911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[Jazzz]

Regarding Atta's passport (I also believe a credit card of one of the passengers has since turned up!) perhaps even more hard to conceive was the FBI's insistence that the black boxes from the WTC crashes - four of them - were never found (never before has a 'black box' failed to have been recovered from a terrestrial plane crash).

We have reports from named firefighters who claimed to have found boxes and a source at the NTSB who claims they looked at them

Counterpunch

 

[Kid_Eternity]

were never found (never before has a 'black box' failed to have been recovered from a terrestrial plane crash).

As opposed to all them extra terrrestrial black boxes going missing?

But seriously, didn't the box for the Lockerbiegh (huge spelling mistake!) plane go missing?

 

[editor]

R...perhaps even more hard to conceive was the FBI's insistence that the black boxes from the WTC crashes - four of them - were never found (never before has a 'black box' failed to have been recovered from a terrestrial plane crash).

And how many black boxes have ended up underneath the rubble of two of the world's tallest buildings after an intentional high-speed catastrophic crash?

Have you researched the subject? Have you contacted the designers and manufacturers of black boxes for their opinion? If is it so 'hard to conceive', why haven't they spoken out to defend their product?

Or are they in on it too?

Truth is, there's very little harder to concieve than your endless, ludicrous fact-free 9/11 fantasies.

In over four years, you've proved nothing.

 

[tangentlama]

Yep.

As much as I despise unthinking loons who are happy to quote anti-Semitic cunts like David Icke... there is something really fishy about the collapse of WTC 7.

i despise him too, but didn't hear it from him. i heard about the files stored in WT7 from a jewish friend who comes from brooklyn, and no, i don't think it was the israelis wot done it, or the palestinians, or the iraqis, for that matter. why would they want to destroy files that proved usa/cia involvement in afghanistan/iraq/lebanon during the cold-war ???

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

The fact that the Pentagon Wall looked in no worse a state than one thats been crashed into by a fueless catapulted ford fiesta.

No debris on the lawn either.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Mohammed Attas passport has been mentioned a few times now. That was one of the first thins at the time to make me wonder.

Given the fate of even black boxes is hard to discern, the liklyhood of finding a passport in the rubble so soon is pretty thin.

 

[TAE]

There is only one thing which makes me wonder, and that's the reports that several of the hijackers were drinking and/or visiting strip clubs shortly before the attacks took place. A bit strange for fundamentalist muslims to be doing that.

The attack itself made perfect sense to me at the time. I obviously don't agree with what they did, but my first reaction was 'why did this not happen sooner'.

WTC 7 is a bit of a mistery, but I wouldn't doubt the 'bigger picture' because of it.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

And how many black boxes have ended up underneath the rubble of two of the world's tallest buildings after an intentional high-speed catastrophic crash?

Have you researched the subject? Have you contacted the designers and manufacturers of black boxes for their opinion? If is it so 'hard to conceive', why haven't they spoken out to defend their product?

Or are they in on it too?

Truth is, there's very little harder to concieve than your endless, ludicrous fact-free 9/11 fantasies.

In over four years, you've proved nothing.

I for one am not trying to prove anything. I have no theory on what happened that I am satisfied with.

That includes the official story. You say nothing has been proved, this goes for many aspects of the official account. As such, it is not acceptable to let this lie.

 

[cybersquatter]

Not even the fact that a few months previously many of the Bush admin signed a document stating they would need another Pearl Harbour to push for US world domination?

Who? When? Where's your evidence?

 

[tangentlama]

No debris on the lawn either.

rubbish

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

What do you think of the refutation in the link I posted above?

Sept11 debunked

Oh good grief. One of those crazy conspiraloon sites. They cant even get the html to work properly how on earth are you supposed to take them seriously.

It refutes such well know beliefs such as flashes and pods , then goes on to justify the collapse of the twin tower in a way that even the US government no longer proposes. Puts forward unsupported "facts" for the collapse of WTC7 through fire, despite the building owner, Rumsfield and the firefighter in charge of the operation saying it was a controlled demolition and the official 911 report declining to come to any conclusions.

It concludes
I really wish I could’ve gone into more detail, and debunked more theories. However, I simply didn’t have the free time to do this. I did, however, think that the conspiracy theories surrounding the WTC were the most poignant and in bigger need of debunking, purely because there’s so much evidence against the conspiracy theories, that it would be almost criminal to let them go undefeated.

Read - I cherry picked the most obvious and easiest targets to dispell, and despite the fact that there is "so much evidence" against the conspiracy theories I couldnt find any of it.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Who? When? Where's your evidence?

The "new pearl harbour" desire is not in doubt, It's very famous - I'm suprised anyone would be unaware of it.

This link should explain it. The original article is, I believe, still on PNAC website.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/2690/

"But the Most incriminating fact is that their "Wish List" was written a year before the September 11. The exact wordings of the document concerning an all-out war, tacitly against Islam, include a “launching ground” and read: "Such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century



To me, all this is circumstantial anyhow. Though if the finger were to be pointed anywhere beyond (and including) the purported 19 hijackers, the document demonstrates motive.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The thing is, I was thinking about the wording of an answer to the question which indicated that the voter didn't think any of those things were that significant, but I came up with a problem basic to the question.

One could quite easily say that one was suspicious about a certain aspect and didn't think it had been properly explained, or that indeed the official explanation was false. In fact I'd consider anyone who thought that the explanation for their actions that has come out of the US and UK govenrments was true to be very deluded.

However, there's a subtext to this, which is considering "the official story" to be an entity that one either accepts wholeheartedly or rejects for a completely different explanation. This is something that I've mentioned before. It's not a single entity, it's a composite, and thinking "hmm, that thing with the passports, I don't like that" doesn't mean anything when considering whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. Yet a question like "what makes you suspicious about the official story?" suggests that one is having doubts about the entire "official story" if one has doubts about any part, which I suppose is to be expected from a question from a conspiracy site. Something like "which aspect of the official story are you most suspicious about?" would be a lot better.

As a thorough-going sceptic I've become immensely infuriated by the efforts of conspiraloons to hijack any dissent as support for their alternative reality - a simplistic assumption that either one accepts the "official line" completely or rejects it utterly - and while I'm not accusing the thread starter of trying to do such a thing, I think the question itself has an element of that.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Who? When? Where's your evidence?

This is the document - published September '00
Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Quote from page 63.
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

Published by the Project for the New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

with a who's who in the Bush administration list of supporters
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Including Cheney, Jeb Bush, William Bennett, Lewis Libby Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz

 

[editor]

No debris on the lawn either.

FFS, you idiot.
Why can't you do any basic research before parroting out such clueless conspiraloon bullshit?

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts."http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

 

[editor]

It refutes such well know beliefs such as flashes and pods , then goes on to justify the collapse of the twin tower in a way that even the US government no longer proposes. Puts forward unsupported "facts" for the collapse of WTC7 through fire, despite the building owner, Rumsfield and the firefighter in charge of the operation saying it was a controlled demolition and the official 911 report declining to come to any conclusions.
.

Feel free to point out the flaws and errors here

With peer-reviewed credible analysis, natch.

 

[snadge]

and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building.

I thought there were no black boxes found? or was that juust the WTC?

 

[Jazzz]

As a thorough-going sceptic I've become immensely infuriated by the efforts of conspiraloons to hijack any dissent as support for their alternative reality - a simplistic assumption that either one accepts the "official line" completely or rejects it utterly - and while I'm not accusing the thread starter of trying to do such a thing, I think the question itself has an element of that.

A fair point fridge, a poll which couldn't be said to have a leading nature would be 'what elements of the 9-11 account, if any, do you consider suspicious'. That would allow people to say what they questioned, without fear that their answer could be misinterpreted.

 

[Jazzz]

I thought there were no black boxes found? or was that juust the WTC?

Just the WTC, although I don't think anything concerning the pentagon data has been released, for flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash) we are told only the voice recorder survived with data intact - which is surprising in itself.

 

[snadge]

Just the WTC, although I don't think anything concerning the pentagon data has been released, for flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash) we are told only the voice recorder survived with data intact - which is surprising in itself.

fair enough, shows how much I know.

FWIW I have a motto

If it looks like shite and smells like like shite, there's fucking no way I'm tasting it to make sure.

 

[Jazzz]

Feel free to point out the flaws and errors here

With peer-reviewed credible analysis, natch.

I think a good comment in general to make about the (entirely non peer-reviewed) Popular Mechanics article is that there is plenty of 'straw man' in it. Of course one can produce links countering it, such as this one, this one or this one but perhaps more interesting than a link battle is to note the extraordinary change of staff at Popular Mechanics shortly before the article came out:

THE COUP AT POPULAR MECHANICS

In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazine's former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a "deputy," Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PM's 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.

A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. "Three or four" people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.

Also

American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old "senior researcher" who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

http://reopen911.org/hiddenhand.htm

 

[brixtonvilla]

*gets pillow & popcorn*

 

[bugsy7]

Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

I, like many other people, haven't made up my mind entirely on whether the US gobment was, at least, complicit in 11th September or not.
However, since I instinctively distrust any gobment, one point that I found suspicious, to say the least, was that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the fucking crooks effectively avoided any inquiry into the matter. An often overlooked fact is that the Keane report was all about why the attacks happened (i.e. the intelligence failures, excuse the pun) and not how they happened.
This seems an entirely strange attitude to me, considering that not only did almost 3,000 poor people lose their lives when the twin towers were banjoed, but WTCs 1 and 2 (along with WTC 7) were (and still are) the only steel and concrete structures ever to collapse "due to fire" in the history of the world. That in itself should have been a sufficient motivation to conduct an inquiry, in view of the many millions of other buildings around the world constructed according to the same principles.
Strange goings-on indeed, methinks.

MsG

 

[editor]

....but perhaps more interesting than a link battle is to note the extraordinary change of staff at Popular Mechanics shortly before the article came out:

Don't tell me! The "team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with Popular Mechanics editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military" are all in on it too!

They must be! Why else haven't they been lining up to condemn this blatant cover up?!

Or have they all been - gasp! - silenced?

Go on. I dare you. Tell me what's supposedly so 'interesting' about this staff change, please.

Oh, and then you might explain why a mainstream technology publication with a "readership in excess of six million" [source] - many of whom would presumably be well versed in the topics discussed in their 9/11 article - hasn't been under seige from readers pointing out the obvious flaws in their story if it was inaccurate or 'nobbled'.

Or are all of them in on it too?!!!!

 

[editor]

... for flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash) we are told only the voice recorder survived with data intact - which is surprising in itself.

Why's that then?

30 seconds googling and....

Investigations into the crash of American Airlines flight 587 in New York on Monday have been hampered by damage to the flight recorder, which was recovered from the crash site on Tuesday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/a300crash/story/0,11165,593554,00.html

No voices on Stewart flight recorder

The cockpit voice recorder from Payne Stewart's shattered Learjet has yielded various noises but no voices from the final moments of the doomed flight...http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news99/stewart16.html

Greek investigators struggling to determine the cause of this week's deadly airplane crash have encountered an unexpected setback: One of the black boxes with vital flight data has not been recovered, and the other may be damaged.
http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5838379.html

 

[X-77]

Mohammed Attas passport has been mentioned a few times now. That was one of the first thins at the time to make me wonder.

Given the fate of even black boxes is hard to discern, the liklyhood of finding a passport in the rubble so soon is pretty thin.

yeah I was amazed at the time by this claim too.

 

[Badger Kitten]

The thing is, I was thinking about the wording of an answer to the question which indicated that the voter didn't think any of those things were that significant, but I came up with a problem basic to the question.

One could quite easily say that one was suspicious about a certain aspect and didn't think it had been properly explained, or that indeed the official explanation was false. In fact I'd consider anyone who thought that the explanation for their actions that has come out of the US and UK govenrments was true to be very deluded.

However, there's a subtext to this, which is considering "the official story" to be an entity that one either accepts wholeheartedly or rejects for a completely different explanation. This is something that I've mentioned before. It's not a single entity, it's a composite, and thinking "hmm, that thing with the passports, I don't like that" doesn't mean anything when considering whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. Yet a question like "what makes you suspicious about the official story?" suggests that one is having doubts about the entire "official story" if one has doubts about any part, which I suppose is to be expected from a question from a conspiracy site. Something like "which aspect of the official story are you most suspicious about?" would be a lot better.

As a thorough-going sceptic I've become immensely infuriated by the efforts of conspiraloons to hijack any dissent as support for their alternative reality - a simplistic assumption that either one accepts the "official line" completely or rejects it utterly - and while I'm not accusing the thread starter of trying to do such a thing, I think the question itself has an element of that.

* grateful applause*

Conspiraloons have been driving me mad for for the last 24 hours, I have been fighting with them and it is like swimming in treacle.

Mr BK was on the X box hence me picking fights with idiots online.

 

[editor]

Perhaps I should add a "I'm more suspicious of book-flogging conspiraloons" option to the poll?

 

[Jazzz]

* grateful applause*

Conspiraloons have been driving me mad for for the last 24 hours, I have been fighting with them and it is like swimming in treacle.

Mr BK was on the X box hence me picking fights with idiots online.

Are you any good at scrabble BK? My team of urban75 conspiracy theorists has been available to take on a challenge, but no-one has taken it up! A shame I think it would make an entertaining spectacle.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

FFS, you idiot.
Why can't you do any basic research before parroting out such clueless conspiraloon bullshit?

My research involved seeing standard photos of the pentegon after having been purportedly hit by an airliner. There is little or no debris on the lawn.