ewtonian physics is a theory that has no evidence against it, until a certain state is reached: that where velocity is a measurable percentage of the speed of light. But, it turns out that the relativistic physice theories explain these anomolous results, while still supporting Newtonian physics for low speeds!
Amazing how that works. There is no "Proof" of either of these theories--just no evidence to the contrary.

 

[JimBenArm]

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc. According to that CT, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they all believe with religious fervor that all the phone calls are fake. My own intensive examination of the phone calls is that they show a hijacking did indeed take place, but they also reveal many details that do not jibe with the official story of an al-Qaeda hijacking.

Your intensive investigation? That's a hoot! Really? Then how come you can't get that right?

Let me clue you in here, dude. If you want someone to doubt the official story, you have to have some evidence. A viable theory that fits the evidence. Not some imagined anomalies, based on what terrified passengers said on cell phones. That's just downright stupid.

So, if you can't do that, you're wasting everyone's time here.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

Perhaps you could at least present a hypothesis:
Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html and not just speculative conjecture.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory"

No. A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political), social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social), or historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical) events) as a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy), and often deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception), plot by a covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert) alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) as late as 1997. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-0)
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) to identify a type of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) similar to an urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend), especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological) flaws.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1) The term is also used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspir...Controversies). Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics), politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicians), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists), and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) cuts across traditional left-right political lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory


Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory


conspiracy theory (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18...cy_theory.html)
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18...cy_theory.html)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...spiracy+theory

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...spiracy.html)*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is... (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...onspiracy.html)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=conspiracy


Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>opWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy'))
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators)
synonym see PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plot)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy


In the criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence), the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28law%29).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29

To equate the two terms is equivocation.

presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc. According to that CT, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they all believe with religious fervor that all the phone calls are fake. My own intensive examination of the phone calls is that they show a hijacking did indeed take place, but they also reveal many details that do not jibe with the official story of an al-Qaeda hijacking.

Objective, corroboratable example?

 

[Kiwiwriter]

More racism...

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.

I don't know why people think the Arabs are stupid or incapable of putting together a plot like 9/11. The Arabs invented the very mathematical system the whole world uses to figure out how all this stuff is possible.

Ever heard of "Algebra," A-Train? How about "Arabic numerals?"

I got another idea that Arabs brought to the West, one that is critical to modern business: "double-entry bookkeeping." What does that mean? Now it's your turn to do some research.

But then, that racism was the same attitude that basically ignored both the 9/11 warnings and the Pearl Harbor warnings. Arrogant white American men who didn't think anybody but other arrogant white men were intelligent or capable.

Sounds like a lot of yesterday's Nazis and today's neo-Nazis, too.

 

[rwguinn]

But then, that But then, that racism was the same attitude that basically ignored both the 9/11 warnings and the Pearl Harbor warnings. Arrogant white American men who didn't think anybody but other arrogant white men were intelligent or capable.

Sounds like a lot of yesterday's Nazis and today's neo-Nazis, too.

You are dangerously close to that slippery slope yourself,with that statement. I'd like to see evidence that " racism was the same attitude that basically ignored both the 9/11 warnings and the Pearl Harbor warnings."
Arrogance, yes. Complacency, OK.
Racism? Don't think so, but am willing to look at evidence[/b

 

[stateofgrace]

Please don't ask me to present a theory. A theory is supported by evidence, but it is not proven. Otherwise, it would not be a theory. I will not present a theory here, only to be lambasted by everyone for not "proving" every single detail in it.

My purpose here at JREF is to get you all thinking that there are alternatives to the "official conspiracy theory" presented by the likes of Loose Change, J. Fetzer, Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett, etc. According to that CT, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they all believe with religious fervor that all the phone calls are fake. My own intensive examination of the phone calls is that they show a hijacking did indeed take place, but they also reveal many details that do not jibe with the official story of an al-Qaeda hijacking.

You have presented nothing, only conjecture and your own spin on events. You have made ridiculous claims about the hijackers having guns, with silencers and as such they could not possibly be Arabic terrorist but Israeli agents.

Stop using dramatic phrases like " My own intensive examination of the phone calls" when you have not, you have see the word gun and simply weaved a complete fabrication around to suit what appears to be an anti Semitic view point.

You will not present a theory or thesis based on what you believe, because you know you are completely wrong. You have presented no evidence, no real theory that stands up to any sort of cross examination and you have completely failed to convince anybody that your claims merits anything other than to be totally rejected..

Consider it rejected.

 

[A W Smith]

The hijacker on flight 93 said he had a bomb. Turns out he didn't. Just because the Hijackers said they had guns doesn't mean they did. Why would they risk the entire operation by attempting to smuggle guns on board? They didn't need guns. All they needed was fear. Have you ever seen the weapons confiscated at prisons? Are you aware these home made weapons have actually killed people? And those people in prisons who have successfully used such weapons such as shanks made from a bed spring straightened out and wrapped with string as a handle weren't even trained at a terrorist camp? Hell you wouldn't even need to be trained at "the base" if all you were going to use was a gun. These hijackers were trained in hand to hand combat. Do you think a 120 pound flight attendant could suppress them? Do you think even a 210 pound man could prevent his throat from being slit from the terrorist seated or standing behind him? Do you think the hijackers would have wanted to risk the instruments and controls being damaged or disabled from gunshots in the cabin? Clearly you are not Thinking. You are blindly believing.

 

[A-Train]

Tom Burnett did not say the hijackers said they had a gun. He said one of the hijackers had a gun:

"We are in the air. The plane has been hijacked. They already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They're saying there is a bomb on board. Please call the authorities."

Deena Burnett then called 911, and on this recorded call, said:

"They just knifed a guy and there are guns on the plane."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=ua93

Has anyone read the biographical sketch of Tom Burnett in Jere Longman's Among the Heroes? He was a successful entrepreneur, the owner of a medical devices company, an avid hunter. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who's going to panic in a tense situation and hallucinate a gun in the hijackers' possession.

I sure am glad I'm not one who has to suppress this compelling evidence of guns. It would really bother me to have to somehow figure out how to dismiss this testimony from two intelligent, credible witnesses. If I were trying to make myself believe Burnett was in error when he reported guns, the words of his wife would be ringing in my ears:

"He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn't have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was."

Now let's talk about Betty Ong's call. To say she didn't mention a gun cannot be proven. She did not mention a gun in the 4.5 minutes of her conversation that were released to the public. What she said in the remaining 18.5 minutes of her call is unknown to us. We are supposed to believe that after recording the first 4.5 minutes, someone turned off the recorder and the remainder of the call was unrecorded. Why would someone, presumably at American Airlines where the call was taken, stop recording such a monumentally important call? That's quite a mystery. I'd call it an improbable coincidence. She may have mentioned guns in the rest of her call, or she may not have. What we do know is that based on her call, the FAA filed this report on the day of 9/11 stating that one of the hijackers had shot a passenger.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

 

[rwguinn]

Tom Burnett did not say the hijackers said they had a gun. He said one of the hijackers had a gun:

Deena Burnett then called 911, and on this recorded call, said:http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=ua93

Has anyone read the biographical sketch of Tom Burnett in Jere Longman's Among the Heroes? He was a successful entrepreneur, the owner of a medical devices company, an avid hunter. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who's going to panic in a tense situation and hallucinate a gun in the hijackers' possession.

I sure am glad I'm not one who has to suppress this compelling evidence of guns. It would really bother me to have to somehow figure out how to dismiss this testimony from two intelligent, credible witnesses. If I were trying to make myself believe Burnett was in error when he reported guns, the words of his wife would be ringing in my ears:
Now let's talk about Betty Ong's call. To say she didn't mention a gun cannot be proven. She did not mention a gun in the 4.5 minutes of her conversation that were released to the public. What she said in the remaining 18.5 minutes of her call is unknown to us. We are supposed to believe that after recording the first 4.5 minutes, someone turned off the recorder and the remainder of the call was unrecorded. Why would someone, presumably at American Airlines where the call was taken, stop recording such a monumentally important call? That's quite a mystery. I'd call it an improbable coincidence. She may have mentioned guns in the rest of her call, or she may not have. What we do know is that based on her call, the FAA filed this report on the day of 9/11 stating that one of the hijackers had shot a passenger.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg

When I was a kid, we walked to the end of our block to hunt quail. I was shooting by age 5, and was an NRA instructor in rifle, shotgun, pistol, and personal protection.
We always taught, and were taught, that you never point it at anything you aren't prepared to shoot. Most of us also believe that others who use firearms feel the same way.
Under those circumstances, when someone who has broken the law, killed a few folks, or at least injured them, taken control ot the airplane I am on says he has a gun, I am treating that as a serious statement, whether I see the da*n thing or not.
Anyone who doesn't has watched Waaaay too much Television

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Howabout you deal with the criticisms and questions posted so far before moving on to Betty Ong's call.

 

[Firestone]

Now let's talk about Betty Ong's call. To say she didn't mention a gun cannot be proven. She did not mention a gun in the 4.5 minutes of her conversation that were released to the public. What she said in the remaining 18.5 minutes of her call is unknown to us. We are supposed to believe that after recording the first 4.5 minutes, someone turned off the recorder and the remainder of the call was unrecorded. Why would someone, presumably at American Airlines where the call was taken, stop recording such a monumentally important call? That's quite a mystery. I'd call it an improbable coincidence.

No, it is not a mystery.

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

29. Calls to American’s reservations office are routed to the first open line at one of several facilities, among them the center in Cary, N.C. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003). On standard emergency training, see FAA report,“Air Carrier Standard Security Program,” May 2001, pp. 139j–139o; Don Dillman briefing (Nov. 18, 2003); Bob Jordan briefing (Nov. 20, 2003).The call from Ong was received initially byVanessa Minter and then taken over by Winston Sadler; realizing the urgency of the situation, he pushed an emergency button that simultaneously initiated a tape recording of the call and sent an alarm notifying Nydia Gonzalez, a supervisor, to pick up on the line. Gonzalez was paged to respond to the alarm and joined the call a short time later. Only the first four minutes of the phone call between Ong and the reservations center (Minter, Sadler, and Gonzalez) was recorded because of the time limit on the recently installed system. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003); Nydia Gonzalez testimony, Jan. 27, 2004.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Quite right...

You are dangerously close to that slippery slope yourself,with that statement. I'd like to see evidence that " racism was the same attitude that basically ignored both the 9/11 warnings and the Pearl Harbor warnings."
Arrogance, yes. Complacency, OK.
Racism? Don't think so, but am willing to look at evidence[/b

It took me a couple of moments, but I do see your point...arrogance and complacency over racism in both situations.

I will note that intelligence warnings before Pearl Harbor about Japanese capabilities and equipment were ignored and shelved. These include analyses of Japanese aircraft and troop performance in China.

There was also arrogance in America after Pearl Harbor...the gravity of the losses were not initially released, and the public was surprised by the wave of defeats that followed. Ivan Musicant's book "Battleship At War," the history of the USS Washington, has a note early in the book that speaks to the average American attitude to Japan at the time of Pearl Harbor.

The battleship was based in Maine at the time, and when word came over the loudspeakers of the attack on Hawaii, some of the sailors reacted with the exuberance of youth, shouting that the Japanese would be easy meat. However, older sailors and Marines on the ship, who had served in China and Shanghai, and had seen the Japanese in action in 1932 and 1937 and on, said, "No, these guys are very tough." That quieted the youngsters.

But I do see your point, and will remember that in future.

 

[R.Mackey]

Tom Burnett did not say the hijackers said they had a gun. He said one of the hijackers had a gun:

Yes, yes, there is very, very thin evidence that one of the hijackers may have had a gun. We all doubt it, but this is nothing we haven't heard before. Old news.

What I'd like to see, if you feel like you're being swarmed, is how having a gun => Israeldidit. I totally fail to see the connection.