Unusual 9/11 video

[Ron Collins]

A real President with no fore knowledge would have leapt to his feet and made his way as quick as possible to some sort of command center. I guess the pet goat story was just getting good.

I think that is the wrong thing to do. I don't want the President to look to the World as if he was terrified. I think that would have been a worse scenario. I am no Bush lover. I think that is clear. But, I don't think you can point to the scenario at the school and say "Yep he knew and wasn't concerned." If he knew he and others would have had a plan to convey the proper amount of concern and visually do things that looked "Presidential". I think his considered look and indecision was more real chock than anything else. Presidents are human. Hell indecision and confusion were rampant that day.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

No ... with a bought media in the US, the infrastructure for a cover up is already there. And ... a massive operation is not needed if the right people are in the right place at the right time. Also things are heavily compartmentalised in the military and intelligence services so only a few people at the top knew everything. I'm not even entirely sure that Bush knew everything of what was going down on 9/11. Look at his face when he's told the second plane has hit. It looks like someone has just kicked him in the teeth. He's got a look on his face that kind of says "oh my god, the zionist crazies have really done it ...".

The media in America is not "bought". Oh it is paid for. By advertisers at rates divined from the ratings of people watching their station. The media has attacked everyone. Politicians, Military, private industry and each other. I doubt seriously that thier is some secret cabal (illuminati style) that control the media and the stories it reports. If this were the 30's - mid 60's I would say it was governed chiefly by the U.S. Government. But since Watergate, all that has gone away. Corporate competition to deliver a bigger, better news product has made that old system extinct in the U.S.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think that is the wrong thing to do. I don't want the President to look to the World as if he was terrified.

Well, that isn't really the point. What was the established protocol? The problem with what happened at the school was that the Secret Service allowed the President to remain in a known location while planes were crashing into buildings. You can argue that they didn't know "we were under attack" but it doesn't seem reasonable particularity after the second plane hit the building. Also the President, by remaining in this known location, was placing not only himself, but everyone else there in great danger were he also a target, which would have been a reasonable assumption (or precaution) to take. It's a extremely odd occurrence on day of extremely odd occurrences.

 

[pixelsmith]

I think that is the wrong thing to do. I don't want the President to look to the World as if he was terrified. I think that would have been a worse scenario.

to me leaping up and leaving quickly does not indicate terror. He looked like he was thinking "whatever dude, deal with it".

 

[Ron Collins]

Well, that isn't really the point. What was the established protocol? The problem with what happened at the school was that the Secret Service allowed the President to remain in a known location while planes were crashing into buildings. You can argue that they didn't know "we were under attack" but it doesn't seem reasonable particularity after the second plane hit the building. Also the President, by remaining in this known location, was placing not only himself, but everyone else there in great danger were he also a target, which would have been a reasonable assumption (or precaution) to take. It's a extremely odd occurrence on day of extremely odd occurrences.

I agree that is most perplexing. Has this aspect been explained officially?

 

[trainedobserver]

I agree that is most perplexing. Has this aspect been explained officially?

Not to my knowledge. To futher complicate the scenerio. On two seperate occasions the President said that he saw the first plane strike the building which _should_ have been logistically impossible for him to do.

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

I am not trying imply that the President had anything to do with it, was involved in a conspiracy or anything else of the sort. I am merely pointing out another extremely odd occurance on a day of extremely odd occurances.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

...the media in America is not "bought". Oh it is paid for. ...

The media has been influenced, controlled, manipulated ... pick one ...by the CIA for a very long time.

 

[Cabal]

Well a very weird video with several references made to sources within the government already analyzing the event and making conclusions. Bottom line is who the hell knows?

I don't need to know that 911 was a conspiracy to know that the people running the country are violent, power hungry and are subject to no restraints and are a threat to the freedom of the average Joe on the street as well as people around the world we drop bombs on.

But it's fun to speculate.... Having said all that, I don't think it has to be a mass conspiracy to get some government agency to leak a fake story like this, especially if there is only one outlet reporting this. I mean we get fake stories as headlines all the time from the White House and Federal Reserve and no one in the major media does jack crap about it unless some bloggers call them out on it and it stinks too much for them to ignore. There are countless examples which I won't get into now.

The major media usually just rephrases government press releases. Now realize our government is a fairly dysfunctional group. Like any gang, you have infighting and conflicts. You got your two parties, your FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. and they're all fighting for money and piower with infighting internally as well. So they tend to make their own game plans that sometimes conflict with the other organizations.

Hence it would not surprise me that some people within one of these agencies have some crap already storyboarded to be sent to the media in the event of an attack (some mill/industry complex guys with a hard-on to get us into a Jewish/Palestinian war) and as soon as something happens anywhere near Camp David (maybe not as close as they'd like) they use it as an excuse to try and incite anger at Palestinians. It's like the NYC/Mosque thing that people are using to their advantage only in this case the incident and the site of the crime wound up being a little too far away, and maybe the government criminals miscalculated.

Didn't you guys hear the Terry Hansen interview?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-300603436332211775#

 

[paraschtick]

The media has been influenced, controlled, manipulated ... pick one ...by the CIA for a very long time.

And a great proportion of the newspapers are owned by a small number of people who come from the same community. That is an unfortunate fact. And it isn't those mooslims, lets put it that way.

Here is an article admitting to a Jewish bias in the US media ... written by a Phillip Weiss:

http://mondoweiss.net/2008/02/do-jews-dominat.html

I would site other sources but I'm trying hard to find one that doesn't appear on the surface to be anti-semitic to those who don't know better ...

 

[trainedobserver]

And a great proportion of the newspapers are owned by a small number of people who come from the same community.

I see no reason to go there. This type of talk is never productive.

 

[pixelsmith]

I agree that is most perplexing. Has this aspect been explained officially?

Most perplexing is this paper by Dr. Steven Jones. trainedobserver posted it on the thread that Angel closed. I don't there was proper discussion on it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

I challenge Angel and others who believe what was hand fed you via the media to read this report. I guarantee you will find it interesting.


following is a short excerpt from the report above.

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief
statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of
collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a
likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the
probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete
collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete
collapse of WTC7 is included:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the
fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without
much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office
furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at
very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is
the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so
that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't
even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through
history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced
collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just
these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and
not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for
WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of
similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.],
gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of
oil and natural gas…” (Ryan, 2005).

 

[paraschtick]

I see no reason to go there. This type of talk is never productive.

I'm just stating something that people seem to steer well clear off but is extremely important in not only 9/11 but in the whole area of US Foreign policy. It not only affects the politicians ideas about the Middle East etc but it also influences the general public into believing that they're going to be invaded or taken over by Islamic extremists touting sharia law (which considering that say Elena Kagan is Jewish ... well I don't think thats really very likely).

It is something that will eventually I hope get addressed but until then, I believe that there will be more fearmongering and probably more wars in the Middle East ...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Most perplexing is this paper by Dr. Steven Jones. trainedobserver posted it on the thread that Angel closed. I don't there was proper discussion on it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

I challenge Angel and others who believe what was hand fed you via the media to read this report. I guarantee you will find it interesting.


following is a short excerpt from the report above.

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief
statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of
collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a
likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the
probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete
collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete
collapse of WTC7 is included:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the
fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without
much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office
furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at
very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is
the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so
that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't
even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through
history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced
collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just
these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and
not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for
WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of
similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.],
gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of
oil and natural gas…” (Ryan, 2005).

I wonder how this one person's opinion trumps that of the other experts involved. I don't find his speculation interesting at all. He's just making wild speculation that has no proof. You should talk to the people that had family in the hijacked air planes - see what they think.


With regards to the collapse, you can read this:

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

and this:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Thank you. I am no longer interested in taking part in 9/11 conspiracy theory discussion. Perhaps we don't know everything that happened that day, but when people start talking about controlled demolition and the American government aiding in the highjacking of the airplanes, I tune out since there's no evidence to support it.

That the government used the tragedy to start a war? That is highly probable and likely.

 

[pixelsmith]

I wonder how this one person's opinion trumps that of the other experts involved. I don't find his speculation interesting at all. He's just making wild speculation that has no proof. You should talk to the people that had family in the hijacked air planes - see what they think.


With regards to the collapse, you can read this:

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

and this:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Thank you. I am no longer interested in taking part in 9/11 conspiracy theory discussion. Perhaps we don't know everything that happened that day, but when people start talking about controlled demolition and the American government aiding in the highjacking of the airplanes, I tune out since there's no evidence to support it.

That the government used the tragedy to start a war? That is highly probable and likely.

One person's opinion?!? You obviously did not read the peer reviewed paper.
It is not surprising you are not interested in taking part in a 9/11 discussion. It is hard admitting when you are wrong. At first, I jumped on the same ignorant band wagon you are on. Then, being a skeptical person, I check the facts. I realized I was VERY WRONG.

 

[Portland Magician]

I don't plan on entering into a debate about 9/11 as most people's minds are made up on the issue, but I do want to bring a video to this forum's attention that should raise a few eyebrows for believers of either side:

The answers to the questions on this video would put our in fighting to rest.

 

[pixelsmith]

i see no video. just a google search list.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

One person's opinion?!? You obviously did not read the peer reviewed paper.
It is not surprising you are not interested in taking part in a 9/11 discussion. It is hard admitting when you are wrong. At first, I jumped on the same ignorant band wagon you are on. Then, being a skeptical person, I check the facts. I realized I was VERY WRONG.

You can believe what you want to believe - I tend to go where the consensus is and the more likely explanation. WHat you believe requires several leaps in logic I do not want to take. Kind of like the other topic you are so adamant about having changed your mind to the correct side. You know the one, where you think that humans have had no effect on the world's climate? Where you disagree with the experts as well. Sometimes I feel as though you want attention.

Just to be clear: you think that the government of the United States was responsable for having the airplanes hijacked and planted explosives in the towers, correct?

 

[pixelsmith]

You can believe what you want to believe - I tend to go where the consensus is and the more likely explanation. WHat you believe requires several leaps in logic I do not want to take. Kind of like the other topic you are so adamant about having changed your mind to the correct side. You know the one, where you think that humans have had no effect on the world's climate? Where you disagree with the experts as well. Sometimes I feel as though you want attention.

Just to be clear: you think that the government of the United States was responsable for having the airplanes hijacked and planted explosives in the towers, correct?

you are not very clear on this stuff OR what i believe. our government cant handle mailing letters much less what you think i believe.

I tend to go where the consensus is...

consensus belief system? lamo... nuff said.

---------- Post added at 03:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 AM ----------

I don't plan on entering into a debate about 9/11 as most people's minds are made up on the issue, but I do want to bring a video to this forum's attention that should raise a few eyebrows for believers of either side:

The answers to the questions on this video would put our in fighting to rest.

Yes those simple questions would be very helpful. I highly doubt Angel will check that video out.

 

[Hoffmeister]

I'm not one to usually get involved in 9/11 conspiracy talk as its fairly pointless and tends to get so nasty, but I watched a doc today which did enough to convince me there wasn't a conspiracy atleast behind the building 7 destruction.
Watch Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower [BBC] Online Free

For there to have been a conspiracy behind its destruction, there would have had to be so many people in on it that i don't believe its possible.
Do i think that Bush jumped on the opportunity to capitalise on the situation? most definately
But the reason I don't think he was in on it has always been the same... look at his face in the footage when he is first told of the situation.. imo that is NOT a guy who was expecting that to happen, and he is too stupid to have acted really well

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

I might add, that I do still think there is a question mark over the fact that the pentagon had way too small a hole in it for a plane to have hit, and the pilot apparently did some amazing manoeuvre which is almost impossible, but thats not enough evidence for me on the whole.

 

[Plant Life]

Douglas Rushkoff on 9/11 and conspiracy theorists.:

I have to admit that I do this with some trepidation. I can already feel the assault on my inbox. But after a good long think about potential time and energy being lost by our entire community to senseless and ultimately inconsequential musings, I have to come out and say it: the alternative theories about 9-11 are wrong. Worse, the endless theorizing and speculation about trajectories, explosives, military tests, fake airplane parts and remote control navigation actually distracts some of our best potential activists from addressing the more substantive matters at hand.
Yes, I believe that 9-11 theorizing debilitates the counterculture. It robs us of some potentially creative thinkers. It replaces truly important questions with trivial ones. It marginalizes more constructive investigation of American participation in the development of Al Qaeda as well as its subsequent aggravation. And perhaps worst of all, it is precisely the sort of activity that government disinformation specialists would want us to be involved with.
9-11 theorists are unwittingly performing as the unpaid minions of the administration’s propaganda wing. (At least most of them are unpaid; no doubt, some of the loudest are working as contractors for the same agencies whose activities they pretend to deconstruct.) That’s why, instead of nodding along with their long-winded, preposterous yarns under the false belief that any critique is better than no critique, we—the informed, intelligent, and reasonable members of the war resistance—must instead disassociate ourselves from this drivel. In other words, we must draw the line between the kind of analysis done by Greg Palast and that done by Pilots for Truth. If we don’t apply discipline to our thinking, we risk falling into the trap that even some of our best intellectuals have—like Harper’s editor Lewis Lapham, who on reading a bit too much 9-11 conspiracy, has concluded that it all has some merit.
I’m all for supposing. It’s how the best science fiction gets written, the best science gets speculated, the best innovations get developed, and the wildest thoughts get hatched. But forensics is a different beast. As any detective will tell you, the most straightforward solution is usually the right one. As one NYPD detective explained to me, “Nineteen hijackers took four planes and crashed them at different places: WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon and a field in PA. These accounts broadly correspond to all that was observed and heard that day, who was on the flight manifests, where they came from and what they claimed to want to do, and yet do not involve vast US government conspiracies and do not need the coordinated, perfect lying of tens of thousands of people about the mass murder of their fellow citizens and those they gave their oath to spend their careers protecting.”
True enough, these huge incidents have produced many unexpected details. The plane in Pennsylvania scattered its parts differently than we might have expected it to. Lamp posts near the Pentagon got knocked over when we wouldn’t have thought were vulnerable given the altitude of the approaching plane. Building number 7 fell hours later, even though it was never directly hit by a plane. Video photography of the collapses show the towers falling quite neatly, as if in a planned detonation.
But strange and unexpected details don’t necessarily point to the fallacy of the central premise—especially when the alternative involves the active coordination of thousands, if not tens of thousands of citizens in a conspiracy to attack the United States. We must look at what each intriguing detail or inconsistency actually says about how the crime took place. Again, in the words of my favorite member of the NYPD, “These explanations are principally based on the fatally flawed idea that any confusion or misinterpretation or differing accounts in times of crisis must be the product of purposeful lies. They neglect the idea that in crises, and when there is mass confusion, people do not have specific recollections, only general ones that are highly subjective, such as what direction a plane sounded like it was coming from. Their stories seek to poke holes in prevailing truth, yet offer no alternative that could be seen as remotely plausible.”
For example, the Pilots for 911 Truth website explains: “Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a “boxcutter”. (Exaggeration added for size of Hani, he was tiny, lets just put it that way). We at pilotsfor911truth.org feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN.”
What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? Was Captain Burlingame murdered? Or was he the willing participant in the government’s effort to sell the invasion of Iraq to America—so much so that he chose to enter into a suicidal pact? Or was the hijacker bigger than his passport suggests? Or is it implausible that a small dark man from an undeveloped country was able to overpower a big, trained, white man from a Superpower?
And that’s where I suspect all this theorizing really takes us: to the heart of a racist jingoism worse even than the triumphalism justifying our foreign policy to begin with. They can’t bring themselves to accept that our big bad government can really be so swiftly outfoxed by a dozen relatively untrained Arab guys. And rather than go there, they’d prefer to maintain the myth of American hegemony. On a certain level, it feels better to believe that we are only vulnerable by our leaders’ sick choice—not by our adversarsies’ increasing strength and prowess.
But maintaining this comforting illusion comes at a price. It paralyzes our ability to do the real work necessary to parse what is going on. I mean, on a certain level, what does it matter whether Osama Bin Laden, a CIA-trained former ally is currently acting on his own or as an operative of some covert semi-governmental organization or corporation? We can’t even begin to ask these questions when the people who might be most qualified to look into them are instead crippled by their own ethnocentrism.
The cultivation of a critically aware public is too important right now for us to entertain this silliness any longer. When a full 40 percent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, we can’t afford the luxury of this delusional behavior. We are the alternative to the FoxNews version of events, and we must strive to present a more responsible alternative to Karl Rove’s disinformation.
The war profiteers are absolutely delighted that so many of us are still distracted by this phantom menace. And they delight in our belief that the central government is really powerful enough to pull something like this off. I’ve been interacting with intelligence people for the past three years, going to conferences and writing articles promoting an open-source approach to national security. After these encounters, I can assure you—anyone who knows anything about our government knows that a conspiracy on this order is well beyond their capabilities. Hell, the administration couldn’t even “find” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They can’t even reveal a Valerie Plame or fire the few remaining honest US attorneys without a complete backfire. Conspiracy is not what these folks are good at.
Our government excels at doing its really bad stuff out in the open. They break laws in order to spy on citizens, and refuse to acknowledge objections from lawmakers or justice. They take taxpayers money and give it to the companies they run. They acknowledge the many billions of dollars that go missing, and offer not even a shrug. They put the people who formerly lobbied on behalf of industries in positions running the agencies that are supposed to be regulating them.
By looking under the rug for what isn’t even there, we neglect the horror show that is in plain view. In the process, we make it even easier for the criminals running our government to perpetuate their illegal, unethical and un-American activities.
In fact, the most logical conclusion I can draw from the existing evidence is that 9-11 theorists are themselves covert government operatives, dedicated to confusing the public, distracting activists from their tasks, equating all dissent with the lunatic fringe, and provoking the counterculture’s misplaced belief in the competency of its foes.
That’s the real conspiracy.

 

[pixelsmith]

I'm not one to usually get involved in 9/11 conspiracy talk as its fairly pointless and tends to get so nasty, but I watched a doc today which did enough to convince me there wasn't a conspiracy atleast behind the building 7 destruction.
Watch Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower [BBC] Online Free

For there to have been a conspiracy behind its destruction, there would have had to be so many people in on it that i don't believe its possible.
Do i think that Bush jumped on the opportunity to capitalise on the situation? most definately
But the reason I don't think he was in on it has always been the same... look at his face in the footage when he is first told of the situation.. imo that is NOT a guy who was expecting that to happen, and he is too stupid to have acted really well

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

I might add, that I do still think there is a question mark over the fact that the pentagon had way too small a hole in it for a plane to have hit, and the pilot apparently did some amazing manoeuvre which is almost impossible, but thats not enough evidence for me on the whole.

LMFAO!!! BBC! LOL!!!...good one...

 

[paraschtick]

In fact, the most logical conclusion I can draw from the existing evidence is that 9-11 theorists are themselves covert government operatives, dedicated to confusing the public, distracting activists from their tasks, equating all dissent with the lunatic fringe, and provoking the counterculture’s misplaced belief in the competency of its foes.
That’s the real conspiracy.

Well you're probably right that a number of 9/11 "theorists" are probably controlled opposition ... see Eric Hufschmid author of Painful Questions, Alex Jones of course, probably Jason Bermas as well ... and thats just the start.

And you're right there was of course a conspiracy but ... Arabs??? Nahh ... total bollards I'm afraid. I won't go into why ... again ... because I've talked myself blue in the face about it. But I will say one thing and that is Cui bono ... who benefited from it? It certainly wasn't the Arabs/Muslims. Look how the US has gone into the Middle East and killed millions of ordinary people. Doesn't look like they benefitted much from what they did.

Anyway here is a guy called Charles Giuliani (no ... no relation ... Charles seems to be human with a soul, not like his namesake). This is part one of a rant on the strange things about 9/11 that show that it wasn't a bunch of Arabs with ... boxcutters (you cannot make this stuff up!).

Unfortunately you will have to fast forward through 20 mins of music and adverts since something went wrong during the programme but you'll get there in the end. Anyway ... after nearly 10 years it still shows quite clearly that people really just won't face facts about 9/11. All the evidence is there in plain site but very few people want to address the fact that parts of their own government in collusion with an outside traitorous power killed thousands of their own people.

http://mp3.oraclebroadcasting.com/Truth_Hertz/Truth_Hertz.2010-09-07_16k.mp3

When will they ever learn :question: