Not even a mention of 9/11 !

Last-12-Exit

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

ah yes....never has there been so much consensus on anything on the train. I'm a loon, what can I say. Amazes me that some otherwise reasonable people can just let go of all the unanswered shit about that day and sling mud at anyone who continues to ask questions. No one in positions of power are willing to kill for more power, or what they believe to be the greater good, right?
I'll just stop and let you guys think what you will - I won't be convincing anyone of anything else after 14 years anyway. Not that I give a fuck about my credibility here, but why exert the energy if people are comfortable with the explanations given and think I'm nuts for not believing it wholesale? (this is where everyone will say without specifics "I don't believe all of it and don't trust my government", while calling me nuts for believing less, and trusting less than they do).
I have no clue what happened, only questions, and problems with the aftermath. I do believe there was complicity inside the US, or at least foreknowledge, but if people want to accept the half-assed, shoddy (or non-existant) investigations into the money trails, who knew what and when, how AQ was able to coordinate this on the one day that air defense and chain of command were completely compromised from top to bottom, the questions about the hijackers themselves, and the lack of scientific consensus questioned by those whacko architects, engineers, firefighters, pilorts, victim's families et al....then hey...have it 'er.

benjs said:

Drowned Out said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned Out said:

Last-12-Exit said:

JUST A GIRL said:

rr165892 said:

Which questions about the any of the 3 buildings collapses are unanswered? I don't know how else a building could fall given the damage. I'm not a structural engineer, but I don't see how else it could've went down.

The Pentagon is a different story. But until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe a plane flew into the building. There would be some kind of evidence somewhere that would incdicate a missile hitting that building. Plus, I don't believe that many people can keep their mouths shut for that ling in it was a conspiracy.

I'm not an engineer either (tho I do have 20+ years experience in construction / management, which has given me a basic understanding of structural engineering), but there are hundreds of them who disbelieve the official and widely accepted reports enough to join an organization and put their reputations on the line. To me, if it was structural damage and fire, the buildings couldn't have fallen for the most part into their own footprints; there would have been more toppling, more resistance in areas that weren't as heavily damaged or burned, and a much less uniform fall. To ask which questions haven't been answered puts your faith in the answers presented in the official story, which is folly imo...
There may not be evidence of a missile hitting the pentagon (most of it is classified for some reason), but there isn't home-run evidence of a 757 hitting it either, so why believe the official story instead of keeping an open mind? There is just so much wrong with the official story, esp in regards to the pentagon. Circling the building to approach from the side that was empty and reinforced instead of hitting it on the side that would have caused more damage, and where Rumsfeld and other high ranking officials resided....hitting it 10 ft off the ground instead of from the top where it would have caused 1000x more damage....the lack of damage to the ground, the lack of damage from the tail and wings....it doesn't add up.

The people 'can't keep their mouth shut' fallback is convenient and (sorry, but) lazy....there were plenty of whistleblowers, many of whom have met untimely, suspicious deaths....have you ever actually looked into what you're saying? 6 out of 10 the commissioners have called the commission report a joke! Michael Cleland resigned, saying the report was being deliberately compromised by the president himself.
The thing with the whole 'no whistleblower' theory is that there would be very, very few people with details on an entirely over-arching plan. Some people might have knowledge of wrongdoing on a small scale, but their complaints likely wouldn't get a whole lot of attention because it doesn't imply more than a few people who no one has ever heard of. The suspicious deaths were likely also a warning to other whistleblowers. Would you risk your life and the lives of your family to tell people that one small, specific part of the 9/11 report was incorrect, knowing it wouldn't really result in anything? The people with knowledge of a large scale conspiracy were probably in on it enough to be implicated by their own whistleblowing....not to mention all the stock transactions that precluded the attacks, and the hundreds of millions (or way more depending what you believe) in missing gold would work well as hush money (which accepting would also make you complicit even if you had a change of heart).

From back to front... Firstly, I wouldn't write off any idea no matter how absurd, that people in power positions would do to maintain or seize further power. I'm typically a believer in Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor gives me two conflicting opinions: the most obvious and most elegant of all viable options for an occurrence is the most likely reality, but then also that power has a tendency to lead to corruption, and then all scenarios become a game of chess. I wouldn't write off a conspiracy any sooner than I'd opt to take my government's words at face value.

My degree is as a structural engineer, and while I didn't practice for long, the rule of thumb for designing redundancy in load paths is to always engineer for devastation to aim the loads as close to straight down as possible - and not have lateral loads create a toppling situation (the Jenga should fall down within a radius, and not stray off the table). Of course, while buildings are designed for snow, wind, storms, assemblies, quake, and other loading patterns - no engineer save for a high-end PhD student is learning how to design a terrorist-proof building. It's just not economical. You're talking a MASSIVE load with load paths coming from unforeseen trajectories, affecting several crucial and redundant load-dispersing structural members simultaneously, and creating immense heat which not only alters structural members' strength capacities, but also how loads will disperse (i.e. the load paths designed by engineers become invalid at the instance of intense heat with abnormal spreading patterns).

There are a lot of variables, and I think if two brilliant structural engineers were put in a room, they could have at it for ages before concluding the natural fall was feasible or infeasible.

Thanks for your input. I agree with your last paragraph, can't dispute much of the body of your post (don't really have the time nor energy to get into the few things I'd comment on), and also agree about Occam's razor - in theory it makes some sense to me, but it's just too convenient.

what exactly is it that you feel is unanswered?

callen

Gern Blansten said:

The whole conspiracy idea is absurd. It would be much easier to manufacture intelligence of WMD to justify going to war. Why would you need to blow up a building AND manufacture intelligence of WMD?

Just fucking ridiculous thinking.

Word

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

what exactly is it that you feel is unanswered?

I've briefly mentioned a few in this thread....many are contained in the documentary I posted. I'll try to make time to form an actual list so that I can see if you guys point me to where they were answered. Or maybe not This topic is way too time consuming, esp when you're on the outside of popular opinion. I don't have time to reply to one person, then address the follow ups from others.

btw - there were a lot of witness accounts that said what hit the pentagon was a small passenger jet and unless I'm missing something the 2-frame video you referenced doesnt' look conclusively like a 757 to me.

benjs

Gern Blansten said:

The whole conspiracy idea is absurd. It would be much easier to manufacture intelligence of WMD to justify going to war. Why would you need to blow up a building AND manufacture intelligence of WMD?

Just fucking ridiculous thinking.

There are two effective ways to sway public opinion: one, with logic; and two, with appeal to emotion. Call it coincidence or call it suspicious and possibly intentional - what's hard to refute is that those who questioned the logic of the manufactured intelligence of WMDs would have been silenced as they were deemed insensitive assholes at the time for merely questioning the emotional attachment to the pursuit of revenge for 9/11 (as evidenced by how personally some take the thought of anyone but Bin Laden being responsible for the attacks fourteen years later). By happenstance or not, a crazy and unfounded war was rationalized and sold largely based on 9/11.

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

The whole conspiracy idea is absurd. It would be much easier to manufacture intelligence of WMD to justify going to war. Why would you need to blow up a building AND manufacture intelligence of WMD?

Just fucking ridiculous thinking.

I don't think Colin Powell could have convinced the american people that a full scale invasion of Iraq was necessary....they royally fucked up the WMD claims as is....if they were the sole basis of an invasion, it would not have had public support. Even with both the attacks AND the WMD claims, there were the largest worldwide protests in history prior to attacking Iraq. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were just the beginning of what that event meant for the MIC - look at the public opinions of the refugee crisis, the wars in Syria, Libya, et al....this is all sold to the public by evoking 9/11; the images, the anger, the opinions on islam burned into our psyches by the attacks are what tip the scales away from opposition to war, imho...

So manufacture pictures of Bin Laden pooping on the flag or wiping his ass with the bible. That would fire them up.

funny, but....Do you agree with what I said in response or not?
an aside - a year or so ago, I had a little fb debate with a friend who was insisting that Syria was asking for our help in fighting ISIS and promoting more war in the ME. In the course of the debate, the guy says to me totally out of the blue "do you think people in the US government were responsible for 9/11?' To which I replied something along the lines of 'yes, I believe people had foreknowledge, or were complicit in the attacks'....and he tried to end the debate there, saying basically that if I believed that then I just hate america and the discussion was no longer worth having.
Just an anecdote, but an example of how that day formed so many opinions on war and the middle east; it can be evoked at the snap of the fingers, whether relevant or not, and the emotions come rushing back. The WMD claims alone wouldn't sustain a pro-war attitude for long, and if they were ever proven to be a fabrication, they'd do more harm to that cause than good if the anti-terror fight was intended to last beyond the first two wars.

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

The whole conspiracy idea is absurd. It would be much easier to manufacture intelligence of WMD to justify going to war. Why would you need to blow up a building AND manufacture intelligence of WMD?

Just fucking ridiculous thinking.

I don't think Colin Powell could have convinced the american people that a full scale invasion of Iraq was necessary....they royally fucked up the WMD claims as is....if they were the sole basis of an invasion, it would not have had public support. Even with both the attacks AND the WMD claims, there were the largest worldwide protests in history prior to attacking Iraq. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were just the beginning of what that event meant for the MIC - look at the public opinions of the refugee crisis, the wars in Syria, Libya, et al....this is all sold to the public by evoking 9/11; the images, the anger, the opinions on islam burned into our psyches by the attacks are what tip the scales away from opposition to war, imho...

So manufacture pictures of Bin Laden pooping on the flag or wiping his ass with the bible. That would fire them up.

funny, but....Do you agree with what I said in response or not?
an aside - a year or so ago, I had a little fb debate with a friend who was insisting that Syria was asking for our help in fighting ISIS and promoting more war in the ME. In the course of the debate, the guy says to me totally out of the blue "do you think people in the US government were responsible for 9/11?' To which I replied something along the lines of 'yes, I believe people had foreknowledge, or were complicit in the attacks'....and he tried to end the debate there, saying basically that if I believed that then I just hate america and the discussion was no longer worth having.
Just an anecdote, but an example of how that day formed so many opinions on war and the middle east; it can be evoked at the snap of the fingers, whether relevant or not, and the emotions come rushing back. The WMD claims alone wouldn't sustain a pro-war attitude for long, and if they were ever proven to be a fabrication, they'd do more harm to that cause than good if the anti-terror fight was intended to last beyond the first two wars.

How does United 93 fit into this?

Drowned Out

question with a question?
I don't know....
Your turn.

Drowned Out

benjs said:

Gern Blansten said:

The whole conspiracy idea is absurd. It would be much easier to manufacture intelligence of WMD to justify going to war. Why would you need to blow up a building AND manufacture intelligence of WMD?

Just fucking ridiculous thinking.

There are two effective ways to sway public opinion: one, with logic; and two, with appeal to emotion. Call it coincidence or call it suspicious and possibly intentional - what's hard to refute is that those who questioned the logic of the manufactured intelligence of WMDs would have been silenced as they were deemed insensitive assholes at the time for merely questioning the emotional attachment to the pursuit of revenge for 9/11 (as evidenced by how personally some take the thought of anyone but Bin Laden being responsible for the attacks fourteen years later). By happenstance or not, a crazy and unfounded war was rationalized and sold largely based on 9/11.

word

callen

Ha! Touché'.

callen

Hey anythings possible and I dont trust my government and I'm not 100% sure who was at controls. I though feel planes did the damage and towers came down due to way they were constructed. Also acknowledge US govt. has lied to get us into warS , plural.

Damnit keep having to correct spelling due to grammar nazi's.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

question with a question?
I don't know....
Your turn.

No I don't agree with what you posted. Public opinion wasn't necessary....my point was that they could make public opinion whatever they wanted without blowing up buildings. Make up children being raped, make up bibles being burned, etc.

Don't you agree that it would be much easier to create more outrage without blowing up buildings? Missionaries being raped, babies being burned alive, etc. And if you believe the gov't was behind it how in the hell did they pull it off?

Reasonable thinking will tell you that it wasn't a gov't operation. United 93 proves that.

Drowned Out

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it.
Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable.
Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know?
If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?

I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?

Last-12-Exit

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

I do think that people did read between the lines and knew something was up. But due to the bureaucratic process at the time, the information wasn't passed up the chain of command fast enough. Or information was not processed properly. Or the Cia and FBI refused to share information. Probably all three scenarios. What I don't believe is that there were government officials that actively knew that planes were going g to be hijacked and used as misses into American buildings on September 10, 2001.

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it.
Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable.
Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know?
If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?

I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?

I really don't understand your logic. Al Qaeda was behind it...all of the evidence points to that.

US MIC or intelligence apparatus was not behind it...no evidence points to that

Our military is completely capable of wiping out NYC...that has nothing to do with this.

mcgruff10

so what would be the reasons the us government would orchestrate 9/11? or even lie about 9/11?
making the war with iraq easier to sell? (but why afghanistan first? and what the hell is there to accomplish in the land of afghans)
missile shot down flight 93?
not a plane at the pentagon but a missile? and where is this missile coming from and what was it aiming at?
"planted" explosives at wtc 7 and possibly the north and south towers?

rr165892

hedonist said:

Who Princess said:

I thought a lot about it all day on Friday, just remembering. I don't think the lack of a thread says anything about it being ignored or forgotten. I wasn't on the board that day because I had jury duty, of all things. At lunch time I walked around and saw all the flags at half staff. It was sad but moving. Such a horrible day and seems hard to believe it's been 14 years.

Last year I finally watched the movie United 93. If you've never seen it, it's very powerful. No big name actors. The pilots and flight attendants are played by real pilots and flight attendants. Same for the air traffic controllers. A few individuals portray themselves. When the plane takes off, the events of the hijacking happen in real time. It will make you cry but you'll also see a group of people who decided they'd fight back the only way they could.

Who P, I've seen it and cried too. If ever faced with something even a fraction of that, I hope I can be as courageous and have such presence of mind.

As to rr and the initial post and some replies...he's a good guy (understatement) and pretty sure this came from a decent if not emotional place.

Thank you my friend.Its where I was that day.I see I wasn't alone.(Yes ,even if I didn't start the thread that day)

There are some damn good people on this board .I don't agree with some of them all the time on every issue,but I do love this place.I feel truly blessed to be part of this community.

rr165892

callen said:

RR you happy now!!!!! You got your 9-11 thread.

Yes Cal,very Much.This is an interesting discussion.

rr165892

And for the record.I DO NOT feel there was ANY conspiracy whatsoever.

Except that is for what families planes were allowed to leave the U.S. after the no fly order.Thats sketchy.

mcgruff10

rr165892 said:

And for the record.I DO NOT feel there was ANY conspiracy whatsoever.

Except that is for what families planes were allowed to leave the U.S. after the no fly order.Thats sketchy.

you are referring to saudi arabia correct?

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

Drowned Out said:

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it.
Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable.
Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know?
If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?

I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?

I really don't understand your logic. Al Qaeda was behind it...all of the evidence points to that.

US MIC or intelligence apparatus was not behind it...no evidence points to that

Our military is completely capable of wiping out NYC...that has nothing to do with this.

I don't understand your logic either. I used AQ as a comparison, and I didnt' say the US MIC or intelligence apparatus were behind this - I said IF, and that it would be a handful of people. People say the US gov could not be behind the attacks because they're bumbling fools. Which seems to imply that AQ are evil masterminds with technology, intellect, and cunning far superior to the combined resources of the US military / intelligence community. That's illogical imo. It's also illogical to think that AQ managed to pull this off at the precise moment that America's defense was asleep at the wheel, with NO help from the inside. I don't rule out AQ playing a role in this, but remember where AQ came from in the first place, remember the Bin Laden family ties to the Bush family...(and yes rr, the flights out of the country)....again, I'm trying not to speculate and that is what you're pushing me to do here. I am not the guy who is going to solve this riddle. I want someone else to

gimmesometruth27

i stayed home friday night and watched "inside 9/11" on nat geo like i do every 9/11.

i don't know if it was the cough syrup i took for the cold i was getting or what, but i noticed that they were saying quotes from phone calls between the hijackers. there was a point where muhammad atta called one of the other pilot hijackers and left "a cryptic clue" telling him the date of the attack without actually saying a date. he said simply "two sticks, and a cake with stick down" meaning 11th of september. how the fuck would anybody know that that conversation took place unless there was a third person listening, or unless the phone was tapped?? and if the phone was tapped, why was it tapped? and why did this information not come out until years after the attacks?

things like that are mysterious to me. how can anybody tell things like that from private conversations after the people in the conversation were already dead?

Last-12-Exit

gimmesometruth27 said:

i stayed home friday night and watched "inside 9/11" on nat geo like i do every 9/11.

i don't know if it was the cough syrup i took for the cold i was getting or what, but i noticed that they were saying quotes from phone calls between the hijackers. there was a point where muhammad atta called one of the other pilot hijackers and left "a cryptic clue" telling him the date of the attack without actually saying a date. he said simply "two sticks, and a cake with stick down" meaning 11th of september. how the fuck would anybody know that that conversation took place unless there was a third person listening, or unless the phone was tapped?? and if the phone was tapped, why was it tapped? and why did this information not come out until years after the attacks?

things like that are mysterious to me. how can anybody tell things like that from private conversations after the people in the conversation were already dead?

The only explanation I have to this is pointed out in an earlier post. My guess is that Attas phone was tapped. But how many hundreds or thousands of phone calls were tapped and had to be translated? My guess is that it was translated after the fact and they put 2 and 2 together. Just like most of the information on that show you are referring to. I also watch that those shows, but I watch them more than once a year.

My wife gets mad at me for watching it all these years later. I'm drawn to those 2 shows in particular. I don't know why. But I still feel the same anger 14 years later. I just had my first child in march of 01 otherwise I would have enlisted on September 12. Instead, I joined the fire department.

gimmesometruth27

Last-12-Exit said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i stayed home friday night and watched "inside 9/11" on nat geo like i do every 9/11.

i don't know if it was the cough syrup i took for the cold i was getting or what, but i noticed that they were saying quotes from phone calls between the hijackers. there was a point where muhammad atta called one of the other pilot hijackers and left "a cryptic clue" telling him the date of the attack without actually saying a date. he said simply "two sticks, and a cake with stick down" meaning 11th of september. how the fuck would anybody know that that conversation took place unless there was a third person listening, or unless the phone was tapped?? and if the phone was tapped, why was it tapped? and why did this information not come out until years after the attacks?

things like that are mysterious to me. how can anybody tell things like that from private conversations after the people in the conversation were already dead?

The only explanation I have to this is pointed out in an earlier post. My guess is that Attas phone was tapped. But how many hundreds or thousands of phone calls were tapped and had to be translated? My guess is that it was translated after the fact and they put 2 and 2 together. Just like most of the information on that show you are referring to. I also watch that those shows, but I watch them more than once a year.

My wife gets mad at me for watching it all these years later. I'm drawn to those 2 shows in particular. I don't know why. But I still feel the same anger 14 years later. I just had my first child in march of 01 otherwise I would have enlisted on September 12. Instead, I joined the fire department.

i watch these two shows every time i can catch them on tv.

i think i am angrier now than i was then.

if atta's phone was tapped, why was it tapped and when did they tap it? if it was tapped, clearly he was on the radar.

Last-12-Exit

gimmesometruth27 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i stayed home friday night and watched "inside 9/11" on nat geo like i do every 9/11.

i don't know if it was the cough syrup i took for the cold i was getting or what, but i noticed that they were saying quotes from phone calls between the hijackers. there was a point where muhammad atta called one of the other pilot hijackers and left "a cryptic clue" telling him the date of the attack without actually saying a date. he said simply "two sticks, and a cake with stick down" meaning 11th of september. how the fuck would anybody know that that conversation took place unless there was a third person listening, or unless the phone was tapped?? and if the phone was tapped, why was it tapped? and why did this information not come out until years after the attacks?

things like that are mysterious to me. how can anybody tell things like that from private conversations after the people in the conversation were already dead?

The only explanation I have to this is pointed out in an earlier post. My guess is that Attas phone was tapped. But how many hundreds or thousands of phone calls were tapped and had to be translated? My guess is that it was translated after the fact and they put 2 and 2 together. Just like most of the information on that show you are referring to. I also watch that those shows, but I watch them more than once a year.

My wife gets mad at me for watching it all these years later. I'm drawn to those 2 shows in particular. I don't know why. But I still feel the same anger 14 years later. I just had my first child in march of 01 otherwise I would have enlisted on September 12. Instead, I joined the fire department.

i watch these two shows every time i can catch them on tv.

i think i am angrier now than i was then.

if atta's phone was tapped, why was it tapped and when did they tap it? if it was tapped, clearly he was on the radar.

Sure, but perhaps he wasn't on a no fly list by then. And like I said, how long did it take for that particular phone call to get to a translators desk? Those wire taps aren't being monitored 24/7.

Drowned Out

mcgruff10 said:

1. so what would be the reasons the us government would orchestrate 9/11? or even lie about 9/11?
making the war with iraq easier to sell? (2.but why afghanistan first? and what the hell is there to accomplish in the land of afghans)
3.missile shot down flight 93?
4.not a plane at the pentagon but a missile? and where is this missile coming from and what was it aiming at?
5."planted" explosives at wtc 7 and possibly the north and south towers?

not to speculate....
1. I've already covered this, and the PNAC paper has come up as well....it openly indicates that people within the administration and the upper echelons of the business community (MIC) felt that in order for the US to maintain its hegemonic role as sole world superpower leading into the new century, it needed a 'new pearl harbor' to justify it's actions in the middle east. Zbig's Grand Chessboard covers the reasons it's important to dominate in the middle east and central asia: it contains the world's biggest reserves of energy resources, and the world's biggest population.
2. oil, natural gas, (pipelines in particular) heroin. In other words, a huge source of black ops funding for the CIA drug cartels, and control of central asia via control of resources. Throw Unocal, Taliban, and Dabhol - India into the google box. While you're at it, throw Enron and wtc 7 in there too....
3. maybe? seems as likely as 'let's roll' to me.
4. missile seems more likely to me than a 757. the plane couldn't do what it's claimed to have done; fly in a bank at 500+mph at low altitude - air pressure at that altitude would have torn the wings off. Boeing reps have said so. Theorists speculate that a drone plane could have been made to look like a commercial jet. I know, I know....next question....where are the passengers? Watch the documentary I posted; I'm not typing out 5 hours worth of info even if I could remember all of it
5.doubtful but not impossible. lots of renos happening in the towers. structural engineers have commented that the core columns could have been rigged with explosives simply by having access to the elevator shafts - at least two of which were under repair. Upgrades to sprinkler systems were underway at the lower floors, upgrades to the internet wiring at others, 36 hour power downs in the days before 9/11 left security cameras unused for of the proceeding days, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed a week or two before the attacks, there were reports of elevator explosions in the tower that hadn't been hit yet that were excluded from the official report (by both WTC maintenance and fire fighters on scene), heightened security was lifted just before the attacks etc....and Marvin Bush was a principal of the company responsible for WTC, Dulles international, and United Airlines. From memory, and I'm not sure if any of that has been thoroughly debunked or not, but all worth thinking about, and to my knowledge, not addressed in any investigation.

HughFreakingDillon

Drowned Out said:

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it

Is it possible they let it happen? Yes.

Is it possible they orchestrated it? Anything is possible, but in my opinion, no.

Amongst the Ani

We dropped the ball. We should have seen it coming but dropped the ball. I don't believe the government really knew what was going to happen. Bush's facial expressions when he was told kind of confirmed that. We just had a government of good old boys who missed it when it was right in front of them. One report said an attack was imminent. Another said planes might be used. A flight school reported they had students who didnt give two shits learning how to land. No one connected the dots. For that the government is partially responsible for what happened but that is all.

Drowned Out

HughFreakingDillon said:

Drowned Out said:

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it

Is it possible they let it happen? Yes.

Is it possible they orchestrated it? Anything is possible, but in my opinion, no.

Sure...like you say, anything is possible. Also possible that they said 'oh that's your plan? Oh you want to do it August 16th? No, you'd be better off waiting for two sticks and a cake with stick down'....then did some things that made it possible to pull off with zero resistance (scheduling war games, and taking over control of air defense, for example). That would be the complicit side of it. Or....they could have orchestrated the whole thing in conjunction with them. Or orchestrated the whole thing and framed hijackers as patsies. Who fucking knows. I sure as hell don't. But neither does anyone else who claims to.