The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Diogenes

Oracle wrote:

Great that this sticky is here, I must admit I was very sceptical at first about anything other than two planes hitting the twin towers. But since watching my first video on Google I've become convinced it was a massive cover-up. In fact I remember distinctly on the day of 9-11 thinking to myself, that building looks like it's being demolished with explosives but convincing myself otherwise because of the shocking media coverage and pictures of the actual "aircraft".

Google video...Larry Sergy, what have you done.....

Okay Orcale, would you care to look at the flip side as well?

Was the film you watched called Loose Change or 911 Mysteries?

And before we go on

911myths.com

It debunks so many conspiracy theorist "facts"

I still have a few unanswered questions about the conspiracy theory. For example, if something other than an aircraft hit the towers where are the people who boarded the original flight? If something other than an aircraft hit the pentagon where are the people who boarded that original flight? What about the flight crew and the actual aircraft? Where are they? Were the airlines involved, did they know anything? If they were that would mean the airports had to have known something, or noticed something unusual. I haven't seen much on these questions but I'm sure there are answers.

Actually there aren't conspiracy theorists are notriously bad at giving solid answers or evidence to support their claims.

oscarBravo

Oracle wrote:

...if something other than an aircraft hit the towers where are the people who boarded the original flight? If something other than an aircraft hit the pentagon where are the people who boarded that original flight? What about the flight crew and the actual aircraft? Where are they?

The logical answer to your questions is: four airplanes crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania with the hijacked passengers and crew on board.

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

Retired physics professor actually. And his field was cold fusion not pratical physics like civil engineering. Jone's own department rubbished his paper, and he was critictised by nearly every HoD in the physics department. Jones was placed on suspended academic leave for a number of months, while his own department examined his paper, a paper I might add that
Jones did not present for peer review in any major physics or engineering journal.

Jones has quietly resigned, a result that pleases both parties, any academic review of his case would put his paper under intense spotlight from the world of physics, which it cannot survive. And BYU get rid of Jones, before anyone asks, "How did you make that ninny a head of department?

Actually... his specialty is: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry and Solar energy. His research group at the time of his departure actively dealt with: Atomic, Molecular, and the Optical physics. Note Metal-catalyzed fusion.

In relation to the Peer Review issue:
"Ad hominems/false accusations in the R&W essay

R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in the public domain.

R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named? The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews. One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board -- Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably. And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal."

more:
http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

Dr Jones is by no means discredited. Misinformation is NOT helpful.

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

Note Metal-catalyzed fusion.

Which has got what, exactly, to do with 9/11?

Flyingfish

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

In summary....He was more than competent enough to conduct an analysis of the WTC metal.

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

In summary....He was more than competent enough to conduct an analysis of the WTC metal.

Hangonasec. Are we claiming that the pools of molten metal at the WTC were caused by nuclear fusion, now?

Do you even know what metal-catalysed fusion is? The fact that it has the word "metal" in it doesn't make it anything to do with metallurgy.

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006,

So Jones agrees that his paper has not been presented in full, but does point out that an unquantified amount of the paper has been presented. I wonder why he doesn't quantify how much he presented. Did he get 95% through it? Did he just have time to mention that the paper existed and give the sketchiest outline of its content? Or somewhere in between?

Strange how he's claiming his situation has been misrepresented, but neglects to provide full and clear information himself.

Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting.

AnsQ? Thats not the paper. Its therefore irrelevant to the claims about the paper.

The data are now in the public domain.

Yes they most certainly are. And in the public domain, they've been rubbished as well as accoladed. However, as the retired professor is well aware, the entire point of peer review is that it is a well-established, clearly-defined process (although not without its flaws) which is used to evaluate scientific work which is necessary because any measurement of worth from the public domain is suspect for a number of reasons as well as being subject to any flaw in the peer-review process.

The "its in the public domain" defense is a bit like someone arguing that its not important they didn't have their seatbelt on whlist driving, because they were ready to grab on to their seat really tightly in the case of an accident. The only people who'd buy into it are those who don't understand why a seatbelt is considered to be a necessary and good thing in the first place.

R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named?

Partly, because by long-standing convention, reviewers are chosen from the same discipline. Partly because they also know that the document wasn't submitted for peer review through any established channels in the first place .

Rather, Jones claimed it had been peer-reviewed by his fellow "scholars for truth" - a group which did not contain any similarly qualified people at the time.

If I tell you that one or more of a group of 100 men reviewed this post, you could state with absolute certainty that no woman was involved in that review process. Jones is arguing that because you don't know which man or men were involved, you can't possibly say that there wasn't a woman!!!

The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews.

Note the use of the word we. In a proper peer review, Jones can have no input whatsoever in the selection of his reviewers. None.

Indeed, part of the entire point of the anonimity that he has already claimed is an integral part of the process is to ensure that the author cannot know who reviewed their paper. Jones knows this. Jones therefore knows that if he had a hand in teh selection, or knows who the reviewers were, then it wasn't a proper peer review.

One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board -- Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

He's also 82 years old, and runs a golf course in Florida, apparently. That the best you can do?

Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably.

But dd they review your paper, Professor? Its not relevant what else they've done. Did they review your paper?

And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal."

Two editors...so when "we editors" select people for review, that suggests that you have to have been involved in the selection of reviewers for your own paper. Even if you weren't, then your co-editor and (at the time) good friend did it. Neither option is sufficient for a proper peer review.

So we're left with an awkward choice here. either Jones doesn't know what a proper peer review is, or he knows that he hasn't had one and admits as much as part of his defence against the claim that he hasn't had one!!!

Dr Jones is by no means discredited.

Yes, he is. His own defence against the claims levelled against him is sufficient to do that without even analysing the claims themselves. The only people it will fool are those who are't interested in actually finding out what a peer review is, but will rather listen to his call. Unsurprisingly, there will be a strong correlation between those people and the group who believe that because he's a professor his claims that its a scientific paper must be true and also mean that the paper is based on good science....rather than going away and checking the science themselves.

Misinformation is NOT helpful.

Agreeed. May I suggest that you apply that standard against Jones' claim that his paper has been properly peer-reviewed, and the details of what a proper peer review is. Incidentaly, Jones or any supporter of his cannot be the ones who tell you what a proper peer review is. I'd also avoid going to his critics if you need to find out. Just read up on what the peer-review process is from a third-party (and therefore presumably unbiased) source.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

Actually... his specialty is: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry and Solar energy. His research group at the time of his departure actively dealt with: Atomic, Molecular, and the Optical physics. Note Metal-catalyzed fusion.

Do you even know what metal catallyzed fusion means? I doubt many people do, but I suspect you think it means something about fusing two bits of metal together.

In relation to the Peer Review issue:
"Ad hominems/false accusations in the R&W essay

R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in the public domain.

Thats not peer review, thats review prior to a conference, hardly anything near full vigirous peer review.

Heres some more articles discrediting Jones
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

or

In his paper, Professor Jones often uses Professor David Ray Griffin as an authority on certain subjects. The so called "Squibs", "Conservation of Momentum and energy" and the speed of the collapse. But what is he a professor of? He sounds like a professor of physics or civil engineering specializing in controlled demolition. But as our friends above note, the experts are not really experts on the subjects at hand. Dr Griffin is a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.

more

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

Here's a breakdown of the Scholar's members rolls

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons

flying fish wrote:

R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named? The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews. One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board -- Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably. And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal."

Okay firstly I can only assume that he is discussing the peer review process for "his" journal the scholars for 9/11 truth journal.

This is not evidence that Jones presented his paper for peer review, this is Jones defending the Peer review process for his own journal;

A peer review process that was so biased and skewed, Judy "fruitloop" Woods resigned from it

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

In THREE CASES * count them * 1, 2, 3 * that we know about * Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials * AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was ‘thanked’ as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones’ PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones’ recognizance alone -* BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!

Now *

I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!

All quotes from here
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

more:
http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

Dr Jones is by no means discredited. Misinformation is NOT helpful.

brandishing out accusations that correct facts (Jones has not submitted his paper to a single reputable physics or engineering" journal) are misinfo is a little weak

flyingfish wrote:

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collaps

You're going to look pretty foolish after you read the next paragraph

Our research in metal-catalyzed fusion provides strong evidence for proton emissions from metal foils bearing electro-deposited palladium, lithium, and deuterium. In using electrolytically-loaded copper foils, we are returning to our earliest experimental search for metal-enhanced fusion reactions, which began at BYU in May 1986. Our experimental setup is straightforward and easily replicated. After the electro-deposition of metals and deuterium onto copper, the foil is quickly dried then inserted into a vacuum chamber. An electrical current is typically applied across the foil, and results are studied using two 900 mm2 ion-implanted detectors. A large cosmic-ray veto counter is used to reduce cosmic-ray background noise. Our data clearly show charged particle emissions in the energy range expected for nuclear d-d fusion.

http://cpms.byu.edu/springresearch/abstractentry.php?id=95

Guess who wrote that? Jones' old department.

Do you see the words "molten" in there anywhere?

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

In summary....He was more than competent enough to conduct an analysis of the WTC metal.

Two or three logical non-sequitors.

Jones is qualified to address the issue of pools of molten metal if they were caused by a metal-catalyzed fusion process. Given that Jones argues they weren't, his own hypothesis moves the event out of his field of expertise.

Secondly, if that hadn't happened, it would still mean Jones was qualified to address the question of the molten pools of metal, but says nothing about his ability to analyze the non molten metal which also forms part of his study.

Finally, none of that qualifies him to address the question of why the towers collapsed. At best, even if we ignore the first two issues, Jones could argue that thermite reactions were present. He has no qualification at all to suggest why these reactions occurred, whether they were planned or incidental, nor whether or not they played a pivotal role.

Oracle

I don't know if this has been posted here already, but I just listened to some of the Betty Ong tape (recording of flight attendant Betty Ong, who was on Flight 11.) The recording is from the 9/11 Commission hearings. I'm really surprised by how calm she sounds, her voice shows very little emotion, and no stress. There's not much discernible commotion in the background either which seems strange. I would have imagined with a couple of people stabbed on board there would be widespread passenger panic: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

Diogenes

Oracle wrote:

I don't know if this has been posted here already, but I just listened to some of the Betty Ong tape (recording of flight attendant Betty Ong, who was on Flight 11.) The recording is from the 9/11 Commission hearings. I'm really surprised by how calm she sounds, her voice shows very little emotion, and no stress. There's not much discernible commotion in the background either which seems strange. I would have imagined with a couple of people stabbed on board there would be widespread passenger panic: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

Okay Orcale, first question, is a reminder,

I asked you a few posts ago which film did you watch do you remember.

Next I'm going to ask you what is the signifigance of the above? What are you trying to suggest this signifies. I'll be helpful, and offer three plausible answers

A) Betty Ong never made that tape. A fatulous voice actor, who strangely never went to hollywood made it. Or a computer made it. A computer program that can perfectly mimic someones voice. A piece of technology that doesn't exist. But lets say it does, for shíts and giggles. The US government has this technology and they use it to fake Betty's voice. Unfortunately they're really lazy with this piece of technology and don't try and add any stress to her voice. And hey it's friday lets not bother add any of the foley footsteps, and guys with middle eastern voices shouting "Allah Akbar, and long live Saddam" that we were going to loop into the background, lets just leave it flat and atonal.

Betty Ong did make the tape. But she's a government shill, and has left her friends and family mourning her loss. She didn't bother adding any stress or tension to her voice when prerecording the piece, she, as they say in show business, "phoned" in her performance. She currently resides in beach resort in Mexico, sipping margerittas.

Or

C) Betty Ong, a terrified flight attendent, used her knowledge of the planes layout to slip into a quiet out way area of the cabin (the back of the plane as mentioned in the tape) With the terrorists securing business class and the cockpit, Betty fighting the fear and adrenaline, phoned American Airlines ticket booking. Maintaining composure in terrifying circumstances and give as much information as possible.

Which do you think Orcale or do you have a fourth hypothesis?

Flyingfish

Wow!!!

That’s am impressive amount of text & some good logic has been used in the retorts to the issue of Steven E Jones credibility. Also the quality of the debate here is very heartening to me indeed. The last thing I want is to defend something that should not be defended – I’m keeping an open mind on everything and I hope others will do the same. I will review the info quoted above (check out the objectivity of sources etc) further and reply later.

In the interest of keeping this thread moving. Please review the following video in the meantime.

Kevin Ryan ---http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan---

Description snippet...
"In an information-packed presentation of 58 minutes Kevin Ryan delivers a damning indictment of the official investigations of the total ... all » collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Ryan's solid scholarship and application of the scientific method stands in stark contrast to the official investigations, whose dishonesty and corrupt anti-scientific methods Ryan exposes in abundance."

cockmynut

Diogenes wrote:

C) Betty Ong, a terrified flight attendent, used her knowledge of the planes layout to slip into a quiet out way area of the cabin (the back of the plane as mentioned in the tape) With the terrorists securing business class and the cockpit, Betty fighting the fear and adrenaline, phoned American Airlines ticket booking. Maintaining composure in terrifying circumstances and give as much information as possible.

Which do you think Orcale or do you have a fourth hypothesis?

All three hypotheses have their flaws. Scenario two is highly unlikely. I believe the call could very easily have been faked by someone, however not by computer.

But let's analyse hypothesis C, which you obviously favour. To accept this theory, you have to simultaneously accept some very dubious "facts" which, if taken individually, could be seen as quite plausible, however when taken together, stretch even the limits of the imagination:

- Four Arabs managed to get box cutters past airport security (likely, in 2001)
- Four Arabs managed to hijack a Boeing airliner. (plausible)
- Flight crews, passengers and the pilots together offered no resistance. (plausible, but highly unlikely)
- John Ogonowski (captain) was a US Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and Tom McGuinness (co-pilot) flew F-14 fighters for the US Navy. Both men were allegedly incapacitated. (unlikely)
- The pilots thought that relinquishing control of their aircraft to some laughably-armed men and putting both their own lives and the lives of everyone else on board was a sane thing to do. (highly unlikely)

Now let's look at the bigger picture:

- Poorly-armed Arabs had a 100% success rate in hijacking four commercial airliners, each carrying flight crews, passengers and (at least one each) military-trained pilots, all of whom gave up their planes and control of their lives. (highly unlikely)
- Standard operating procedures for hijackings were ignored, allegedly due to incompetence which just happened to take place on that particular day, and NORAD's response was woefully slow due to the several wargames taking place at the same time as the alleged hijackings, despite the hijackings being staggered over a very long period. (highly unlikely)

Edited in:
- No Arab names on the flight manifests or autopsy reports. (impossible if the official story is true)
- No hijacking codes sent by any of the flight crews. [except UA 93, however I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that this flight did send one] (highly unlikely)

There are other anomalies as well.

Now, tell me, which scenario is the most plausible again?

Flyingfish

cockmynut wrote:

Now let's look at the bigger picture:

- Poorly-armed Arabs had a 100% success rate in hijacking four commercial airliners, each carrying flight crews, passengers and (at least one each) military-trained pilots, all of whom gave up their planes and control of their lives. (highly unlikely)
- Standard operating procedures for hijackings were ignored, allegedly due to incompetence which just happened to take place on that particular day, and NORAD's response was woefully slow due to the several wargames taking place at the same time as the alleged hijackings, despite the hijackings being staggered over a very long period. (highly unlikely)

Now, tell me, which scenario is the most plausible again?

Add to that list that the hijackers names NEVER appeared on any of the 4 flight manifests. So basically all 19 boarded without tickets?

Diogenes

cockmynut wrote:

All three hypotheses have their flaws. Scenario two is highly unlikely. I believe the call could very easily have been faked by someone, however not by computer.

You understand how absurd that is? Sound forensic anaylsis would destroy this. There is software already that is voice recognisation.

But let's analyse hypothesis C, which you obviously favour. To accept this theory, you have to simultaneously accept some very dubious "facts" which, if taken individually, could be seen as quite plausible, however when taken together, stretch even the limits of the imagination:

- Four Arabs managed to get box cutters past airport security (likely, in 2001)
- Four Arabs managed to hijack a Boeing airliner. (plausible)

- Flight crews, passengers and the pilots together offered no resistance. (plausible, but highly unlikely)

Factually inaccurate. Passengers were murdered according to audio reports including Betty Ong "there's a man dead in business class" We must assume that there was either resistance, or that the terrorists murdered someone to "set an example" After watching the first attempt at resistance being met with brutal violence, or being given a demostration of what would happen if someone resisted by making an example of one or two passengers, they could easily intimidate the rest of the passengers.

- John Ogonowski (captain) was a US Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and Tom McGuinness (co-pilot) flew F-14 fighters for the US Navy. Both men were allegedly incapacitated. (unlikely)

Two points

It was standard operating procedure for pilots to agree to any hijackers demands in the hope of a peaceful negotiated solution. Most pilot hijacking manuals worked off the the 70s/80s assumpt that the terrorists would take the plane to a location and make demands.

Simply put these men were trained rational experience combat veterans, if they resisted, they ran the risk of killing/incapacitying themselves, and therefore endangering the lives of all passengers, ergo a pilots priority is to keep themselves alive, and the passengers alive, and therefore agree to terrorist demands.

- The pilots thought that relinquishing control of their aircraft to some laughably-armed men and putting both their own lives and the lives of everyone else on board was a sane thing to do. (highly unlikely)

These laughably armed terrorists have already killed on the plane. Also please prove, using more than a politcians quote that they just had box cutters, several passengers were reported to say "knives" the boxcutter claims run similar to a "missile hitting it" by Rumsfield, there's no specific way of knowing what exact weapons the terrorists had

Now let's look at the bigger picture:

- Poorly-armed Arabs had a 100% success rate in hijacking four commercial airliners, each carrying flight crews, passengers and (at least one each) military-trained pilots, all of whom gave up their planes and control of their lives. (highly unlikely)

Sorry stop;

- We don't know exactly what weapons they had.

- This aren't successive, they are concurrent. Meaning if four groups of terrorists pulled this off on four seperate occassions, and on each occasion the USG didn't prevent it that'd be damning evidence of a failure. This is four groups of terrorists using the same tactics on the same day, so it's not getting lucky on four seperate occasions, its using the one tactic four times on one day.

- Crews were trained to submit to terrorists in order to save lives

- Passengers could have been cowed by murders to prove the intent of terrorists or early attempts at resistance were met with brutal a brutal and murderous reaction.

-United 93. There wasn't a 100% success rate. For the first three hijackings the passengers and crew obeyed the terrorists, on Unitied 93 as evidence grew that they were in danger the passengers developed a plan and attacked. Your claim that all the passengers on all the flights "gave up their lifes" passively, ignores the heroism of the passengers of 93, and exposes your willingness to ignore evidence that contradicts your version of events.
[/quote]

- Standard operating procedures for hijackings were ignored, allegedly due to incompetence which just happened to take place on that particular day, and NORAD's response was woefully slow due to the several wargames taking place at the same time as the alleged hijackings, despite the hijackings being staggered over a very long period. (highly unlikely)

Now, tell me, which scenario is the most plausible again?

Um hum

Please give me examples of the multipile war games

Please offer evidence that norards reaction time was hampered.

Please offer evidence that NORAD could even have scrambled jets in time, like examples of previous scrambles.

(before you do so and to save me the hassle of doing this all over again please read this thread from the start. )

So Cockmynuts, Yes I still believe the story.Furthermore your response is a non sequitur. Orcale questioned the tone of her reaction you focused on how dubious the hijacking was. Can I remind you. 1. The Hijackers were armed with some form of knives. They killed. Either those who tried to oppose them, or to make examples to imtimidate. Pilots were trained to agree with hijackers. 2. The question we were posed was whether Betty's Ong's voice is plausible. You've ignored this. Why?

Can I ask which one of the three hypotheticals do you believe is most plausible? And why?

PS. Still need to look at your other two links, I shall starting a new job monday will get to it soon.

Oracle

There's a few things that don't add up about that tape. Let's say the plane is being hijacked there's a couple of people stabbed and one of the hijackers put a Mace-like gas around the cabin, causing everyone difficulty in breathing and seeing. So lets say, unlikely as it seems, there's no passenger panic yet, and Betty Ong finds a quite place to make a call to the airline reservations line. She's retained her composure and remains calm. What's the first thing she would say when the phone was answered at the other end? Remember she's calm and in control.

I'm not sure about anyone else but if I was in Betty's situation the first thing I'd say is identify myself, state who I was, the flight number and destination. Something like "Hello I'm Betty Ong, I'm a flight attendant on Flight 11 travelling from Boston to LA. There's an emergency situation on board." I'd probably say where in the plane the attackers where; she did do that. I might then describe where I am in the cabin in relation to the hijackers. In a hijack situation your call could be ended suddenly if you're discovered by an attacker, so it's imperative to get vital information out as quickly as possible. That surely must be covered in the training for such an eventuality. Instead they have to ask Betty her name, who she is, the flight number, and they ask her 4 times what seat number she's in.
I also find it remarkable that she makes no reference to the condition of the passengers, a flight attendant's primary responsibility. She says nothing about the state of the passengers on board; she's doesn't say if they're panicked or relaxed or unaware of the situation.

Flyingfish

Again great detail and a lot of solid logic being used to argue each side. But I can't help thinking that we might be ignoring the bigger picture here?

Below is an excellent analysis of the current situation in the US
http://www.alternet.org/stories/45340/?comments=view&cID=388016&pID=387783

cockmynut

Diogenes wrote:

You understand how absurd that is? Sound forensic anaylsis would destroy this. There is software already that is voice recognisation.

Has there been forensic analysis performed on this phone call? If so, link please.

Diogenes wrote:

Factually inaccurate. Passengers were murdered according to audio reports including Betty Ong "there's a man dead in business class" We must assume that there was either resistance, or that the terrorists murdered someone to "set an example" After watching the first attempt at resistance being met with brutal violence, or being given a demostration of what would happen if someone resisted by making an example of one or two passengers, they could easily intimidate the rest of the passengers.

Do you believe that Vietnam veterans are easily intimidated? The men could have easily been overpowered by everyone on those planes, but they were not.

Diogenes wrote:

It was standard operating procedure for pilots to agree to any hijackers demands in the hope of a peaceful negotiated solution. Most pilot hijacking manuals worked off the the 70s/80s assumpt that the terrorists would take the plane to a location and make demands.

Simply put these men were trained rational experience combat veterans, if they resisted, they ran the risk of killing/incapacitying themselves, and therefore endangering the lives of all passengers, ergo a pilots priority is to keep themselves alive, and the passengers alive, and therefore agree to terrorist demands.

That's an absolutely ludicrous claim. How can their priority be to keep themselves and their passengers safe by simply handing over the plane to strange men who turned out to be flight school failures?

Diogenes wrote:

These laughably armed terrorists have already killed on the plane. Also please prove, using more than a politcians quote that they just had box cutters, several passengers were reported to say "knives" the boxcutter claims run similar to a "missile hitting it" by Rumsfield, there's no specific way of knowing what exact weapons the terrorists had

The official story maintains knives and/or box-cutters (aka Stanley knives). This is the theory I am attacking. If the story said they were armed with guns, the hijack scenario would be more plausible.

Diogenes wrote:

- We don't know exactly what weapons they had.

You are right, but the official theory maintains that they were armed with knives/box-cutters, and I am attacking the notion of the hijackings taking place given this element of the official theory.

Diogenes wrote:

- This aren't successive, they are concurrent. Meaning if four groups of terrorists pulled this off on four seperate occassions, and on each occasion the USG didn't prevent it that'd be damning evidence of a failure. This is four groups of terrorists using the same tactics on the same day, so it's not getting lucky on four seperate occasions, its using the one tactic four times on one day.

The fact that they got lucky four times in the one day works against the official story as opposed to with it. The probability of failure is astronomically high. It is more conceivable that someone would win four cars in their lifetime than four cars on the same day. Not a perfect analogy but the element of alleged pure luck is the same.

Diogenes wrote:

- Crews were trained to submit to terrorists in order to save lives

Were they trained to just hand over control of their aircraft? "Oh, you stabbed one person, so we'll just give you control of the stick so you can send us all to our deaths if you feel the need."

Diogenes wrote:

- Passengers could have been cowed by murders to prove the intent of terrorists or early attempts at resistance were met with brutal a brutal and murderous reaction.

What sort of ludicrous logic is used to conclude that a reasonably occupied plane could not overpower four/five men armed with knives? Perhaps the "terrorists" could have succeeded because armed pilots were banned two months prior to 9/11.

Diogenes wrote:

-United 93. There wasn't a 100% success rate. For the first three hijackings the passengers and crew obeyed the terrorists, on Unitied 93 as evidence grew that they were in danger the passengers developed a plan and attacked. Your claim that all the passengers on all the flights "gave up their lifes" passively, ignores the heroism of the passengers of 93, and exposes your willingness to ignore evidence that contradicts your version of events.

Yes, this story is highly dubious as there is mounting evidence that flight 93 was, in actuality, shot down. There was a 100% success rate of wrestling control of the planes from every other person on board.

I do not offer any explanation for the black box recordings which have not been made public. However, to humour you for a moment, it is inconceivable that 1) there is only one real fight against the "bloodthirsty terrorists who hate our freedoms" out of four potential ones and 2) this one fails spectacularly by making the plane plunge straight into the ground.

Standing up to a few men with knives who want to take over a plane is not heroism in my view, it is common sense.

And sorry, but I'm not the one who is ignoring evidence which contradicts my version of events. I do not have any pre-determined version of events - I change my mind as verifiable evidence presents itself. There is the evidence of phone calls and black box recordings but these are not public. They do support the official story yet at the same time other evidence contradicts this.

You, however, seem to have your mind set on believing the official story and repeating the word "terrorists" over and over, yet another silly word whose definition is constantly re-moulded by the Americans to invent fairy-tale nemeses. If you can prove the official story I'll believe it, but until that day comes, no thanks.

Diogenes wrote:

Please give me examples of the multipile war games

Please offer evidence that norards reaction time was hampered.

Please offer evidence that NORAD could even have scrambled jets in time, like examples of previous scrambles.

War games.

An analysis of NORAD's apparent failure.

Diogenes wrote:

(before you do so and to save me the hassle of doing this all over again please read this thread from the start. )

I'm not reading through forty-four pages. If you've seen something before, please point me to your refutation earlier in the thread.

Diogenes wrote:

So Cockmynuts, Yes I still believe the story.Furthermore your response is a non sequitur. Orcale questioned the tone of her reaction you focused on how dubious the hijacking was. Can I remind you. 1. The Hijackers were armed with some form of knives. They killed. Either those who tried to oppose them, or to make examples to imtimidate. Pilots were trained to agree with hijackers. 2. The question we were posed was whether Betty's Ong's voice is plausible. You've ignored this. Why?

1) Please provide reference which states that pilots were ordered to relinquish control of their aircraft to any lunatics who wave knives around when the opportunity to incapacitate said lunatics is there.
2) Because it wasn't an issue I felt the need to address. You posed that question to someone else, not me.

Diogenes wrote:

Can I ask which one of the three hypotheticals do you believe is most plausible? And why?

I do not believe any of the three are terribly plausible. The second scenario, which envisions Ong as a government agent or shill, has no evidence to back it up. The third scenario involves believing a never-ending stream of coincidences, contradictions and absurdities. However, the first scenario is also implausible, just not as much as the other two. By way of elimination, I would pick the first one, however I don't really buy into that either. What I'm really interested in is pointing out the absurd nature of the official conspiracy theory.

bonkey

Oracle wrote:

I'm really surprised by how calm she sounds, her voice shows very little emotion, and no stress. There's not much discernible commotion in the background either which seems strange. I would have imagined with a couple of people stabbed on board there would be widespread passenger panic

How many tapes from similar situations have you reviewed to form an opinion on this subject?

I mean actual recordings of people from known, identified, undisputable hijackings, in case there's any question.

I'm just curious as to what basis you have for judging this to be not only an atypical reaction, but one which is atypical enough to suggest that it could not have happened.

Have you also considered the delayed-impact which shock-reactions can have? If so, can you also clarify your expertise on this particular subject which allows you to discount it as a possibility?

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

In the interest of keeping this thread moving. Please review the following video in the meantime.

Kevin Ryan ---http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan---

I can't speak for any other skeptic here, but my response is simple.

No. I won't review the video. I have no interest in spending time and energy in reviewing the content and then responding to all of it (as to do less would leave it open to "but you never addressed X" followups) in my own words having done my own research if all you're doing is posting a link to someone else's work.

If you'd like to discuss specific points from that video, make the argument in your own words, supply references (point-in-time) to where the tape makes the argument, and ideally show how you've corroborated the claims yourself, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

If you're not willing to do this, then to be frank I consider it somewhat unreasonable to suggest that I (or any other skeptic here) should be willing to put an equivalent amount of effort into a response.

Oracle

Flyingfish wrote:

Again great detail and a lot of solid logic being used to argue each side. But I can't help thinking that we might be ignoring the bigger picture here?

Below is an excellent analysis of the current situation in the US
http://www.alternet.org/stories/45340/?comments=view&cID=388016&pID=387783

Interesting article, although I don't agree with it's premise: The biggest threat posed by the 9/11 Truth Movement is the danger that it will discredit the healthy scepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders. I believe the opposite is true; the questioning of the facts presented in 9/11 will lead people a question a wider range of political issues.

I've read Alternet a few times and it presents some interesting, thought provoking articles mainly from an alternative point of view. Although sometimes I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction when they challenge the current thinking on an issue, but fail to provide conclusions or alternatives. Looking at their list of financial supporters perhaps there's a reason for that: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Media_Institute

oscarBravo

cockmynut wrote:

Do you believe that Vietnam veterans are easily intimidated? The men could have easily been overpowered by everyone on those planes, but they were not.

Except that they were - in one case, once it became clear to the passengers what the hijackers' intentions were (based on phone calls to/from relatives who were aware of the WTC and Pentagon crashes).

cockmynut wrote:

That's an absolutely ludicrous claim. How can their priority be to keep themselves and their passengers safe by simply handing over the plane to strange men who turned out to be flight school failures?

You think they should have asked to see their pilots' licences before relinquishing control?

cockmynut wrote:

The official story maintains knives and/or box-cutters (aka Stanley knives). This is the theory I am attacking. If the story said they were armed with guns, the hijack scenario would be more plausible.

I don't see why. Whether someone - who has already demonstrated a total willingness to kill to get his way - is threatening me with a Stanley knife, a Bowie knife or an Uzi, I think I'd be inclined to acquiesce to his demands - particularly if it wasn't clear that the intention was to kill everyone anyway.

cockmynut wrote:

You are right, but the official theory maintains that they were armed with knives/box-cutters, and I am attacking the notion of the hijackings taking place given this element of the official theory.

You're doing so based on a series of false premises.

cockmynut wrote:

The fact that they got lucky four times in the one day works against the official story as opposed to with it. The probability of failure is astronomically high.

On the contrary, given the circumstances on the day, the probability of failure was fairly low as long as the passengers and crew were unaware of the hijackers' intentions, and very high once they were. They weren't successful four times; they were successful three times.

cockmynut wrote:

It is more conceivable that someone would win four cars in their lifetime than four cars on the same day. Not a perfect analogy but the element of alleged pure luck is the same.

Who alleged pure luck (apart from yourself)?

cockmynut wrote:

Were they trained to just hand over control of their aircraft? "Oh, you stabbed one person, so we'll just give you control of the stick so you can send us all to our deaths if you feel the need."

But they didn't know the hijackers' intention was to crash the plane into a building.

cockmynut wrote:

What sort of ludicrous logic is used to conclude that a reasonably occupied plane could not overpower four/five men armed with knives?

Flight 93 demonstrated that it was indeed possible - once the passengers were aware of the hijackers' intentions (are you starting to see a pattern to my logic yet?)

cockmynut wrote:

Yes, this story is highly dubious as there is mounting evidence that flight 93 was, in actuality, shot down.

From what I've seen, there's absolutely no credible evidence of that whatsoever. Feel free to prove me wrong.

cockmynut wrote:

...it is inconceivable that 1) there is only one real fight against the "bloodthirsty terrorists who hate our freedoms" out of four potential ones...

Only if you persist in ignoring the fact that that fight took place once the hijackers' real intentions became clear.

cockmynut wrote:

...and 2) this one fails spectacularly by making the plane plunge straight into the ground.

Yeah, it's impossible to imagine how a full-blooded fist- and knife-fight in the cockpit could cause a plane to crash, isn't it?

cockmynut wrote:

Standing up to a few men with knives who want to take over a plane is not heroism in my view, it is common sense.

With the 20/20 hindsight of having witnessed 9/11, it is now. It wasn't then.

bonkey

cockmynut wrote:

Has there been forensic analysis performed on this phone call? If so, link please

Surely this applies both ways? If you can't show evidence that the tape has been faked, then what basis do you have to say so, other than that it sounds fake to you? And if thats what your argument boils down to, then I'd ask you to address the same questions I levelled at Oracle on that basis, namely to show that you have some knowledgeable basis from which to judge such tapes.

Do you believe that Vietnam veterans are easily intimidated? The men could have easily been overpowered by everyone on those planes, but they were not.

Only a paragraph ago, you were asking for forensic evidence. Now you're suggesting an argument based on belief rather than evidence of any sort is perfectly reasonable. You can't have it both ways.

Prior to 911, there was a well-established pattern with hijackings of commercial aircraft. That pattern was that passengers who resisted ran the risk of getting killed. Passengers who cooperated (or remained quite and neutral) had the best chance of survival. We cannot make the mistake of applying post-911 knowledge to the events of the day. Up until the morning of 911, if your plane was hijacked, it was because the hijackers had some financial or political goal they would use the passengers and plane as leverage to obtain. It was only in the realms of Tom Clancy novels that planes were flown into buildings.

That's an absolutely ludicrous claim. How can their priority be to keep themselves and their passengers safe by simply handing over the plane to strange men who turned out to be flight school failures?

What those men turned out to be is irrelevant. What those men were known or believed to be, at the time they took over the planes is what would have influenced the thinking of the day. As I've said, the established, pre-911 pattern of a hijacking was that there was no reson to believe the plane would be used as a weapon.

Its not that dissimilar to bank practice - staff are told that in the event of a robbery you cooperate fully because it minimises the risks. If a new pattern established itself where robbers started killing everyone after robbing the bank, then you can be sure that the pattern would change. If we imagined that happened tomorrow, we couldn't then look back on a bank-robbery last week and say that there was something unbelievable about people co-operating with robbers because that was the pattern of the day.

To be honest though, the onus should be on you to show that behaviour was atypical, rather than for anyone to show that it was normal. You could perhaps start with this list of hijackings on wikipedia and explain why the 9/11 hijackings are atypical in terms of passengers not overpowering hijackers.

The official story maintains knives and/or box-cutters (aka Stanley knives). This is the theory I am attacking. If the story said they were armed with guns, the hijack scenario would be more plausible.

Why? Would you tackle someone with a knife (especially after they had injured/killed some other passengers) if you believed that your alternative was to still still, let the hijack/demand/possible-rescue-attempt play out? Indeed, if hikjackers didn't have bombs or guns, then the odds of a successful rescue attempt would be higher.

Further to that point....if you see a guy with a knife who has killed one passenger and says "I will blow up this plane if anyone else resists", will you just ignore that threat and assume that he doesn't have a bomb because thats a knife in his hand? Note - I'm not saying that we know such threats are made, but nor can we rule it out. We don't know what the passengers knew, but we can make educated guesses as to how hijackers behave and what the typical response to such behaviour would have been at the time.

Most importantly, can you expain why the passengers of 3 of the four 911 flights should have (in yoru view) exhibited behaviour atypical to those seen in typical hijack situations?, rather than the behaviour they did show which matches the typical hijack response pretty closely? For the fourth flight, the evidence shows that the passengers were aware that the rules of the game had changed. These passengers then acted atypically. Today, 5 years on, the expected passenger response would be far more likely to match those of flight 93 than those of other hijackings, because the pattern of "hijack, then use passengers/plane as leverage" has been thoroughly broken. But at the outset of events on 9/11, 2001, that pattern was fully intact.

As an aside...a mate of mine was flying home from the US shortly after 911 (the day flights resumed, if memory serves). As they landed in Heathrow, one person stood up to get their bags from the overhead locker while the plane was still taxiing about. What do you think was the reaction to this? Do you think the reaction would have been the same on September 10th? Which of those two reactions would you expect to be a closer match to something similar on September 11th?

The fact that they got lucky four times in the one day works against the official story as opposed to with it. The probability of failure is astronomically high.

Why is it astronomically high? What are the areas where we would expect the typical or demonstrably likely outcome to be other than it was?

Airport security has been well-established to have been inufficient. Even after 911, press reporters were regularly able to break the system. Only last week, a security review of Zurich airport showed that it has several gaping problems with its security which would make certain vectors of attack effectively impossible to prevent. American airports, for internal flights, were far less secured than the typical european airport was pre-911...which is in turn less secure than it is today.

Couple this with a typical pre-911 hijack response (co-operate...just like bank tellers are told to do in robbery situations), and the onus is well and truly on you to show why the odds of a successful attack were slim. Prior to 911, the odds were slim that a hijacking would result in the hijackers demands being met. However, the culprits of 911 didn't have demands. They didn't care about those odds.

It is more conceivable that someone would win four cars in their lifetime than four cars on the same day. Not a perfect analogy but the element of alleged pure luck is the same.

No, its not. In the case of one or more competitions to win a car, we can form solid estimates (if not entirely 100% accurate figures) as to odds of winning. We can calculate the odds. We can show how likely or unlikely it is.

In the case of 911, you're just saying its astromonically unlikely, but not establishing what areas involved the incredibly lucky outcomes. What happened to suggesting evidence is needed to back up assertions?

Were they trained to just hand over control of their aircraft? "Oh, you stabbed one person, so we'll just give you control of the stick so you can send us all to our deaths if you feel the need."

Examine the established pattern for hijackings. Can you show any reason to believe that they were told to do anything other than cooperate? Bear in mind that prior to 911, the rationale was never that the hikjackers would arbitrarily kill the pssengers, but rather that - unless threatened - they would land the plane somewhere, issue demands, etc. only killing passengers in the event of a threat or (in some cases) to underscore their comittment. Incidentaly, in the latter case

What sort of ludicrous logic is used to conclude that a reasonably occupied plane could not overpower four/five men armed with knives?

The established pattern of hijacking prior to 911 suggests that passengers often do not attempt to wrest control back from hijackers. Can you explain why established behaviour is suspiciously atypical?

Yes, this story is highly dubious as there is mounting evidence that flight 93 was, in actuality, shot down.

What evidence? There is no mounting evidence. There is certainly no mounting evidence that you ahve presented.

There was a 100% success rate of wrestling control of the planes from every other person on board.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

However, to humour you for a moment, it is inconceivable that 1) there is only one real fight against the "bloodthirsty terrorists who hate our freedoms" out of four potential ones and 2) this one fails spectacularly by making the plane plunge straight into the ground.

Why is it inconceivable? The number of hijacked flights where the purpose of hijacking was to use the plane as a weapon, prior to the events of 911 is exactly 0. Thus for the first of the four flights at least, we should assume it would be treated as a normal flight. Given that the facts of what was ahppening were confused for some time, we can't say for certain that the peopel on board the second plane could have been aware that the rules had been changed. So now we're down to two flights from which to draw our baseline. One of those is the flight in question (flight 93), so we have a sum total of the reactions of people one a maximum of one flight to meaningfully form a baseline to judge what is and is not conceivable, typical, or expected behaviour.

Do you believe one event is sufficient to form such a baseline? If so, can you explain how?

Standing up to a few men with knives who want to take over a plane is not heroism in my view, it is common sense.

Why is it common sense? What was the threat from men with knives in a pre-911 world that made putting your life at risk to tackle them worthwhile? Can you also definitively establish that the passengers knew that the men were only armed with knives? Can you establish that there wasn't one guy with a knife to the pilot and another at the door saying "move on me and the pilot dies immediately"???

And sorry, but I'm not the one who is ignoring evidence which contradicts my version of events.

You seem to be basing your expectged behaviour off non-existant evidence - information which could not have been known by the people involved on the day in question - as well as on a lack of consideration of established patterns regarding hijackings prior to 911.

They do support the official story yet at the same time other evidence contradicts this.

What evidence contradicts this? You've offered speculation which contradicts it, and you've asserted that evidence exists. But you haven't made a case based on supplied evidence which contradicts the established sequence of events.

If you can prove the official story I'll believe it, but until that day comes, no thanks.

Fair enough. We're each entitled to our beliefs. It seems, however, that you don't have a problem believing certain things without the evidence to back them up (as appears to be the case with some of your arguments), so I would like to ask what basis you have for deciding what can be believed without proof and what not.

1) Please provide reference which states that pilots were ordered to relinquish control of their aircraft to any lunatics who wave knives around when the opportunity to incapacitate said lunatics is there.

There are far more documented cases of hijackers being co-operated with than of cases where they have been resisted. Indeed, I'm not aware of any case where (potential) hijackers were overpowered by either the pilot or the passengers prior to 911.

The only exception to this case may be on the tiny subset of flights where there has been an armed air-marshal on board when a hijacking was attempted.

I can't prove that no such overpowering cases exist (proving non-existence being impossible), but you can show me to be wrong. Thus, the onus is on you to show that such cases exist in the first place. Then we can discuss whether or not such a reaction is typical or atypical. Again, remember that all events post-911 are out of bounds for this purpose, as we can only work with evidence which would have affected the decision-making process of the passengers on that day.

What I'm really interested in is pointing out the absurd nature of the official conspiracy theory.

The official findings regarding the events of the day are not absurd. You've made a number of claims about their improbability, but in each and every one of those claims you've neglected to establish how that improbability has been established. You've simply asserted its existence as a fait accompli.

Flyingfish

On the issue of the plane being shot down...

oscarBravo wrote:

From what I've seen, there's absolutely no credible evidence of that whatsoever. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I think there's 2 main points of evidence that give reason to doubt the official line on this

1. No bodies, no wreckage found at the scene - basically a smoking hole in the ground. The local coroner said on site "after 20 minutes I stopped being a coroner because there were no bodies - not a single drop of blood - nothing"

2. Fragments of the plane were found at various spots within a 5 Km radius of the crash site

Flyingfish

Oracle wrote:

Interesting article, although I don't agree with it's premise: The biggest threat posed by the 9/11 Truth Movement is the danger that it will discredit the healthy scepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders. I believe the opposite is true; the questioning of the facts presented in 9/11 will lead people a question a wider range of political issues.

I've read Alternet a few times and it presents some interesting, thought provoking articles mainly from an alternative point of view. Although sometimes I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction when they challenge the current thinking on an issue, but fail to provide conclusions or alternatives. Looking at their list of financial supporters perhaps there's a reason for that: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Media_Institute

Sure... there is a definite lack of progress in the article and certainly things I don't personally buy. I think it's an interesting viewpoint on the whole situation all the same. This is the kind of overview that is lacking badly in mainstream media at the moment.

I also came across the following Irish articles on this subject (worth noting that one is from the Irish Examiner) - see below:

The Dubliner
Did George Bush plan 9/11?
http://www.thedubliner.ie/template.php?ID=147

Irish Examiner
Key questions left unanswered by the 9/11 commission
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/05/08/story2709.asp

bonkey

cockmynut wrote:

Edited in:
- No Arab names on the flight manifests or autopsy reports. (impossible if the official story is true)

Could you supply a link to teh manifests / autopsy reports that you're basing this claim on?

I ask because I wasn't aware that anyone had released definitive manifests or complete autopsy reports for all bodies.

- No hijacking codes sent by any of the flight crews. [except UA 93, however I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that this flight did send one] (highly unlikely)

Unless I'm misunderstanding this...

If they sent one, you see it as suspicious. If they didn't send one, you see it as suspicious.

This means it doesn't matter whether or not they sent the code as both possibilities are dodgy in your eyes.

There are other anomalies as well.

Yes, there are. Why is this suspicious? There are almost always anomalies in any set of complex events.

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

I can't speak for any other skeptic here, but my response is simple.

No. I won't review the video. I have no interest in spending time and energy in reviewing the content and then responding to all of it (as to do less would leave it open to "but you never addressed X" followups) in my own words having done my own research if all you're doing is posting a link to someone else's work. Essentially he systematically rips the NIST report in under and hour.

If you'd like to discuss specific points from that video, make the argument in your own words, supply references (point-in-time) to where the tape makes the argument, and ideally show how you've corroborated the claims yourself, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

If you're not willing to do this, then to be frank I consider it somewhat unreasonable to suggest that I (or any other skeptic here) should be willing to put an equivalent amount of effort into a response.

Fair enough!

There is a LOT of information here, it's also quite dry and technical and I don’t want to badly regurgitate it and have the same "but you never addressed X" follow-ups as you mentioned.

I do think what you’re saying is fair but I would urge you to view it in your own time and not to feel obliged to refute each point individually here…. you could just agree: D Joking of course! Essentially he systematically dismantles the NIST report to shreds in under an hour.

However for anyone who is interested and that has the time I would highly recommend this 53 min presentation – top quality info:
Kevin Ryan ---http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan---

BTW I'm still looking into the Steven E Jones information and from what I've seen so far there is some cause for renewed scepticism (as always) but no show stoppers so far - also the sites that "discredit" him do seem a little biased themselves... however as I said I'm keeping an open mind.

pH

Flyingfish wrote:

1. No bodies, no wreckage found at the scene - basically a smoking hole in the ground. The local coroner said on site "after 20 minutes I stopped being a coroner because there were no bodies - not a single drop of blood - nothing"

Please stop quoting chunks of Loose Change, where quotes are being used out of context and their 'conspiracy' interpretations have been thoroughly discredited.

Every person on that flight was eventually identified, and plenty of plane debris was found, including the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder.

“Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the remains are expected to be so minute that radiology and DNA testing may be the only means of positively identifying the victims.” - Associated Press (September 12, 2001)

“We’ve been going through this area inch by inch. The remains are beginning to come,” said Somerset County coroner Wallace Miller. “It will be quite some time until we can identify whoever a person might be.” - Associated Press (September 13, 2001)

“Dennis Dirkmaat, a forensic pathologist from Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., said the remains had suffered “extreme fragmentation” and most would have to be identified through DNA analysis. He said experts also would use dental records, X-rays, and fingerprints and footprints.” - Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

“It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first trace of a body part…some fragment of each of the dead had been positively identified, either by DNA or, in a few cases, fingerprints.” - Washington Post (May 12, 2002)


Have a read:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

Could you supply a link to teh manifests / autopsy reports that you're basing this claim on?

I ask because I wasn't aware that anyone had released definitive manifests or complete autopsy reports for all bodies.

I have seen this before - I also saw a 1 hour video dedicated to it. Let me see if I can dig up the text.

[EDIT] - Added Links
Flight 77 Autopsy List
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Hijacker Alive and Well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

The local coroner said on site "after 20 minutes I stopped being a coroner because there were no bodies - not a single drop of blood - nothing"

No, the local coroner did not say that. You have taken (at least) two seperate comments, made seperately, and stitched them together into a single sentence.

It is true that he said "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there." The article I could find which I believe it orginated in was this one. Note that his immediately subsequent sentence is : "It became like a giant funeral service". Now tell me....if there was no evidence of human remains at all, why would a coroner say it was like a funeral service? Doesn't a funeral service suggest that people have died?

The same article goes on to say teh following:

As a funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes.

Again...harldy suggestive of a guy who believes no-one died there.

It is further true that the same Wally Miller identified 12 people via dental records within three weeks (from here, said it would take three to six months to compete DNA testing of the some 1500 body-parts recovered.

It is additionally true that Miller said in an seperate article that "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

However, he did not say it in the same sentence as the "no bodies" comment that you suggested it was, and he said it long after he had identified bodies via dental remains.

In neither case did he use the word nothing as you allege.

Misquoting someone, and using selective quotes from articles to draw a conclusion that the full content of the very same articles irrefutably does not support is not a convincing tactic for truth-determination. Even if its not your quote, but one you've taken from elsewhere, its hardly a point in your favour that you apparently haven't researched its origins. IF that is the case, however, then it should serve as a suggestion that you need to more critically evaluate the standard of information being offered to you by those claiming to be searching for truth.

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

I would urge you to view it in your own time

You'll note I never said I would not do this, nor that I haven't alreay done so.

Essentially he systematically dismantles the NIST report to shreds in under an hour.

I disagree. I believe he tries to do so, but his "dismantling" does not hold up to scrutiny.

BTW I'm still looking into the Steven E Jones information and from what I've seen so far there is some cause for renewed scepticism (as always) but no show stoppers so far - also the sites that "discredit" him do seem a little biased themselves... however as I said I'm keeping an open mind.

Fair enough.

For me, its very simple - the primary onus is on Jones or his supporters to show that the paper went through a meaningful peer-review process. They can allege all they like that such claims against it are misleading, but as always, its impossible to prove a negative (i.e. it cannot be proven that the peer-review process wasn't done, only shown that this strongly appears to be th case). Unfortunately for Jones, this means the onus is on him to establish his own innocence by showing unequivocably that a proper review was carried out.

While this may seem unfair, the reality is that if he could prove this, the damage it would do to his detractors (professionally speaking) would be immense. Its not like its an action we can just dismiss as sour-grapes against a brilliant man by those jealous of his genius. Its an action carried out by people who are literally putting their own professional reputation on the line by offering such criticism.

As I've already argued, his own defence against such claims can only be convincing to those who aren't interested in independenly researching the notion of peer-review and comparing his claims to that independantly-established baseline. This is hardly conducive to helping me believe that he's the victim of maliciousness.

At this stage, even an admission that the peer review may have been of an insufficient standard would only partly redeem him. It would be an admission of guilt regarding the issue in question, and would thus only be sufficient to allow him to attain respectability, rather than automatically granting it to him.

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

Could you supply a link to teh manifests / autopsy reports that you're basing this claim on?

I ask because I wasn't aware that anyone had released definitive manifests or complete autopsy reports for all bodies.

Some links....

[EDIT] - Added Links
Flight 77 Autopsy List
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Removed link to "Hijackers alive and well"

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

No, the local coroner did not say that. You have taken (at least) two seperate comments, made seperately, and stitched them together into a single sentence.

Fair enough... my (copy and paste) bad

Does anyone have any solid additional info re the 5km Debris Radius?

Flyingfish

pH wrote:

Have a read:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93

Ok this is why I think we ALL need to be careful of our sources regardless of what side of the debate we’re on....

I'm going through Debunking 9/11 Myths...first paragraph on the first page for WTC7 contains the most misleading comment and frankly given that FEMA have admitted themselves that they have no clue why the building fell the way it did … it’s a flat out lie.

"7 World Trade Center, located across Vesey Street from the Twin Towers and other World Trade Center buildings, was built in the early-mid 1980s, on top of a two-story Con Edison substation.

7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001, after suffering extensive damage from fires and falling debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Soon after September 11, 2001, FEMA initiated a preliminary study into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, including 7 World Trade Center. This was followed up by a more extensive investigation by NIST, which is still ongoing."

Also no mention of the fact that this is the first steel-framed building in HISTORY to have "fallen" from fire + structural damage before or since. Also this would NOT explain the freefall, symmetrical collapse captured on film. Or that the 9/11 commission completely failed to mention it in their “report”

When it comes to WTC7 I think I smell a rat!

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

[EDIT] - Added Links
Flight 77 Autopsy List
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

On that page, you'll see a link to "Home" at the top. If you follow that, it takes you to a page which says the following (I've highlighted the important bits):


Lists of victims

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the crash of United Airlines flight 93, officials across the country are working to piece together lists of victims.

While the official number of those missing and dead will inevitably rise over the next few weeks, authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists.


So...you see something suspicious in names being absent from partial lists, (which incidentally are being presented as lists of victims...where it wouldn't be unreasonable to exclude the killers) and you present such lists as complete passenger manifests.

Hijacker Alive and Well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Such issues have been answered for several years on sites such as 911myths. That you present them as still-valid arguments suggests either that you have an (unknown) problem with the subequent explanation of such articles, or you're unaware of the existence of the explanations.

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

I'd need to look at this one closer, but two comments spring to mind...

1) Olmstead himself says that "A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence", and then presents a list of names on a piece of paper as evidence. I wonder if he's even aware of the irony.

2) Read the cover-page of the FOIA response. It says that they received his request for the final list of bodies, but go on to say that they enclose the list of 58 victims identified. Note that its also established fact that the know they failed to identify a toddler, suggesting the list of victims was 59. However, the total figure of dead was 64. There is obviously a difference of 5. There were 5 hijackers. Does this not at least raise the possibility that the hijackers were not classed as victims and were thus omitted from the response to Olmstead.

Given that we neither know the content of his original request, nor whether or not the response correctly matched what he did request, we cannot rule out the possibility that there is nothing sinister here. I do agree that there is scope for someone to follow-up and ask for clarification under another FOIA request as to whether or not the released list was limited to victims, or contained all identified dead from the event. I assume you've done this, given that you care so much about exposing the conspiracy yo ubelieve is in place?

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

first paragraph on the first page for WTC7 contains the most misleading comment

There is nothing misleading about it.

and frankly given that FEMA have admitted themselves that they have no clue why the building fell the way it did … it’s a flat out lie.

I'm amazed that you are not aware that when FEMA admitted that, they then went and comissioned NIST to figure it out, and that what you claim to be misleading is, in fact, entirely consistent with the NIST interim report which represents the current most-informed known opinion on the matter.

This was followed up by a more extensive investigation by NIST, which is still ongoing."

My bad...there it is. Right in the very stuff you quoted. You did know about the NIST report.

So explain to me why FEMA being mystified is more significant than the interim findings of this more-extensive NIST report comissioned to explain said mystification?

Also no mention of the fact that this is the first steel-framed building in HISTORY to have "fallen" from fire + structural damage before or since.

No, its not. It is arguably the first and only steel-framed skyscraper to fall from such fire and damage, but then again the number of steel-framed skyscrapers which have remained standing after receiving equivalent amounts of impact-and-fire damage stands at the slightly lower figure of 0.

Also this would NOT explain the freefall, symmetrical collapse captured on film.

I think you're misunderstanding something here..

You have to establish that multi-storey skyscrapers falling as a result of fire and structural damage to not typically fall in this manner to be able to even suggest that how it fell needs explanation.

Given the total number of 0 cases on which you can base such an argument, I think you'll find it a tough job, but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

Or that the 9/11 commission completely failed to mention it in their “report”

Mention what?

That something with no known precedent for comparison happened in a manner that some non-experts think is suspicious because it doesn't match what they feel it should look like?

Frankly, I'd be worred if the 911 comission mentioned that about the towers. Given that building 7 wasn't a part of the Comission's scope i nthe first place, I'd be absolutely horrified if they had mentioned it in relation to that building.

When it comes to WTC7 I think I smell a rat!

You're perfectly entitled to do so. But where's your evidence? So far, you've not presented any.

Flyingfish

Here is a more "reliable" (only uses maintream media - which never lies or could not be involved:D ) source for more info on the flight Manifests:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301hijackerlist#a091301hijackerlist

Flyingfish

"7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001, after suffering extensive damage from fires and falling debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers."

So my point about that comment being completely baseless still stands... Yet the "debunkers" splash it up as part of the intro paragraph as if there is a shred of evidence to support it.... not even from the mighty FEMA or NIST

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

Here is a more "reliable" (only uses maintream media - which never lies or could not be involved:D ) source for more info on the flight Manifests:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301hijackerlist#a091301hijackerlist

And on that page, there is the following:

None of the manifests for the hijacked flights have ever been released, except for this partially obscured page which appears in Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers.

So, we've established that there is no way you could possibly speak from authority about the manifests being incomplete, as they've never been released.

We've also established that the one partial manifest which appears to exist, in a link that you provided, does indeed contain names of suspected hijackers, those names being arabic in nature.

Look, at this point, you've provided a chunk of links, and not one of them has stood up to cursory scrutiny. This suggests that you're not actually checking into the background of the claims that you're making. What reason do I have to believe that further claims from you will be of any higher quality?

I've no interest in debunking dozens and dozens of "but what about....ta-dah....this" posts. If you're not willing to do your own research thoroughly, its unreasonable to expect me or anyone else to take your claims seriously. If you are willing to do it thoroughly, then please explain why its taking me almost-no-time to show that teh arguments you're presenting are constantly some mix of being incomplete, old, already-answered, misleading, misquoting, or just downright wrong.

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

"7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001, after suffering extensive damage from fires and falling debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers."

So my point about that comment being completely baseless still stands...

Its not baseless. It matches the NIST interim report perfectly.

Yet the "debunkers" splash it up as part of the intro paragraph as if there is a shred of evidence to support it.... not even from the mighty FEMA or NIST

I don't know how to say this any more clearly.

The NIST interim findings report on WTC7 supports this.

To suggest that this report doesn't exist, or to dismiss it out of hand with a throwaway comment like the "not a shred of evidence" is pretty-much the final nail in your coffin for me. If you can't offer a convincing explanation to reconcile the existence fo this report (and the evidence that it contains) with your above claim, then to be honest, its hard to see how you can be taken credibly.

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

And on that page, there is the following:

None of the manifests for the hijacked flights have ever been released, except for this partially obscured page which appears in Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers.

So, we've established that there is no way you could possibly speak from authority about the manifests being incomplete, as they've never been released.

We've also established that the one partial manifest which appears to exist, in a link that you provided, does indeed contain names of suspected hijackers, those names being arabic in nature.

Look, at this point, you've provided a chunk of links, and not one of them has stood up to cursory scrutiny. This suggests that you're not actually checking into the background of the claims that you're making. What reason do I have to believe that further claims from you will be of any higher quality?

I've no interest in debunking dozens and dozens of "but what about....ta-dah....this" posts. If you're not willing to do your own research thoroughly, its unreasonable to expect me or anyone else to take your claims seriously. If you are willing to do it thoroughly, then please explain why its taking me almost-no-time to show that teh arguments you're presenting are constantly some mix of being incomplete, old, already-answered, misleading, misquoting, or just downright wrong.

That's unfair and TBH obviously arrogant! Yeah jeeze you've cracked it! How could everyone have been so wrong to question the official theory? You are selective in what you quote and answer. You asked "Could you supply a link to teh manifests / autopsy reports that you're basing this claim on?" And I NEVER said anything about being an authority on or having Flight Manifests....

The reference I sent you also clearly and correctly states....
"None of the manifests for the hijacked flights have ever been released, except for this partially obscured page which appears in Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers. McDermott has not explained how or where he got this document. Names of the five hijackers are highlighted. [Source: Terry McDermott"

Flyingfish

And BTW here is the evidence for possible Thermite / Thermate reactions at WTC 7 that I'm basing my suspicions on - the presence of these materials is also something that independently gives some weight to the findings of Steven E Jones (given his credibility is in question)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1201eutectic#a1201eutectic

Diogenes

Cockmynut OscarBravo answered you effectively so I don't think I need response, I will address two points he doesn't mention

1. Audio Forensics, no one doubts the authetiscity of the tapes bar a bunch of conspiracy theorists. If you're so confident it's a fake why doesn't the truth movement have a credible independent audio expert to examine the tapes.

2. It was standard procedure for pilots to agree to hijacker demands, before Sept 11th most hijacking led to the plane being landed and coming to a negotiated or armed solution.

* Cuba1958 November 1: First Cuba-to-U.S. hijacking. A Cubana en route from Miami to Varadero to Havana was hijacked by Cuban militants. The hijackers were trying to land at Sierra Cristal in Eastern Cuba to deliver weapons to Raúl Castro's rebels. As night approached, eventually the plane ran out of fuel and tried an emergency landing at the Preston sugar mill, it did not make it and instead landed in the ocean breaking apart killing most passengers and crew. [1]

* Palestinian National Authority 1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.

* Soviet Union1970 May 15: Dym****s-Kuznetsov hijacking affair, a group of Soviet refuseniks attempt to hijack aircraft

* Palestinian National Authority 1970, September: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid is foiled by armed guards aboard.

* United States1971: D. B. Cooper hijacks Northwest Orient Airlines flight 305 and obtains $200,000 ransom for the release of the plane's passengers. Cooper proceeds to parachute from the rear of the Boeing 727 and is never found.

* Australia1972 November 15: First airline hijacking in Australia. A lone hijacker armed with a .22 sawn-off rifle and a knife in flight on Ansett Airlines flight 232 from Adelaide to Alice Springs with 28 passengers and a crew of 4. Followed by gun battle at Alice Springs Airport resulting in the death of the hijacker Miloslav Hrabinec and a police officer critically wounded.

* United States1974 February 22: Samuel Byck shot and killed Maryland Aviation Administration Police Officer Neal Ramsburg at BWI before storming aboard Delta Air Lines flight 523 to Atlanta. He gained access to the cockpit while the plane was on the ground, intending to assassinate President Nixon by flying the DC-9 into the White House. He shot both the pilot and the copilot before he was shot through the aircraft window by another officer.

* Palestinian National Authority1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 139 is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages killing all Palestinian hijackers and rescuing 105 persons, mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

* Palestinian National Authority1977: Lufthansa Flight 181 (also known as the Landshut) was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists on a flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. The ordeal ended in Mogadishu when GSG 9 commandos stormed the plane. Three hijackers were killed and 86 hostages were freed. The pilot was killed. The hand of German Red Army Faction was suspected.

* Malaysia1977 December 4: A Boeing 737 Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 was hijacked and crashed in Tanjung Kupang, Johore killing 100 people aboard.

* Cyprus1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.

* East Germany1979: Two East Germans hijacked an aircraft to West Berlin; see Judgment in Berlin.

* Serbia1979 June 20 and June 21: An American Airlines flight from New York to Chicago was hijacked by Nikola Kavaja, a Serbian nationalist, demanding the release of a jailed fellow nationalist. Unable to secure his comrade's release, the hijacker released all hostages except for the pilot, co-pilot and one flight attendant. They flew from Chicago back to New York where he transferred to a Boeing 707, which flew to Ireland where the hijacker surrendered and was returned to the United States for trial. Weapon used was a home-made bomb. There were no casualties.

* Pakistan1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.

* Indonesia1981: The Hijacking of Flight Garuda Indonesia GA 206 on 28 March 1981. This was the first serious Indonesian airline hijacking, since the first case was a desperate Marine hijacker who was killed by the pilot himself. The hijackers, a group called Commando Jihad, hijacked the DC 9 "Woyla", onroute from Palembang to Medan, and ordered the pilot to fly the plane to Colombo, Sri Lanka. But since the plane didn't have enough fuel, it refueled in Penang, Malaysia and then to Don Muang, Thailand. The hijackers demanded the release of Commando Jihad members imprisoned in Indonesia, and US $ 1.5 million, as well as a plane to take those prisoners to an unspecified destination. The Kopassus commandos who took part in this mission trained for only three days with totally unfamiliar weapons, brilliantly executed this fast-paced operation. One of the Kopassus commandos was shot by the hijacker leader, who then shot himself. All the other hijackers were killed. All the hostages were saved.

* Republic of Ireland1981 An Aer Lingus flight from Dublin to London was hijacked and diverted to Le Touquet in France by a man demanding that the Pope release the third secret of Fatima. While authorities negotiated with the hijacker by radio in the cockpit, French special forces entered the rear of the aircraft and overpowered him.

* Sri Lanka1982 July 1: A Sri Lankan, identified as Sepala Ekanayaka, who was 33 years old, hijacked an Alitalia jumbo jet from Bangkok, Thailand, in order to be united with his wife and child and to return to Sri Lanka.

* India1982 August 22: A lone Sikh militant, armed with a pistol and a hand grenade, hijacked a Boeing 737 on a scheduled flight from Bombay to New Delhi carrying 69 persons. Indian security forces killed the hijacker and rescued all passengers.

* Union of Soviet Socialist Republics1983: Tbilisi hijacking incident

* India1984 August 24: Seven young Sikh hijackers demanded an Indian Airlines jetliner flying from Delhi to Srinagar [2] be flown to the United States. The plane was taken to UAE where the defense minister of UAE negotiated the release of the passengers. It was related to the Sikh secessionist struggle in the Indian state of Punjab.

* Lebanon1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces who were dressed as custodial staff.[1]

* Lebanon1985: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.

* Palestinian National Authority1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.

* Pakistan1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.

* Kuwait 1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight from Thailand and force it to fly to Algiers with more than 110 people on board; the hijack ends after 16 days when the hijackers free the remaining hostages and are allowed to leave Algiers.

* People's Republic of China1990: Hijackers seized a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashed as it tried to land in Canton, killing 128 people.

* Pakistan1991: 26 March 1991, Singapore Airlines Flight 117 hijacked by individuals claiming to be members of the Pakistan People's Party. Elite Singapore Special Operations Force members stormed the plane, killing all four hijackers and freeing all 118 passengers and 9 crew in an operation lasting just 30 seconds. None of the passengers and crew were hurt.

* United States1994: FedEx Flight 705 hijacked by disgruntled employee Auburn Calloway as it left Memphis, Tennessee, with the intention of using it as a cruise missile against FedEx HQ. He was subdued by the flight crew before an emergency landing back at Memphis.

* Algeria1994: Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by four GIA terrorists planning to crash into the Eiffel Tower. After the execution of 3 passengers, GIGN commandos storm the plane killing all hijackers and freeing all passengers.

* Iran1995: Iranian defector and flight attendant Rida Garari hijacked Kish Air flight 707, which landed in Israel. No casualties.

* Palestinian National Authority1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked by the Palestinian Nadir Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna. The hijacker demamded that the aircraft be refuelled and given passage to Oslo, Norway after landing at Varna Airport. All of the 150 passengers were freed at Varna, afterwards the crew continued the flight to Oslo.

* Ethiopia1996: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet that intentionally ditched into water.

* Malta1997: Air Malta Two men who hijacked an Air Malta aircraft en route from Malta to Turkey on June 9, 1997 surrendered to police at Cologne's airport early on the same day and freed without incident about 80 crew members and passengers on board.

* Japan1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is hijacked by a lone man. He kills the pilot before he is subdued.

* Afghanistan2000: Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 is hijacked on an internal flight within Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and ended up at London Stansted Airport, where most of the passengers claimed political asylum.

* India1999-2000: Pakistan based terrorists hijack Indian Airlines Flight 814 and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Pakistani terrorists in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage was stabbed to death and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack".

* Philippines2000: Philippine Airlines Flight 812 was hijacked en route from Davao City, Philippines to Manila. The hijacker then escaped while the aircraft is still in the air via a parachute. His body was later found dead.

* United States2001: September 11 attacks, eastern USA: 19 terrorists hijack four planes (American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175). The aircraft were used as missiles to cause infrastructure damage in the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history; two of the planes, United Airlines Flight 175 and Flight 11 were crashed into New York City's World Trade Center towers, destroying the entire complex. American Airlines Flight 77 was used in a similar fashion at the Pentagon, in Washington, D.C., which caused the destruction of the portion of that building hit. They are the three most deadly of all aircraft hijackings. In the case of United 93 the intention was likely the same but the passengers, learning of the fate of the other three planes, attacked the cockpit, causing the hijackers to crash the plane in rural Pennsylvania, killing all on board. By official count, 2,752 people died at the World Trade Center, 189 died in Washington, D.C., and 44 died crashing into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

* Turkey2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace. The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals which were picked up by the Greek air force.

There's a list of every hijacking that has occured before september 11th. In only one istance did the crew fight off the hijacker. Thats hijacker. Singular. To claim it's "highly unlikely" that the crew would surrender, flies square in the face of how pilots have historicaly reacted to hijackers. In fact the crew surrendering is highly likely.

Oh and cockmynut? A question, going on this;

cockmynut wrote:

so myself and I think most of the other members of Scholars have either left or support Jones.

Can I ask, are you a member of "Scholars for truth"? And if so what is your educational background?

flying fish wrote:

Hijacker Alive and Well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

-Head in hands speaking quietly and calmly-

Flying fish, I have personally debunked this Atta story at least twice already ON. THIS. VERY. THREAD. Could you please read the thread and see what has been discussed and thoroughly debunked here already? Before wheeling the same tired worn out already ridiculed stuff, that I thought we were done with ten pages ago.

I swear to god if I hear the name Scott Forbes, or Operation Shagging Northwoods again I cannot be held accountable for my actions.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

And BTW here is the evidence for possible Thermite / Thermate reactions at WTC 7 - as I said smells like a rat:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1201eutectic#a1201eutectic

You know Iron Oxide is rust, right? I mean what on earth would rust be doing in a steel framed building.

You also know thermite has never once been used in a controlled demolition, ever.

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

That's unfair and TBH obviously arrogant!

Why is it unfair? Do you think its fair that you expect people to answer your ill-researched perspectives, where you hold them to a higher standard of proof then the arguments you yourself present?

Is it arrogant for me to say that I'm not interested in putting time and effort into research and response when you apprently are not doing the same?

Yeah jeeze you've cracked it!

Cracked what? All I've done is point out how your criticisms don't hold up to scrutiny. That doesn't mean I've proven that there is nothing untoward with the various official stances and writings on teh subject. Wat it means is that I'm showing (repeatedly) that while you believe there is a case to be answered, you've yet to provide a single solid case where its clear that this is so.

How could everyone have been so wrong to question the official theory?

There's nothing wrong with questioning. There's something wrong with questioning, not doing thorough research, and yet suggesting that your ill-researched stances are somehow credible.

You are selective in what you quote and answer.

And you're not? I'm quoting almost the entirety of yoru posts. Where I've left something out is where its a direct duscussion regarding a response from another poster, or where its a repitition of something I've already covered. If you think you've presented something compelling that I've refused to acknowledge, then please....point me at it and I'll respond to it. What I won't do is respond to new points until you can offer me a reason to believe that they're of a higher standard than whats come hithertofore.

You asked "Could you supply a link to teh manifests / autopsy reports that you're basing this claim on?" And I NEVER said anything about being an authority on or having Flight Manifests....

My bad. Cockmynut made the initial claim that it was incomplete.

You merely supplied links regarding my request for links to the manifests or autopsy reports, suggesting you supported the notion that it was incomplete. You then followed this with evidence that it was complete.

Can we take it that I misread your intention here, and that what you were really doing is agreeing with me and showing that cockmynut's claim of incompleteness is bogus...that you believe the hijackers were on the manifests?

IF thats the case though...please...make it clear that you believe there is no truth to the claim about incomplete manifests.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

You know Iron Oxide is rust, right? I mean what on earth would rust be doing in a steel framed building.

We should also point out that standard "red" rust is what was found, despite it not being the type of Iron Oxide typically used in thermite (due to it being far inferior to blue/black iron oxide for the reaction's purpose).

Why someone would then go and produce thermate - which is basically a more efficient form of thermite - from the least efficient form of thermite they could make is beyond me.

Oh...and lets also all remember that therm*te is not an explosive. Postulating its use as a CD agent is not supported by the explosions allegedly heard.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

There's a list of every hijacking that has occured before september 11th.

Including the event in 2006?

Also, given that the first accepted hikacking occurred in 1931, I think its pretty certain that the list isn't complete.

However, it does establish that there is nothing atypical about passengers not "rising up" against their hijackers.

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

You know Iron Oxide is rust, right? I mean what on earth would rust be doing in a steel framed building.

You also know thermite has never once been used in a controlled demolition, ever.

Let me clarify. I'm specifically talking about the presence of, to quote the NY Times “unusual erosion patterns” and in particular the presence of:
- Iron Oxide
- Iron sulfide

In WTC 1,2 & 7 - Both are by-products of a thermite reaction as outlined by Jones.

Furthermore:
“This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion ... are a very unusual event.

The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”

[EDIT] In addition - NIST ignores FEMA's request for futher investigation (BTW support the claims of Kevin Ryan):
Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

“This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion ... are a very unusual event.

The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”

[EDIT] In addition - NIST ignores FEMA's request for futher investigation (BTW support the claims of Kevin Ryan):
Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]

If you're just going to copy someone else's work verbatim, at least do them the courtesy of acknowledging it.

Every word of what I've quoted from your last post comes from here

Flyingfish

Yeah that's why it's in quotes!!! I gave the link to that site and that article above. I'm not trying to pass it as my own - I don't think the "superior" attitude helps any of us either!

It's the content that should be important. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject. There are many others out there who are far more knowledgeable about the subject that any of us! I don’t see what the problem is with quoting their work.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread what unsettles me about 9/11 is the bigger picture, not any one of the questionable elements. Any one detail of this complex event can be debated to an agonising miniscule level and still not yield results. I think if we attempt to do that again we're missing the point completely. That's why these discussions tend to go nowhere!

Others have done so already to a far higher standard!
http://forums.spikedhumor.com/archive/index.php?t-2657.html


The real question I’m interested in is, to use a legal term; do you believe that there is enough reasonable doubt to warrant a fresh & independent investigation into the American governments “involvement” in 9/11?

In my view, the conspiracy theories about 911 have gained so much traction because on an intuitive level everyone knows that something is badly off.

So is their enough reasonable doubt? If so what should / can be done about it?

The "debunkers" miss the big picture in my view! Let’s just imagine that a magic single piece of paper that proved everything was a cover-uo fell from the sky tomorrow… would the “debunkers” do anything about it? Or simply move on to the next “debunk” project? Would the "truthers" say "I told you so" and then vanish? Is the will there to take this all the way if needed?

Do you believe the 9/11 Commission was fundamentally flawed and biased or whitewashed? If not why? If yes... what ARE they hiding?

In any case please watch: Press for truth --http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=Press+for+truth-- and I think you'll have a better sense of the context that the "debunking" is taking place in. This might also help others understand why some snigger when posts here point to FEMA / NIST or the 9/11 Commission for "reliable" or "official" information.