9/11 Conspiracy Won't Go Away

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, Podo said:

So you're utterly convinced that it was some kind of conspiracy, then? Nothing can ever change your mind?

Well,considering one known fact, that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian and were known to have been supported by elements in Saudi Arabia, which surely raises questions about the complicity of the Saudi government, (not to mention whatever any other "friendly" intelligence services might possibly have known), and all the warnings that the US govt. got, and the fact that virtually none of the hijackers had anything to do with Afghanistan, mightn't perhaps it make you wonder?

[Area201]

I'm late to the party here, but what I've come to conclude:

What the truthers claim is that the U.S. government or deep state orchestrated the whole thing and even used remote control to direct the planes into the Twin Towers. It was a controlled demolition. They claim even a missile was used that hit the Pentagon and not a plane.

The reality: Dick Cheney, various parties within military, banking and the deep state knew there was an imminent attack on the U.S using planes. They simply allowed and welcomed the events to occur.

The did not need to do anything but watch from the inside and only usher in the jihadists plans. it was an Outside Job observed from the Inside with minimal support. 

While I'll admit that Building 7 deserves a very close look. I looked closer into it. I can see from the video one of the Twin Towers start buckling in one corner, and Building 7 the Penthouse or very top starts to cave in first prior to the rest of the building coming down (so it's not "free fall" from the very start). The video footage of both is most telling.

Everything points to the prior knowledge of the events by various parties within military, banking and government, in addition to facilitating the execution via visa grants to hijakers. However after watching all the arguments for and against a "controlled demolition" of the Towers and Building 7, I'm still not convinced that was the case, let alone the wild theories of controlled planes, holographic projections, and a missile hitting the Pentagon.

All in all I guess you can say I'm a lightweight truther. On the other hand, I'm all in on the Oklahoma bombing being an inside job, but that's a subject for another discussion. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Area201

[Phaeton80]

Fascinating to see we've come a long way since the first few years after the event, where everyone who was entertaining US gov complicity was ridiculed to the extreme. Id expect with some additional years, maybe even decade, the official 911 narrative being a CT will be generally regarded as 'self evident' by the masses, even those who were ridiculing the 'early adopters'.

I really dont think it relevant if US government elements actively facilitated the event or simply let it happen, both scenario's bare thesame dire implications. Without going into detail, and I have for years believe me; to such an extent I irritated my direct surroundings (peers) who didnt see it as an absolute paramount pivot point of our reality like I did (and do)..   Looking back, a lot of the rather easily identifiable macro anomalies are enough to discern the veracity of the official story, or lack thereof ofcourse. In that sense, parallels can be drawn to comparable incidents which show thesame macro anomalies, thesame sort of general pattern.. Like, dare I say, the JFK incident.

Some of those macro aspects:

- normally active defensive measures 'incidentally' deactivated;
- essential (regular) procedures not followed to a sigificant extent (often reconciled as (raging) 'incompetence');
- presence of physical irregularities in the 'official narrative' (not unlike 'the magic bullet');
- in relation to the raging incompetence of the victim side mentioned in point B, unrealistic competence of the culprit;
- obvious efforts at suboptimalisation in regards to investigation of the incident (ie. investigative commissions);
- death of the supposed culprit, and therefor lack of judicial process of that culprit;
- destruction / removal of evidence;
- last but not least: massive ridiculisation of 'conspiracy theories' in context of the event.

Personally, Im inclined to conclude elements within the US government did indeed actively partake in the succesful execution of the attack, that is to say; they did not merely, passively 'let it happen'. There were too many safeguards in place which would have undermined the final result to such an extent the whole meticulously constructed house of cards could / would have crumbled (during or after), imho. I would suppose Neo conservative elements, CIA and Mossad would be the most logical parties to investigate with extreme prejudice. Which, ofcourse, will not happen any time soon, not in the least because of the untouchable position of anything Israeli in US, even Western society.

 

[raketata]

On 9.09.2017 г. at 1:37 PM, ouija ouija said:

I'm posting this article because I'm sure I won't be the only one who discovers in it facts that they didn't know before.

Plus, it shows that there are still plenty of people who are determined to get to the truths of 9/11.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

Actually the president done this. He do what McDonald Cbc and friends (illuminati members of high rank of USA and owners of USA) tell him according to the people I talk. They give me this name but after I search it in Google and it show results of young boy at my age the next day all in Google was deleted.

[Obviousman]

On 15/12/2017 at 9:26 PM, Phaeton80 said:

Some of those macro aspects:

- normally active defensive measures 'incidentally' deactivated; What measures were deactivated?
- essential (regular) procedures not followed to a sigificant extent (often reconciled as (raging) 'incompetence'); So you believe that incompetence does not exist in government?
- presence of physical irregularities in the 'official narrative' (not unlike 'the magic bullet'); What? A building collapse?
- in relation to the raging incompetence of the victim side mentioned in point B, unrealistic competence of the culprit; What? People with flight training flying an aircraft?
- obvious efforts at suboptimalisation in regards to investigation of the incident (ie. investigative commissions); Subjective on your part; many people disagree.
- death of the supposed culprit, and therefor lack of judicial process of that culprit; Go look up what a suicide attack it.
- destruction / removal of evidence; What has been removed? We saw bodies, aircraft bits, bits of buildings, etc, etc, etc.
- last but not least: massive ridiculisation of 'conspiracy theories' in context of the event. If the shoes fits....

 

Bolding are my replies.

[Phaeton80]

14 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Some of those macro aspects:

- normally active defensive measures 'incidentally' deactivated; What measures were deactivated 

On September 11th, there were fighters in the air less than five minutes away from the Twin Towers when the first was hit, 25 minutes after Flight 11 was believed to be hijacked. There were a number of air stations with combat-ready fighters within ten minutes' flying time from the New York City and Washington targets. There were well-established procedures for intercepting aircraft that were either off course or had lost communication. Yet there were no interceptions of any of the four hijacked aircraft, with the possible exception of Flight 93, whose interception and shoot-down is officially denied.

Also see: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html

In another remarkable happenstance; for 40 years prior to 9/11/01, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule had allowed commercial airlines pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit. The rule was adopted in in the wake of the 1961 Cuban missile crisis as a measure to prevent hijackings.Just two months before 9/11/01, the FAA rescinded the rule. According to Jon Dougherty, reporter for WorldNetDaily.com, the FAA failed to return numerous calls requesting an explanation for the rule change.
 

- essential (regular) procedures not followed to a sigificant extent (often reconciled as (raging) 'incompetence'); So you believe that incompetence does not exist in government?

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such a scenario. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

• Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
• Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
• Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
• Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases from which to scramble planes. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Incompetence certainly exists in government, but the multilayered compounded incompetence as witnessed on that fateful day, of which the above quoted is just an example, not so much.
 

- presence of physical irregularities in the 'official narrative' (not unlike 'the magic bullet'); What? A building collapse?

A steel framed building collapsing in its own footprint at free fall speed by way of fire damage like the magical WTC7, yes.

• The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
• The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
• Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
• The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
• The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Im quite sure demolition experts would underwrite the complexity of effectively invoking these attributes in any given demolition casus, the odds a simple fire could achieve thesame are.. well.. nonpresent,
unrealistic at best. Asymmetrical damage, as a rule, does not result in symmetrical collapse, let alone at free fall speed.


- in relation to the raging incompetence of the victim side mentioned in point B, unrealistic competence of the culprit; What? People with flight training flying an aircraft?

A grave oversimplification of the situation, but yes, if someone has 'flight training', they can fly 'an aircraft'. Yet, in the real world, people struggling with cessna type - small propeller plane flight training are not, as a rule, able to effectively pilot passenger jet aircraft. The four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying passenger jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.

Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante's "hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets." Ferrante said, "It was almost as though it was choreographed," and explained, "It's not as easy as it looks to do what [the hijackers] did at 500 miles an hour." [1]

Darryl Jenkins, the director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the men who carried out the attacks "knew what they were doing down to very small details." He said, "Every one of them was trained in flying big planes." The Times reported that a "number of aviation experts agreed" with Jenkins and had said that "the hijackers must have been experienced pilots." John Nance, an airline pilot, author, and aviation analyst, said that "the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers." Nance pointed to the "smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers," and said that "precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill." Nance concluded, "There's no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done" in the 9/11 attacks. [2]

A pilot who had been with a major carrier for more than 30 years told CNN that to "pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon ... the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators." The pilot added, "They know what they were doing." [3]

Source: http://shoestring911.blogspot.nl/2011/07/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who.html
Also see: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/us/traces-of-terrorism-the-warnings-fbi-knew-for-years-about-terror-pilot-training.html


- obvious efforts at suboptimalisation in regards to investigation of the incident (ie. investigative commissions); Subjective on your part; many people disagree.

Yes well, Thoman Keane, 911 Commission Chairman, and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, would disagree.. or maybe their statements are 'subjective' as well, because like you said 'many people disagree'.. (well alrighty then). Lets not forget: it took 441 days, and a Congressional mandate to force the Bush admin into a formal investigation. Nothing odd there, nothing at all. Certainly no 'efforts at suboptimalisation in regards to investigation of the incident', thats just CT crazy talk.


- death of the supposed culprit, and therefor lack of judicial process of that culprit; Go look up what a suicide attack it.

Thats pretty witty, you must feel quite chuffed with yourself, welldone sir. Wanna go and look up which 'perp' was announced mere minutes after the attack took place? Thats right, Osama Bin Laden; tracked and killed by Seal Team Six only ten years later.. and given a supposed 'seamans grave'. Any of the photographs of the body were not released so as to not (wait for it..) 'inflame anti American sentiments in the Middle East'.

Also, 'go look up' the resurrected hijackers, alive and well being completely oblivious to their activities on that fateful day.. like there are:
..Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) Both Alive, Abdul Aziz al Omari Alive, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri Alive, Saeed al Ghamdi Alive, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami Alive, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi Alive (the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi).


- destruction / removal of evidence; What has been removed? We saw bodies, aircraft bits, bits of buildings, etc, etc, etc.

The pattern of destruction of physical evidence is nowhere more apparent than in the rapid removal and recycling of the steel from Ground Zero. The structural steel was the most important evidence regarding the  September 11th event. No amount of indulgence of forelorn hopes of finding survivors in the rubble, nor urgency of uncovering human remains for speedy identification, can justify the destruction of the evidence.

• If it was necessary to remove steel to another location to accommodate rescue and recovery efforts, the steel easily could have been preserved.
• Any steel pieces to be removed should first have been meticulously documented through the use of coordinate grids and photographs. This is standard practice in archeological excavations.
• Building 7 was evacuated long before it collapsed, and it fell into a tidy rubble pile that did not even block adjacent roadways. There was no urgency in removing its rubble, and certainly not in destroying it.

- last but not least: massive ridiculisation of 'conspiracy theories' in context of the event. If the shoes fits....

So you would think it wise to ridicule individuals basing their position on very rational and legitimate questions in this context. Duely noted. Says a lot about your personality, for which I thank you. Just so you know, Im not about to jump on another one of those endless merry go round discussions; I have neither the time nor desire to do so. This is a one time response to indicate where Im coming from, do with it as you like. A fine day to you sir.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Phaeton80

[Phaeton80]

So I had some issues inserting the following into my response above for some reason (hence the blank space under the first bullet):

There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power 
as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"

This creates the necessity for: 1) making a request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2) receiving approval before military aircraft may respond. 
What makes it especially interesting, is the fact Tom White,a former Enron executive was appointed to be Secretary of the Army, and more importantly 
the "executive agent for the Department of Defense" on May 31, 2001. 

Which obviously, and rather interestingly, is one day before the new intercept instructions were issued. How about that.

The first public statement of Donald Rumsfeld on September 11th, 2001 makes an issue of Tom White's "responsibility" for the situation:

"Secretary of the Army Tom White, who has a responsibility for incidents like this as executive agent for the Department of Defense, is also joining me."

(The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia, September 11, 2001 6:42 P.M.,http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0911/DoD.html)

Edited December 17, 2017 by Phaeton80