Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

They are not going to write down on some government memorandum: "This is a conspiracy". No Hen, it does not work that way. :no:

Of course not. It's only included in "fringe" conspiracy blogs. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.

"Clarke speculates—and readily admits he cannot prove—that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in Southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda"

911 conspiracist seem to have a need to make things up as they go and my proof is what they post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

911 conspiracist seem to have a need to make things up as they go and my proof is what they post.

You know though, if you are in a graveyard, at night, looking for ghosts, and the wind is blowing, you ARE going to see some ghosts. Any plausible explanation to the contrary is not even considered because of the 'I know what I saw' mentality. It's like there are so many things that 'prove' the WTC was an inside job...and yet..in reality...there just aren't any ghosts in the graveyard.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.
the anglo american establishment rules the world, and you think they're incompetent? you're just repeating a false meme.

to quote michael parrenti - "God knows what they would achieve if they put their minds to it!"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know though, if you are in a graveyard, at night, looking for ghosts, and the wind is blowing, you ARE going to see some ghosts. Any plausible explanation to the contrary is not even considered because of the 'I know what I saw' mentality. It's like there are so many things that 'prove' the WTC was an inside job...and yet..in reality...there just aren't any ghosts in the graveyard.

And, you know if you are watching a parade, and the Emperor is in the parade wearing his New Clothes, you will admire those clothes, and chant with the rest of the crowd. :tu:

Even though the disinterested observer may note that the Emperor wears no clothes at all, and that the group assembled exhibits mob behavior.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, you know if you are watching a parade, and the Emperor is in the parade wearing his New Clothes, you will admire those clothes, and chant with the rest of the crowd. :tu:

Even though the disinterested observer may note that the Emperor wears no clothes at all, and that the group assembled exhibits mob behavior.

In the case of 911, facts and evidence support the official line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the anglo american establishment rules the world, and you think they're incompetent? you're just repeating a false meme.

to quote michael parrenti - "God knows what they would achieve if they put their minds to it!"

Not in the case of 911. The government couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal a secret nor the missteps of our intelligence services prior to 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the case of 911. The government couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal a secret nor the missteps of our intelligence services prior to 911.

last i checked, woodwood and berstein didn't receive anthrax in the post, and warrantless wiretapping wasn't routine at the time.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last i checked, woodwood and berstein didn't receive anthrax in the post, and warrantless wiretapping wasn't routine at the time.

That is neither here nor there simply because there was no way the US government could pulled off 911 and not get caught.

There was no way to modify the 911 aircraft in the manner that conspiracist have claimed and no way you can switch a B-767 or a B-757 without attracting attention. A conspiracy would have left long paper trails from Washington State and Washington D.C. If you add their engines, the paper trail will extend to the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such nonsense you post Sky.

As other posters have pointed out to you, Boeings are modified and specially equipped all the time. STC stands for Supplemental Type Certificate, and you know it. Why do you keep posting untrue statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such nonsense you post Sky.

As other posters have pointed out to you, Boeings are modified and specially equipped all the time.[/quote

No they were not? If you were a pilot you would have known that they confusing the flight director, autopilot and autothrottles with a remote control device, which are not the same.

STC stands for Supplemental Type Certificate, and you know it. Why do you keep posting untrue statements?

Show us all where that applies to remote control devices and airliners.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you knew aviation Sky?

STC applies to all types, all models, all certified aircraft.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing.

The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation.

The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff. It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary. EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information.

The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it.

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.

Built-in test equipment helps ground crews troubleshoot avionics and airplane systems quickly for easier maintenance than on earlier aircraft."

http://web.archive.o...back/back4.html

"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers."

http://www.economist...Story_ID=787987

"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley."

http://www.newscient.../article/dn1280

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you knew aviation Sky?

STC applies to all types, all models, all certified aircraft.

If you knew anything about B-757s and B-767s, you would have understood why those aircraft could not have been modified to fly under remote control in 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing.

The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation.

The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff. It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary. EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information.

The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it.

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.

Built-in test equipment helps ground crews troubleshoot avionics and airplane systems quickly for easier maintenance than on earlier aircraft."

http://web.archive.o...back/back4.html

"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers."

http://www.economist...Story_ID=787987

Once again, there was no way to modify B-767s and B-757s to fly under remote control and the flight profiles proved my case that the aircraft were not flown under remote control. There was no capability in place to fly those airliners under remote control and remember, the control systems of the B-757 and the B-767 are mechanical systems, which simply means that a hard tug on the yokes will override automatic flight control system. In the C-5, there are shear pins on the control tubes leading to the control quadrates and a pilot can shear those pins.

"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley."

There was no such capability for B-757s nor B-767s in 2001. :no:

The fact the autopilots were switched off and on in the cockpit, as depicted in the flight data, should have told 911 conspiracsit the aircraft were not flown under remote control and the depicted altitude data when the autopilots were turned off should have told them the aircraft were not flown under remote control as well. It was evident the terrorist were having difficulty maintaining altitude whenever the autopilot was turned off, which was another indication that professional pilots were not flying those aircraft under remote control.

If you are going to claim that aircraft were flown under remote control, you have to provide the evidence. You have to also understand the nature of how the systems of the B-767s and B-757s are designed, which should have told you that there was no way those airliners were modified to fly under remote control.

Now read and understand the following facts.

" Although the 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems. Normally this is done by simply disabling the automatic systems, but in any event the mechanical linkage would always allow the pilot to wrestle control by applying sufficient force to the yoke." The B-777 is a 'fly-by-wire' system whereas, the B-767 and the B-757 use mechanical systems. Those aircraft were never designed to fly under remote control.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I know Sky, is that you play fast and loose with facts and representations. You post faked videos and photos, it is discovered, and yet you somehow expect to be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I know Sky, is that you play fast and loose with facts and representations.

Let's put it all in perspective. You allowed yourself to be duped. After all, you threw in that P700 anti-ship missile in that attack on the Pentagon. Where did you get that from?! :w00t:

You post faked videos and photos, it is discovered, and yet you somehow expect to be taken seriously.

Considering that photos were official and authenticated, what more is there to say?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you knew aviation Sky?

STC applies to all types, all models, all certified aircraft.

But, I do!!

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to undergo such modifications? How amusing that you seem to think so, which underlines the point that when you post FAA regulations as references, you do not understand the specifics of what you are posting. :no:

If you are going to use the FAA or its regulations as references, at least understand the details of those regulations before you post them as sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I know Sky, is that you play fast and loose with facts and representations. You post faked videos and photos, it is discovered, and yet you somehow expect to be taken seriously.

Which photos and video's are fake from SkyEagle??

Please provide at least some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I do!!

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to undergo such modifications? How amusing that you seem to think so, which underlines the point that when you post FAA regulations as references, you do not understand the specifics of what you are posting. :no:

If you are going to use the FAA or its regulations as references, at least understand the details of those regulations before you post them as sources.

Both my Late Uncle and his son were Air Traffic Controllers. One of the ATC's job is to track planes from point A to point B. In order for there to have been ANY conspiracy whatsoever regarding Airliners of ANY company, it would have to involve ALL of the Air Traffic Controllers. Default to: Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead. There is no conspiracy involving airliners. NONE.

When you add up all of the 'conspiracy' information: From demolition explosions at WTC, to no airliner at the Pentagon, to the crash in Pennsylvania (being shot down)...and then you begin to calculate the VAST number of people that would have to be involved in that conspiracy...it begins to melt the mind faster than Thermite melts steel!

And don't forget the media...The Media who face punched Bush every single day of his Presidency. If there was ANY evidence of ANY conspiracy, don't you think the Media would have been all over it? I mean, seriously, step back and look at the big picture.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget the media...The Media who face punched Bush every single day of his Presidency. If there was ANY evidence of ANY conspiracy, don't you think the Media would have been all over it? I mean, seriously, step back and look at the big picture.

This is why I started out requesting no links to pics, videos or docs. I just want a logically coherent and reasoned argument that establishes 911 was an inside job. And when put in this form, truther arguments fall apart badly.

“Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form

- Immanuel Kant

What prompted me to pose this challenge was all the posted pictures of the deceased Sandy Hook children and their alleged doppelgangers on conspiracy sites. At some point these parlour games of outdoing each other with conspiracy fantasies becomes distasteful. It irked me to have to post a link from the Moussaoui trial documents that shows pictures of charred bodies still strapped in their seats of flight 77, just to shut up these ideologues that claim there were no bodies.

And I blame Marxist professors who use their classrooms as a bully pulpit for indoctrinating the young and credulous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I blame Marxist professors who use their classrooms as a bully pulpit for indoctrinating the young and credulous.

...and so, we have a five year old suspended from school for pointing his finger at a kid and saying bang. The indoctrination begins a tad bit earlier than Marxist professors. In the example (true example) of the above scenario, the child is taught, 'Guns are bad Johnny...even 'thinking' about guns is bad! Don't even think for a second about ever owning a gun Johnny because guns are bad and if you 'think' about guns that makes you bad Johnny!' And then Johnny goes home and instead of learning how to read and write he watches violence on TV. And we wonder why so many people never learn cognitive thinking skills...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.

It is not intended to show a conspiracy, and neither does it necessarily show incompetence – your over eagerness to jump to a preferred conclusion is noted again – either of those conclusions at this point are, I agree, speculation, and I’d say premature. The evidence offered and presented, at your request, shows exactly what it says – we will get to that below - sets out a number of facts and leaves a number of questions. It is only with these facts and questions established that we can draw an informed and fitting conclusion.

Ok, so I agree that the evidence offered does not make a conspiracy apparent. What facts can we agree that it does make apparent?

The CIA had an interest in and monitored the future hijackers prior to 9/11.

The CIA deterred an FBI agent from reporting those terrorists to FBI HQ prior to 9/11.

The CIA prevented an FBI agent taking action in the U.S. against those terrorists prior to 9/11.

That the FBI agent believed the terrorists received ‘protection’ from the U.S. system (as did Richard Clarke).

The CIA knew of those terrorists inside the U.S. prior to 9/11.

In addition, I touched on it in my last post, do you agree that a Saudi government agent met and assisted the future hijackers inside the United States, providing funds, along with contact information for accommodation (where the landlord so happened to be a U.S. intelligence informant) and flight schools?

I don’t see that any of this can be disputed, but would like to know if we can agree facts like these before we proceed.

"Clarke speculates—and readily admits he cannot prove—that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in Southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda"

That the CIA withheld information and obstructed the FBI is not in question. This is seen, in addition to that already posted,from a June 2001 quote from FBI agent Bongardt: “What’s the story with the Almihdhar information, when is it going to get passed, do we have anything yet, when is it going to get passed?” Stand up rows occurred between this FBI agent and agents of the CIA bin Laden unit over restrictions on information.

The speculation from Clarke is in answering the reason why this situation of CIA restriction, deterrence and prevention existed surrounding the terrorists. Whether Clarke’s speculation is correct or not - that “the only conceivable reason” he could come up with is that the CIA were attempting to recruit the terrorists – is not important, and incidentally I, like you, do not necessarily agree with him.

The actual facts that should be taken from this are the willful CIA restriction, deterrence and prevention – actions which demonstrate that the CIA had a keen interest in and ongoing operation of their own surrounding the terrorists prior to 9/11.

Can we agree to that?

Can we agree that without that CIA interest and operation, Al Mihdhar would have had the FBI all over him? Can we agree that would put Al Mihdhar in great danger of never making it to 9/11? Can we agree that the CIA, the reason not important at the moment, paved an FBI-unhindered way for Al Mihdhar to 9/11?

Please read this to reinforce the obvious answer: -

Even more than 18 months before 9/11, an FBI agent, Mark Rossini, seconded to the CIA bin Laden unit overseas, aware of Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi’s terrorist background and attendance at the January 2000 Al Qaeda summit, said to the CIA, “What's going on? You know, we've got to tell the Bureau about this. These guys clearly are bad. One of them, at least, has a multiple-entry visa to the U.S. We've got to tell the FBI.” The CIA forbid his request and Rossini feared for his position if he ignored the order. After 9/11, Rossini reflected, “I can't come up with a rational reason why I didn't break the rules, pick up the phone, and tell that the hijackers, or really bad guys, are in the U.S. And I don't know if I'll ever be able to come to terms with that. I don't know. I really don't know.”

Rossini was put in that situation by the CIA.

FBI agent Steve Bongardt, upon learning of the hijacker identities: “This is the same Almihdhar we’ve been talking about for three months!” In an attempt to console him, his boss replies, “We did everything by the book.” Now that Bongardt is allowed to conduct a basic Internet search for Almihdhar that he had been denied permission to conduct before 9/11, he finds the hijacker’s address “within hours.”

Bongardt was put in that situation by the CIA.

Another FBI agent, Ali Soufan, aware of the case and danger posed before 9/11, when told of the attackers identities, “ran to the bathroom, fell to the floor next to a toilet and threw up, unable to comprehend why the CIA had withheld such key intelligence for more than a year.”

Soufan was put in that situation by the CIA.

Again I don’t see that any of the facts I have asked you to agree can be disputed, but would like to know if we can agree before we proceed.

As always, the above information is available online and specific sources can be provided if required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I do!!

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to undergo such modifications? How amusing that you seem to think so, which underlines the point that when you post FAA regulations as references, you do not understand the specifics of what you are posting. :no:

If you are going to use the FAA or its regulations as references, at least understand the details of those regulations before you post them as sources.

For what it's worth Sky, my own theory is that the airplanes involved at WTC (there were no Boeings at Shanksville & Pentagon) did not belong to United and American. My theory is that at least one (not certain about the other) was drawn from a fleet of 767 tanker candidates delivered to MacDill some years previously.

Pallidin

The F-18 incident Sky and I discuss was a video he put up here last year of an F-18 crashing into an apartment complex or building of some sort. At first I believed it to be true, simply because I was new here and had trusted Sky. Later research revealed it to be faked. In his defense, Sky did admit to the fakeness WHEN CHALLENGED.

Once bitten, twice shy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both my Late Uncle and his son were Air Traffic Controllers. One of the ATC's job is to track planes from point A to point B. In order for there to have been ANY conspiracy whatsoever regarding Airliners of ANY company, it would have to involve ALL of the Air Traffic Controllers. Default to: Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead. There is no conspiracy involving airliners. NONE.

When you add up all of the 'conspiracy' information: From demolition explosions at WTC, to no airliner at the Pentagon, to the crash in Pennsylvania (being shot down)...and then you begin to calculate the VAST number of people that would have to be involved in that conspiracy...it begins to melt the mind faster than Thermite melts steel!

And don't forget the media...The Media who face punched Bush every single day of his Presidency. If there was ANY evidence of ANY conspiracy, don't you think the Media would have been all over it? I mean, seriously, step back and look at the big picture.

By definition JOC, unless you are claiming that only 1 person was involved in the attacks, there certainly WAS a conspiracy. That is, a group of humans CONSPIRED to commit the crimes of the day.

The only real question JOC, if we are allowed to use proper definitions here, is just exactly who the conspirators were? Were they 19 arabs with box cutters? Or were they conspirators somebody else, unknown to us at this moment?

Common Sense requires that the case against the 19 arabs with box cutters is poor and invalid. From impossible cell phone calls to missing airliners in some locations, the Official Conspiracy Theory cannot be proved.

That leaves the field wide open for all sorts of other theories, and that's what we have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.