*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11

[Jazzz]

I know we have had a similar thread before but I thought I would again give all those who support the 'hijack' theory a chance to examine the evidence for it.

As a sizeable operation, such a hijack should leave a large 'signature' of evidence such as security camera footage, billing details, eyewitness accounts, black box data... the FBI is in charge of mounting the investigation and controls all the evidence. What have we been shown to persuade us of the 'hijack' theory?

This thread is intended seriously and for those who do accept the 'hijack' theory, it's a chance to go over the basics.

So, what evidence do we have for the 'hijack' theory, and against Osama Bin Laden?

Perhaps I could start off with;

• a video obtained by the CIA purporting to show OBL confessing
• a passport of an unnamed hijacker found near the WTC
• reports of telephone calls from passengers, mostly on flight 93

 

[editor]

FFS: These boards weren't set up for a handful of conspiracy fans to trot out the same 'arguments' ad infinitum and I'm getting really, really bored seeing the same, near-identical threads cropping up with monotonous regularity.

How many times do you want to have the same discussion, DrJ?

How much more of my precious bandwidth do you want to burn up posting up the same tedious speculation and going round in ever decreasing circles?

How many more times do you want people to mention the phone calls from the hijacked plane?

 

[Jazzz]

Well, despite the last thread I am still waiting to hear any solid, corroborative evidence to convince me of the hijacker theory.

But maybe - for those who are unsure what to believe - this is a chance for those who are convinced of the 'hijack' theory to provide the evidence for it. After all, it is a question perpetually asked of me.

Seeing as you have started a thread on 9-11 recently, I feel I may be permitted just one of my own. However I would ask only those genuinely interested in the topic to post on it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

security camera footage - It there not footage of Mohommad Atta at departures?
billing details - And bank details for the tickets?
eyewitness accounts - of what?
black box data - all that records is stuff like altitude, airspeed etc, how would that prove a hijack?

 

[Jazzz]

"security camera footage - It there not footage of Mohommad Atta at departures?"

Not from a source airport of one the ill-fated flights. There is one photo of Mohammed Atta, but the airport is Portland - none of the four flights came from Portland. Also, the photo contains two time stamps! If the later one is correct, it would have been impossible for Atta to have reached Boston in time.

We must ask - how did the hijackers get through all the cameras?

"billing details - And bank details for the tickets?"

Nope! Zilch!

"eyewitness accounts - of what?" Particularly of people who witnessed the hijackers at the airports - such as check-in personnel, or other travellers. Parties of five arabs on underbooked flights would have been conspicuous. We don't have any.

"black box data - all that records is stuff like altitude, airspeed etc, how would that prove a hijack?"

The CVR (cockpit voice recorder) would supply a crucial record. Also the flight records could confirm that the planes which hit the WTC/Pentagon were the ones that we think they are. Simple ground, perhaps, but good to confirm.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by DrJazzz
Seeing as you have started a thread on 9-11 recently, I feel I may be permitted just one of my own. However I would ask only those genuinely interested in the topic to post on it.

Ah, I see you're back to telling me how it should be done and also advising who's eligible to post on your own thread, while conveniently forgetting about the endless threads on the same topic you've already started.

Well, seeing as you've managed to avoid answering this entirely relevant question, I'll ask it again:

What proof have you that the phone calls were faked, what precedents can you cite, how on earth could they completely fool those people closest to the callers, how did they manage to fake the tone/character/accent and personality of those who only caught the plane at the last minute and could you show me some examples of this technology please?

 

[fela fan]

Originally posted by editor
FFS: These boards weren't set up for a handful of conspiracy fans to trot out the same 'arguments' ad infinitum and I'm getting really, really bored seeing the same, near-identical threads cropping up with monotonous regularity.

How many times do you want to have the same discussion, DrJ?

How much more of my precious bandwidth do you want to burn up posting up the same tedious speculation and going round in ever decreasing circles?

How many more times do you want people to mention the phone calls from the hijacked plane?

That sounds a bit odd, since it was you mate who started the current runaway successful thread on the topic.

And I think this thread is quite different to the other ones on this topic. In fact most different, and i look forward to seeing if it takes off.

You see DrJ has offered an opportunity to everyone who debates on these 9/11 threads to in effect swap positions!! A complete change for everybody, fantastic, no?! What a genius of a move doctor!!

I am now most happy to wait and see what posters have to say about DrJ's questions. Not to mention any proof and hard evidence that is often called for.

 

[Jessiedog]

Hmmmmmm.....

Could be a really good thread.

Turning things around and seeking a positive case to be made for the "hijack" theory.

A cohesive argument that presents a solid, prima facae case of "hijacking", complete with evidence and sources that stand up to scrutiny either beyond reasonable doubt, or to be fairer, "on the balance of probability".

If such a case can be presented.......

That oughta settle things, no? Maybe? Errrrr......?



*grabs the doggie treats and sits nicely for a good read*



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Damn!

ff beat me to it!



Woof

 

[fela fan]

Originally posted by Jessiedog
Damn!

ff beat me to it!



Woof

sorry...

 

[white rabbit]

Oh fucking Christ, no.

When will it end?

 

[fela fan]

Originally posted by white rabbit
Oh fucking Christ, no.

When will it end?

Hey, c'mon mr rabbit, where's the proof man?! What do we have that supports the official version?

Remember you've swapped positions now...

 

[white rabbit]

Could someone supply proof that it's Tuesday and I'm not in some nightmare Groundhog Day of perpetualy navel-gazing "what can be be certain of anyway" conspiricy FUCKING BOLLOCKS??!!

 

[white rabbit]

Actually, don't bother.

Enjoy your little game. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[ill-informed]

Originally posted by white rabbit
Oh fucking Christ, no.

When will it end?

I guess once people stop caring or questioning about this issue. If the evidence for the official version is so obvious then it should be easy enough to prove.

There's quite a few subjects that i'm sick of hearing about. N. Ireland is one that comes to mind, simply because it's been going on for so long and seems neverending. So if i see a thread about N. Ireland i don't bother looking at it.

 

[fela fan]

Originally posted by white rabbit
Actually, don't bother.

Enjoy your little game. I have better things to do with my time.

That's one down. Didn't even put up a fight...

 

[atitlan]

I don't know if the archived threads cover the emergence of the evidence produced by the CIA and FBI in the wake of the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that anyone wishing to defend the official version of events should remind themselves of how dodgy that evidence appeared at the time.

That's not to say reality is US black-ops remote-controlled airliners and bombs in the tower basements, but too many of the finds that corroborated the official story seemed ... how shall I phrase this ... somewhat serendipitous at the time.

 

[editor]

If it was all a conspiracy by the USG, perhaps someone might offer an explanation why none of the Arab governments have been quick to point this fact out and why Al Queda have never denied their part in the attacks?

After all, if I was accused of something that was going to result in a whole load of grief coming my way, I'd be the first to shout out about it.

 

[ill-informed]

Originally posted by editor
If it was all a conspiracy by the USG, perhaps someone might offer an explanation why none of the Arab governments have been quick to point this fact out and why Al Queda have never denied their part in the attacks?

After all, if I was accused of something that was going to result in a whole load of grief coming my way, I'd be the first to shout out about it.

I thought AQ did just that, and Afghanistan repeatedly asked for evidence before handing over OBL, something that i thought was quite reasonable at the time.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by ill-informed
I thought AQ did just that, and Afghanistan repeatedly asked for evidence before handing over OBL, something that i thought was quite reasonable at the time.

I doubt if the Taliban-run Afghanistan would be particularly interested in helping the USG, but I don't recall hearing them - or any other Arab countries - claiming that 9/11 was all one big fake.

Any idea why that might be?

 

[ill-informed]

Originally posted by editor
Any idea why that might be?

I can think of a few reasons. But of course they're just my opinion. They don't want to upset the US. They are too heavilly linked with the US or they have other things to worry about. To be honest i'd be far more suprised if all the arab countries started blaming the US, but i believe there's a general opinion in many arab countries that the US was behind it (i could be wrong on that issue, i just read it somewhere).

 

[nala1917]

Originally posted by editor
If it was all a conspiracy by the USG, perhaps someone might offer an explanation why none of the Arab governments have been quick to point this fact out and why Al Queda have never denied their part in the attacks?

After all, if I was accused of something that was going to result in a whole load of grief coming my way, I'd be the first to shout out about it.

Erm ... if Al-Qaeda did have something to do with it (and speaking personally, I believe that they probably did), provoking a US-led war on the Middle East was one of their goals. And ... if they didn't have anything to do with it, they'd still have been pretty happy at the US response. Bonus!

I don't recall much about what any of the Arab governments were saying at the time - apart from horror, sympathy and begging the US not to be hasty in their response - I didn't check the Arab media much in those days.

I do recall the Taliban demanding proof before extradition, and, whilst this is hardly unexpected either way, the US refusal to do so was utterly hypocritical when the UK were simultaneously demanding proof for the extradition of Raissi (the Algerian pilot falsely accused of involvement). I mean ... it was almost like they were looking for an excuse to attack. I mean it's not like they had a pre-existing timetable or anything ... well, apart from that chance comment to a Pakistani official in August 2001 warning that they'd be attacking Afghanistan in October... but it was an off-the-cuff remark, means nothing, pure coincidence I tells ya.

 

[Jazzz]

Perhaps editor could supply a link to those Arab governments who have supported the hijack theory, basic I know, and hardly evidence in favour, but it would be something. A failure to comment could not possibly be taken as acceptance of the US version.

 

[Jazzz]

Here's one denial from OSB that he or Al Quaida were involved.

"Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America.

"The attackers could be anybody, people who are part of the American system yet rebel against it, or some group that wants to make this century a century of confrontation between Islam and Christianity," he said.

Referring to evidence obtained by American intelligence, bin laden said: "Ask this question to these intelligence agencies that get billions of dollars every year."

And that's the question I hope to address on this thread. What's the evidence for the hijack theory? Let's see what we have! Let's not simply accept it because the papers are not yet full of objectors. Let's not wait until high profile politicians commit risk political suicide by questioning it.

Whatever conclusions we reach, let us be independent thinkers!

 

[editor]

Originally posted by DrJazzz
A failure to comment could not possibly be taken as acceptance of the US version.

Ah. So they're only 'failing to comment' on the 'obvious' conspiracy, are they?

Why's that then?

Several Arab countries are directly affected by the US's (ahem) 'War on Terror', with even more military action a likelihood, and yet no government is claiming that the USG was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Any ideas why that might be?

And why didn't Saddam have a few words to say on the subject? I would have thought that he's have made immense political capital by suggesting that the USG mass murdered its own civilians, but guess what - not a peep!

Any ideas why that might be?

 

[editor]

Originally posted by DrJazzz
What's the evidence for the hijack theory?

Where's the evidence for your remote controlled planes and faked conversations?

Answer = none.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by DrJazzz
Here's one denial from OSB that he or Al Quaida were involved.

Bin Laden: Yes, I did it
Bin Laden lieutenant admits to 9-11

(Don't tell me - they're all fakes! Except any source that agrees with your version of events, natch)

 

[Jazzz]

Well, we have a scientific study showing that it is likely impossible to make such a call from a mobile inside a plane above 8000ft. That's evidence that the calls are not as they seem.

But perhaps you would like to do better by listing the evidence on which you believe the 'hijack' theory. After all, we haven't even got a list of supposed hijackers who are now all dead!



here are details of the study by AK Dewdney. And I haven't heard a single example of anyone making an altitude cellphone call from a commercial jet.

I can't believe that the laws of physics were suspended on 9-11, and would like some solid evidence that such calls are indeed possible.

 

[infobomb]

There's always the fact that they didn't need to kill so many people to get the same result.

There's a similar conspiracy about Pearl Harbour and WWII. The thing is, exactly the same result would have arisen if the order had been given for the fleet to leave the harbour to go on manouevres: fewer lives and ships would have been lost, and the Americans would still have been the victims of an attack by the Japanese and have all the reason they needed to go to war. Once they went to war with Japan, Germany (inexplicably) declared war on them also - so there's that sorted as well.


As for 9/11 - What if fighter planes had been scrambled, and the attack thwarted? Wouldn't there still be a casus belli simply in the attempt to attack? (And of course, if the CIA knew the plan all along, it couldn't be too hard to set up a patsy who would spill his guts on the true intentions of the hijackers).

What, for another example, if the government had issued a warning as soon as it 'learnt' of the threat posed by the hijackers in the air for people to be evacuated from important buildings in the New York and DC areas? There would still be destruction, but not so much death - and people would still be outraged at the attempt.

Or what if the government had set all the hijackers up in the country with their flight manuals etc, and, of course, knowing about the plan all along, sprung an ambush on the 11th hour? There's the plan, there's the culprits, there's the red hands and - again - a casus belli.

There's also the fact that the US has hardly needed to create terrorist spectaculars as an excuse to wage war in the past. Dominos were reason enough for quite a while.


I do think there's a possibility that the US govt may be hiding something, but I think that it's because they are so embarrassed about being hit by a former CIA asset with money from one of their closest allies. That, and the fact that the President is very, very cautious about alienating Saudi Arabia even though a lot of the administration have been calling for Saudi to be seen as a threat to the US.

But all these remote-controlled planes, disappearing passengers and advanced voice-replicating synthesisers are, IMHO, the fruits of tormented minds that have been watching too many Bond films and spending too long on the internet.

 

[pk]

But the plane was not above 8000 feet.

Listen - I have the proof that the conspiracy theory is a load of cack - it is precisely because Joe Vialls believes it to be true that it is therefore completely untrue, and only a fool would believe his insiduous lies and folly.

Just check out his website - the man's a clown!