9/11 Conspiracy

angry_fox

_raptor_ wrote:

got any links to verify that info about the black boxes angry?

Sorry have no links, read in a book called 9/11 Revealed. Heres a link to it on Amazon

dlofnep

Too many pages in this thread so I don't know what has been covered and what has not. I will outline that NORAD stood down for the first time in 50 years on 9/11 and that George Bush lied when stating that nobody could expect an attack of such kind by airplanes when infact 2 years previously, NORAD performed a simulation on remote controlled planes flying directly into the world trade centre.

Furthermore, public officials were pre-warned not to fly to NY on 9.11. Including the mayor of SF and other government officials. Not to mention the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US when all other aeroplanes were grounded!

To add to it, Th US had a legislation that would use fake terrorists attacks to scare the citizens of the US into order and thus creating marshall law and setting up a police state.

9/11 is one big cover-up, FACT.

Guy:Incognito

dlofnep wrote:

Too many pages in this thread so I don't know what has been covered and what has not. I will outline that NORAD stood down for the first time in 50 years on 9/11 and that George Bush lied when stating that nobody could expect an attack of such kind by airplanes when infact 2 years previously, NORAD performed a simulation on remote controlled planes flying directly into the world trade centre.

Furthermore, public officials were pre-warned not to fly to NY on 9.11. Including the mayor of SF and other government officials. Not to mention the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US when all other aeroplanes were grounded!

To add to it, Th US had a legislation that would use fake terrorists attacks to scare the citizens of the US into order and thus creating marshall law and setting up a police state.

9/11 is one big cover-up, FACT.

Do you have linkss or evidence of these "facts"?

getting the bin ladens out of the country is fairly sensible imo. They would be nothing more than targets for hatred from the genera; public, when in fact they are most probably innocent of anything.

dlofnep

Stekelly wrote:

Do you have linkss or evidence of these "facts"?

getting the bin ladens out of the country is fairly sensible imo. They would be nothing more than targets for hatred from the genera; public, when in fact they are most probably innocent of anything.

Yes, I sure do.

Norad standing down. Take your pic from the 60'000 sources.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=norad+stood+down+&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Wille Brown (mayor of SF) warned not to fly to NY on 9/11.
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1634286.php

NORAD with simulation drills similar to that of 9/11.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Operation Northwoods - (US Government's plans to use fake terrorist attacks to setup a police state)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Anything else?

Fallschirmjager

dlofnep wrote:

Yes, I sure do.

Norad standing down. Take your pic from the 60'000 sources.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=norad+stood+down+&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Wille Brown (mayor of SF) warned not to fly to NY on 9/11.
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1634286.php

NORAD with simulation drills similar to that of 9/11.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Operation Northwoods - (US Government's plans to use fake terrorist attacks to setup a police state)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Anything else?

Some good stuff there dude however i would add this:

using google to get 60,000 hits is, well, how shall we be nice to google...a little unreal at best.

the Willie Brown thing is another conspiracy site as far a si can see

operation northwoods is from 1962..the height of the missile crisis with the commies and what many saw as arma*****n --

the norad comments state and i quote

The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

admittingly hindsight is a wonderful thing but norad and the us use everything from movies to books to identify simulations. in fact there was a movie on that exact topic about detonating a plane filled with chemical weapons over new york made in the 80's, i cant remember the name just now. maybe hollywood is responsible!!

i think because they simulated it does not mean much,except with the experience of hindsight. they have also simulated asteroid hits but that doesnt mean anythign (well at least lets hope not!!)

but some good stuff..no doubt

angry_fox

Most of what we know about what happend on the planes came from calls made by passangers on mobile phones but most experts point out that this would be impossible due to technical reasons. Does anybody here know if you can make a mobile phone call from a plane?

Also no billing advice has ever been made public to show the calls were made.

dlofnep

My browser crashed just as I was responding to you Fall. Talk about conspiracy

I'll try sum it up as I don't have the time to repeat it all. News sites rarely archive material 4 years old so it's hard to find a credible news site to backup my claims. I will add that I read all this in mainstream media at the time, it's most certainly not something I am citing from a conspiracy site.

Willie Brown admitted it to mainstream media (and I remember this well) - he stated that Connie Rice fore-warned him not to fly on 9/11. I know Alex Jones mentions the newspapers that have printed all these at one stage or another. I'll try hunt them down later for you if you really wanted to look into it.

dlofnep

Ok - For your viewing pleasure Fall.. As I don't like to be questioned about the credibility of my sources.

Labour MP - Michael Meacher's article in the Guardian about Norad standing down.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

On top of all this, the CIA told NORAD that they were performing a drill exactly the same as the events of 9/11 and that is why NORAD stood down. Normally the Air Defense would of been all over 4 hijacked jets. This was printed on the CIA's own website. Coincidence? Bull****.. It was a plot so that Norad wouldn't shoot down the jets.

he Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

You can't disregard any of this, it's all FACT.

billy the squid

dlofnep wrote:

My browser crashed just as I was responding to you Fall. Talk about conspiracy

I'll try sum it up as I don't have the time to repeat it all. News sites rarely archive material 4 years old so it's hard to find a credible news site to backup my claims. I will add that I read all this in mainstream media at the time, it's most certainly not something I am citing from a conspiracy site.

Willie Brown admitted it to mainstream media (and I remember this well) - he stated that Connie Rice fore-warned him not to fly on 9/11. I know Alex Jones mentions the newspapers that have printed all these at one stage or another. I'll try hunt them down later for you if you really wanted to look into it.

you could always search the wayback machinem for stuff that is no longer archived

http://web.archive.org

hoolio

Regarding the whole Willie Brown thing:

As far as i know the story first appeared in the San Fransisco Chronicle on the 10th (see it here) , the source of the warning was 'airport security' and the warning was just that Americans should be careful while traveling. Nothing sinister about it.

On the 12th another article from the same place says that the warning happened to be given to Brown by a member of airport staff because this memo from the State Department warned US citizens to be careful when travelling (among other things).

Note that in the first article it says that airport security called Brown to warn him, and in the second that Brown called them to check on his flight plans and they happened to warn him. Now i'm sure some will think it was a plant by evil bad men attempting to cover their tracks but it seems that Brown called to check on his flight,and some guy told him that by the way Americans (and not him personally) should be careful, and that in the first article the reported took it that security called him when in fact it was the other way around.


As far as i can see Brown has never once said Rice's name ever, and personally I assume its a creation of some over eager theorist and it has just become accepted as fact now.

As far as i'm concerned theres no story there at all.

Fallschirmjager

dlofnep wrote:

Ok - For your viewing pleasure Fall.. As I don't like to be questioned about the credibility of my sources.

Labour MP - Michael Meacher's article in the Guardian about Norad standing down.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

On top of all this, the CIA told NORAD that they were performing a drill exactly the same as the events of 9/11 and that is why NORAD stood down. Normally the Air Defense would of been all over 4 hijacked jets. This was printed on the CIA's own website. Coincidence? Bull****.. It was a plot so that Norad wouldn't shoot down the jets.

You can't disregard any of this, it's all FACT.

dude i am truly sorry you dont like to be questioned but you have to admit that giving a conspiracy site as a reference is asking for it...and as for facts...well lets have a look see..

red (appropriate for meacher) alert number 1...micheal meacher

on the michael meacher/guardian find...where is his facts? becasue he said it -- so? thats the same as bertie saying it...so what?

for instance lets have a look at a cnn report at the time

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

also this is truly worth a read...and altho this is justa guys blog, it does show how Meacher is , shall we say, selective in his facts..but then again his lets go green ideas which are a bit for the birds as well get in the way...

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2003/09/06.html#a3396

oh, and, this is the same meacher who is friend of george galloway, mr indefagability himself...and saddams best mate, the man who cried when the USSR collasped(!)...sorry but if you care to read a bit on said mr meacher you will find he is getting his 'facts' from the same google.com sites that you and i read and letting his anti Ussentiment get the better of himself....

as i showed before and a more telling fact to the way the world was on pre sept 11, october 1999 to be precise

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/

here is the most interesting comment

"We would take almost any reasonable action before reaching a point of having to make a decision about destroying an American plane over American air space," Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said. this is 1999 mindset...

notice to shoot down a plane you needed the presidents permission. now you can go all conspiracy theory, tin foil hatty if you like...but the reality is the timelines for a response are too fast. Yes the military may be training (thats why it costs 400 billion per annum dude and why ireland's defence costs 47 euro!-- yet another conspiracy is how we do bugger all and expect the UK and US to protect us along with that other bastion of truth the fecken UN-- god save us all!) people have this huge expectation of super fast jets with super fast response times and i am not talking about some top gun guy, i am talking about a joe average radar operator seeing a transponder switched off. Sure today you would immediately react, but then - what would you assume-- yes assume? osama bin laden or crappy technology?? All of this plays into bin laden' s hands..he needs time...time before the horror of it all snaps into place before someone can comprehend the scope.

unfortunatley for 3000 people the military was slow...what we would be disucssiong now, if they shot down a jet or 2-- if that happened is that it was all fake and the US military created fake hijackers, no explosives were found (remeber they did not have any) when they shot down the plane, it was murder, they were setup, it was created to invade iraq, it was oil etc and how bush was responsible...blah blah blah.

if you want a conspiracy, why didnt clinton kill bin laden on 3 seperarate occasions when they were watching him using armed drones?? but of course this was more to do with clintons obsession with destroying the cia (where would all our conspiracy opportunities go then!)

why did clinton let the first WTC attack go unpunished and treat them as a federal issue, not somethign that the CIA could get involved in because of the laws in place at the time

the scariest issue for me so far has to be the military unit able danger. whats scares me , is that they found atta's name as a potential threat and what did they do-- did they warn anyone no -- they discussed it with military lawyers, -- yes lawyers because they are not allowed to check US citizens, even tho atta was not a US citizen...now why could this happen, how could it happen/...

under the magnificent leadership of clinton, they broke all links between the cia and fbi and basically castrated the cia, forcing it to rely on technology -- as its primary source of info gathering (somethign that funningly enough suits bin laden-why does it suit him?? he stops using his satellite phone...)

who could have created such a mess, why dont you ask the lady who created this mess and who sat on the 9/11 comission --jamie s gorelick...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm


now there is a bombshell waiting to go off...no wonder able danger was not mentioned...

Fallschirmjager

someone asked can you use your mobile on the plane...ahem, yes you can, as i found out when i didnt turn mine off...

amazingly we didnt land in the wrong airport...


http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/09/13/201440/+I%E2%80%99m+on+the++plane!+.htm

i think you will also find that most of the people who used their phones from the planes were continually cut off..this has been used in conspiracy sites as well..their signals were being jammed...ahem no it more to do with the planes flying too fast thru each cell because they are on a plane...

snickerpuss

Did anyone read the article about this in september's Dubliner magazine?
If its already been mentioned then i apologise for being blind!

black_jack

Happy happy thoughts

I love conspiracy theorist I really do, they'll lunge at the implausible tiny inconsistents and hold them up while ignoring the massive facts.

1. the pentagon. It was a plane. Why? Have you seen the pentagon? At least two major highways pass within a few hundred feet of the pentagon, thousands of people stuck in rush hour traffic saw a jumbo jet fly into the pentagon. Sitting traffic weirdly none of them had camera rolling, but would your really fake a terrorist attack on massive road infront of thousands of witnesses? The idiots who talk about missiles and fakings have never seen the pentagon and the area and would know how absurd such a fake would look.

2. The planes. Yes the Twin towers were designed to take a passenger plane, but not a passenger plane accelerating on a direct course, aiming for the towers, nor could they prepare for the impact and heat of a second plane weaking both buildings structural integerity.

This rampant struggling over the suspicious nature of the actions how they were staged, or planed as part of plane, actually distracts from administrative incompedence in the weeks leading up to, and their williness to abuse events for their own gain.

Its a fine line between stupidity arrogance and lunacy, and conspiracy theorist damage the credible of people fighting to expose the reality of whats going on, I'm going to start floating around this forum and exposing the inane suggestions of many of the users.

billy the squid

Its a fine line between stupidity arrogance and lunacy, and conspiracy theorist damage the credible of people fighting to expose the reality of whats going on, I'm going to start floating around this forum and exposing the inane suggestions of many of the users.

whilst offering different theories on threads in this forum are welcome, even debunking is welcome, but be warned. calling people stupid, and arrogant will result in the limiting in your ability to "float" around this forum.

black_jack

billy the squid wrote:

whilst offering different theories on threads in this forum are welcome, even debunking is welcome, but be warned. calling people stupid, and arrogant will result in the limiting in your ability to "float" around this forum.

Fine but talking about how obvious it that missiles struck the pentagon, while not bothering to check the geography and timescale of events should be treated with rank difference.

If people are going to support a theory without bothering to research facts on a cursory level but then say "obviously it's the CIA, NWO, Illumanti" they deserve a mild bitch slapping. A conspiracy theorist you starts to argue about metal stress in the world trade center deserves a modicum of respect rather than the moron whom claims, that it was clearly a lizard from alpha beta centeria. Its the defining charactistic of a good conspiracy theorist website that people can support their claims with a modicum of information and facts rather than allow any crank with a tail about a jew lizard zionist conspiracy, diluting debate.

miju

black_jack wrote:

Fine but talking about how obvious it that missiles struck the pentagon, while not bothering to check the geography and timescale of events should be treated with rank difference.

If people are going to support a theory without bothering to research facts on a cursory level but then say "obviously it's the CIA, NWO, Illumanti" they deserve a mild bitch slapping. A conspiracy theorist you starts to argue about metal stress in the world trade center deserves a modicum of respect rather than the moron whom claims, that it was clearly a lizard from alpha beta centeria. Its the defining charactistic of a good conspiracy theorist website that people can support their claims with a modicum of information and facts rather than allow any crank with a tail about a jew lizard zionist conspiracy, diluting debate.

tbh your starting to get on my last nerve and im wondering if your just trolling, so im going to put it to you like this

instead of ranting on, why not attempt to counter some of the claims that have been made, so we'll start with an easy one,

can you explain why in a building as secure and of significant important was the only footage of the explosion at the pentagon consists of 3-4 very obsucre frames

black_jack

_raptor_ wrote:

tbh your starting to get on my last nerve and im wondering if your just trolling, so im going to put it to you like this

instead of ranting on, why not attempt to counter some of the claims that have been made, so we'll start with an easy one,

can you explain why in a building as secure and of significant important was the only footage of the explosion at the pentagon consists of 3-4 very obsucre frames

I don't have to, the onus is on the person making the claim to support them. You need to demostrate that there should have been cameras, that weren't damaged able to record the events.

The simple fact is, two major highways pass by the penatgon, and thousands of people witnessed the planes crash. Ranting about conspiracy theories, when you've ignored or not bothered to research a fundamental fact, and then accuse me of trolling is just tedious. It suggests a williness to believe the extraordinary over the plausible while ignoring fundamental facts.

Could you really fake a 747 crashing into UCD at nine o clock in the morning? Because thats what you're suggesting, thousands of people mistaking a missile for a jumbo jet.

miju

if your not willing to partake in a level headed discussion WITHOUT resorting to insulting people on this forum then consider yourself on a week long sabbatical

edit: consider it permanent after those PM's I recieved

billy the squid

I was bored so decided to look this up

miju

so bearing that map in mind the plane would have approached from somwhere along the bottom half of the image, you can make out what seems to car parks and so forth and given the exapnse of land it's on there REALLY should be at least 1 other camera that captured the explosion

billy the squid

_raptor_ wrote:

so bearing that map in mind the plane would have approached from somwhere along the bottom half of the image, you can make out what seems to car parks and so forth and given the exapnse of land it's on there REALLY should be at least 1 other camera that captured the explosion

indeed, where i work there are at least eight cameras in the carpark. and it aint the pentagon either.

Ghost Rider

Several people I know take very seriously the theory that the destruction of the World Trade September (WTO) on September 11th 2001 was an "inside job". There are a number of variant theories that can be subsumed under this general heading but they all seem to have one thing in common: the belief that US authorities didn't merely stand by and permit "911" to happen, but actively planned and engineered it.

(NB: in order to encourage reasonable debate, I'm electing to call this "the 911 inside job theory" rather than "the 911 conspiracy theory".)

One apparently very detailed source of arguments for the inside job theory is a book entitled "Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by someone called Michael Ruppert. His own take on 911 is very specific (it concerns the geopolitical ramifications of the phenomenon known as "peak oil") but he appears to be one of the more influential exponents of the inside job theory, even among those who don't subscribe to all of his positions (e.g. on the politics of oil).

I haven't read Ruppert's book. It is over 1000 pages long and an unwelcoming prospect for someone who (like me) suspects that it may turn out to consist of, at best, a series of unanswerable questions and, at worst, a piece of highly imaginative fiction written by someone with a very sophisticated form of paranoia.

However, I will wade through Ruppert's book, and lots more besides, if someone can show me that the arguments contained in it are compelling enough. A few people have tried but I remain unconvinced thus far.

Is anyone here familiar with the book?

More generally, does anyone here have what might be considered an "unorthodox" opinion on 911?

(I understand the orthodoxy to be a broad spectrum of theories holding one belief in common: namely, that - whether preventable or not - 911 was not an inside job.)

Hobbes

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

Has the most concise timeline I have seen that is independent investigation. Also the 9/11 commision PDF is good reading too.

Ghost Rider

What's your own position on the subject, Hobbes?

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

Has the most concise timeline I have seen that is independent investigation. Also the 9/11 commision PDF is good reading too.

Zombrex

Ghost Rider wrote:

(NB: in order to encourage reasonable debate, I'm electing to call this "the 911 inside job theory" rather than "the 911 conspiracy theory".)

What theories are you talking about specifically?

The "inside job" theories have ranged from the CIA knowing the attacks were going to take place but doing nothing, right up to the rather silly ideas that the planes were flown by CIA operatives (seemingly suicidal CIA opperatives), or even that the planes were flown buy remote control.

Having listened to some views of these theories on the skeptics board, it's my opinion that if people really want to see "evidence" of a US government conspiricy they will find it in the smallest things.

Most of the conspricies centre around what the conspiricy theorists believe should have been the response to the events. When the events didn't unfold in this "correct" way they believe in a conspiricy. An example would be the talk about what a plane crashing into the pentgon should have looked like. And therefore because it didn't, someone must be lying. This ignores the fact that most of these people have no idea what a plane crashing into the pentegon should look like in the first place.

The most common is the belief that the US government wouldn't just sit back and do nothing once they knew an attack was underway. They should have scrambled jets earlier (there's that word again, "should"). The government agencies should have been talking to each other. They should have been able to stop most of the attacks after the first plane hit the first tower. Because they didn't they must have been in on it from the start. That ignores the simple fact that maybe, just maybe, they f**ked up ... but the US government f**king something up .. impossible surely

As someone once said, be careful you don't confuse idioticy for maliciousness.

Royale with Cheese

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=291106

Ghost Rider

Ah - wasn't aware of that poll. Thanks. Will check it out.

Wicknight, I stated explicitly in my original post which theories I'm referring to - namely, the ones that believe 911 was an inside job. That is to say, all those theories that believe it was planned by US authorities. Accidents or failures of communication do not make what is commonly referred to as an inside job.

In fact I share your skepticism about the inside job theory. However, I was hoping that by being somewhat even-handed, it might provide a platform for people to give me compelling reasons in the other direction. You see, I've heard a lot of arguments verbally from various people and I think many of those arguments are compelling only to people who are inclined (for whatever reason) to believe in the inside job theory before any evidence is adduced.

Dr J wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=291106

Hobbes

Ghost Rider wrote:

What's your own position on the subject, Hobbes?

Has been discussed before.

I believe that a number of people in the Administration were well aware of an attack but thought it would be a hijacking.They initially probably let it happen as it was in thier interest to let the action take place (not the crashing, but hijacking). Both for money reasons and political agenda. Although after Kathrina it could just be because the administration are so inept at thier jobs.


MOO.

Zombrex

Ghost Rider wrote:

Accidents or failures of communication do not make what is commonly referred to as an inside job.

You didn't read my post properly. I am saying that the failure of the US government to act as seen by some as evidence for the inside job theories.

Also, I was simply asking you to be more specific, cause as I said there are hundreds of theories that could fall under "inside job"

Ghost Rider wrote:

I think many of those arguments are compelling only to people who are inclined (for whatever reason) to believe in the inside job theory before any evidence is adduced.

I would agree ... but, as you see on the Conspiricy board, expect to get a lot of "this should have happened, it didn't, therefore conspiricy" style arugments, rather than any actual evidence. And it is hard to argue with "this should have.." style posts