*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
You've repeated yourself in this fashion ad nauseam on the other thread. Now, on this thread, be a good chap and stick to the topic as asked - can you justify your belief the official 'hijack' theory of 9-11?
If it's a bit tough to start off with a blank sheet, as t'were ... here's some basic questions:
- why was Pakistan informed in August that the US would be attacking Afghanistan in October?
- why were a number of the hijacker's immigration forms so poorly completed that a first day trainee would have sent them back (I haven't seen the forms personally, I'm paraphrasing a 9-11 widow who has)?
- why is there no footage from the originating airports of a single hijacker ... yet the FBI managed to turn up a photo of Mohammed Atta at some random ATM machine within a remarkably short period of time?
- the (still not released) passenger and crew list of the Pentagon plane had 58 passengers and 6 crew. 63/64 of these people were identified by DNA evidence, but none of these 63 people was one of the hijackers. Any ideas?
- why did the military initially state that no military aircraft were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit (an hour or so after the first plane hit), but several days later quietly changed the story and stated that they were scrambled 6 minutes before the first plane hit the WTC?
- any ideas about the massively lop-sided options trading on the two airlines involved (but no others) on Sept 10th, betting their stocks would go down. Could have been anyone - but why haven't we been told who?
Now ... I can think of several perfectly innocent, if somewhat convoluted, explanations for all of the above, and probably for (nearly) all the other oddities which people have pointed out on these threads. I'm just not sure why I should automatically prefer these to the alternatives - and I see a credibility problem due not so much to the convolutions required for any individual point as the sheer number of things which have to be explained away. You clearly don't have this problem, so please, set me straight.
Could you explain a) what your explanations are, and b) why you are confident that you can completely dismiss any and all alternatives which incriminate the USG?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
On the other thread there is a link stating that the calls were made from the aircrafts built in phone which is designed to work at altitude and would also explain away your mystery of why no records appear on the passengers mobile phone bills.
As for the messages on your proffessers link just how stupid can people be to ignore safety advise and try there own experiments on commercial aircraft. You are not supposed to use mobiles on aircraft as they can interfere with the aircrafts systems.
Jessiedog, you are a clever doggie!
<gives out crunchy doggie treat>
But let me answer the point. The phone call WouldBe refers to is just one call on Flight 77- and it has been proved highly dubious. All the others were supposedly made from mobiles.
How astonishing that this call was received by no less than "Ted Olson" the US Solicitor General and Bush crony! The call was supposedly made 'collect', because Barbara Olson did not have a credit card with her.
All this is clearly amazing! But perhaps I could quote Ted Olson himself, to give a flavour of the man's character...
"It is easy to imagine an infinite number of situations ... where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out." - Ted Olson, Solicitor General
hmmm!
<gives out crunchy doggie treat>
But let me answer the point. The phone call WouldBe refers to is just one call on Flight 77- and it has been proved highly dubious. All the others were supposedly made from mobiles.
How astonishing that this call was received by no less than "Ted Olson" the US Solicitor General and Bush crony! The call was supposedly made 'collect', because Barbara Olson did not have a credit card with her.
source - the much maligned Joe Vialls... his analysis is surely easily confirmable, and I have come across no dispute of it.
All this is clearly amazing! But perhaps I could quote Ted Olson himself, to give a flavour of the man's character...
"It is easy to imagine an infinite number of situations ... where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out." - Ted Olson, Solicitor General
hmmm!
Sorry DrJ - but we can't let you derail your own thread. So far, not a single attempt to take up the challenge, and plenty of attempts to make this into a continuation of the other four threads on this subject ... (how very unexpected
) ... and you're letting them get away with it!Jessie is, indeed, a fine dog. Now listen to her, and take your ridiculous conspiracy theories to the appropriate thread. This one is strictly for ridiculous cock-up theories.
editor
hiraethified
Oops! I must have missed that!
Could you explain how it has been "proved highly dubious"?
Naturally, for such a definitive claim to be made I can only assume that the person who took the 'faked' call has gone on record to publicise their outrage at such a disgusting piece of deception.
Don't forget: the person who spoke on the phone is the only person who would actually know for sure if the call was faked or not, so could you post up details of their damning testimony please? (with non-Vialls sources, please as I've grown tired scouring the web for his non existent 'sources')
Without such first hand testimony, you've 'proved' absolutely fuck all
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
...his [Vialls]analysis is surely easily confirmable
Away and confirm it then.
Away and confirm it then.
editor
hiraethified
I'm still waiting for 'confirmation' of the identity of the ever-mysterious Peter Kirsch MD and the equally mysterious bulletin boards that he was supposedly posting on.
Come to think of it, I'm still waiting for proof of the (conveniently ) no-longer extant aeronautical organisation Vialls claimed to be a member of. Sadly, poor old Joe had trouble remembering what it was called, despite citing it prominently (and singularly) at the foot of one of his dubious articles.
You'd think that if you were going to trumpet the name of a related (defunct) organisation as proof of your credentials, you'd at least get the name right, wouldn't you? Especially if the same site promotes his talents as a freelance proof reader!
At least editor's on this thread, and being consistent. Others who stand on the sidelines having a go at people they call conspiracy theorists are positively deafening me with their silence.
But not surprising me. When the shoe's on the other foot, it often isn't very comfortable at all.
Editor, you could do yourself a favour, and at least show us your position, rather than non-position. By that i mean we know you don't hold the US complicit for the attacks, but what do you think about the US version of the attacks? Surely you're going to address the thread at some point?
MInd you there's still time for posters to provide evidence and cast iron proof that the planes were hijacked.
Mr rabbit flunked it, so far editor has but at least he's here, so what about anyone else?
But not surprising me. When the shoe's on the other foot, it often isn't very comfortable at all.
Editor, you could do yourself a favour, and at least show us your position, rather than non-position. By that i mean we know you don't hold the US complicit for the attacks, but what do you think about the US version of the attacks? Surely you're going to address the thread at some point?
MInd you there's still time for posters to provide evidence and cast iron proof that the planes were hijacked.
Mr rabbit flunked it, so far editor has but at least he's here, so what about anyone else?
But from this post, we might be getting closer to the bone. Here is someone who can obviously accept the scenario of lots of passengers, being hijacked, queuing up to use the plane's phone, just as if they were waiting for the toilet.
Presumably the hijackers told them to just get on with it? And what about the man who apparantly phoned his mum four times? Did he keep going to the back of the queue?
I thought it was conspiracy theorists who dreamt up such incredible scenarios.
More hypocrisy to come no doubt...
editor
hiraethified
Certainly.
My position is to keep an open mind, have a healthy distrust of the official line and to wait and see what hard evidence emerges from credible sources.
My gut feeling remains that the events of 9/11 were not instigated by the USG against its own people - there's absolutely no historical precedent for such a thing, neither can I see any real motive - they've invaded more than enough weaker nations in recent years without feeling the need to commit mass murder and destruction on their own soil.
Unlike others, I'm not interested in being suckered in by the hysterical rantings of uncorroborated, unscientific and unsourced drivel posted up on a host of dodgy 'buy my book' websites, authored by woefully unqualified 'journalists'.
In life, I've generally found that the simplest explanation is often the right one.
And I'm getting really bored with these endless, tedious threads on the same subject.
It's not really a level playing field is it editor? You know when you start throwing 'bans' about in the air.
Why do such threads attract so many hits if they're tedious? Why do you spend so much time on these particulary threads if they're tedious? It would be so easy to not even read the tedious paranoid stuff the you say we are churning out.
It wasn't advice, who the fuck am i go give you advice?
My own site? Love to. However i haven't got the first clue about setting one up. Plus with urban around, no need to. Why reinvent the wheel?
Fair enough, but you do leave a lot to challenge:
Since the evidence won't be slipping into your hands, and since you'll not be speaking personally to the credible sources, at what point to you decide they are presenting you with evidence, and at what point do you decide the source is credible?
Your gut feeling could well be right. But because i have a different gut feeling (and that's all i've ever presented to these boards, i have many times said i have no evidence), for apparantly no reason you write my particular gut feeling off as paranoid conspiracy stuff.
You have ceaselessly asked us to provide evidence to back up our gut feelings.
Now here is a thread (with a very different angle to the other 9/11 ones, including the very successful one you initiated despite the tedium it arises in you) asking for you, and fellow like minded thinkers on this subject, to offer your own evidence as to why the official hijack theory should be believed.
But no one is doing so.
You see, you have a gut feeling, i have a gut feelilng, so we are both coming from the same premise.
But as for expanding on that, then this thread is proving to us that that is a one-way process.
Oh for fuck sake. I can't resist this one. Do you just say what comes into your head to try to back up your silly theory?
Do you think there's a phone box on the plane? Perhaps it's like the ones you see in flims, quite low down with a blue cover around it?
They're by every seat. You don't have to get up to use it.
I haven't got any fucking theory, never mind silly ones.
A phone box on a plane? No, never seen one of those. I've been on international flights with a personal phone in my seat, and ones without. Many.
I've never been on a domestic flight in the US, but because wouldbe said, "the calls were made from the aircrafts built in phone which is designed to work at altitude", s/he was most certainly talking about ONE phone.
So i assumed that those particular planes didn't have individual phones in the seats.
So, now you know why i posted what i posted. And it wasn't just the first thing that came into my head.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
System of a Down
Set my people free !!!
I think the phone calls were made to piss americans off even more. It's really dramatic. My imidiate thoughts were it was pathetic. Don't see what's hard in faking a phone call tho. It really helped the cause.
ajk
that's a shame
The planes all flew into buildings. This was probably not an accident. Nor is it normal airline procedure. Therefore, we can safely assume that "something else was going on".
Options include;
1, Remote controlled planes
2, Hijacked planes
3, The entire thing was a hoax, all footage was faked, the people supposedly killed are all living in the same facility used to fake the moon landings and David Copperfield made the towers disappear.
If I've missed any out, please let me know.
Now, I think we can all agree to drop option 3, at least for now.
Option 1 seems unlikely to me. Controlling a large jet is difficult, as we are constantly reminded by non-believers in the "official story". Controlling one remotely would be far more difficult, and the means by which this technology got aboard have not been explained.
So I'm going for number 2. I believe the planes were hijacked.
Options include;
1, Remote controlled planes
2, Hijacked planes
3, The entire thing was a hoax, all footage was faked, the people supposedly killed are all living in the same facility used to fake the moon landings and David Copperfield made the towers disappear.
If I've missed any out, please let me know.
Now, I think we can all agree to drop option 3, at least for now.
Option 1 seems unlikely to me. Controlling a large jet is difficult, as we are constantly reminded by non-believers in the "official story". Controlling one remotely would be far more difficult, and the means by which this technology got aboard have not been explained.
So I'm going for number 2. I believe the planes were hijacked.
Could it be you've just unmasked yet another imposter dissembling on behalf of the official version there BB... Terrific spot, by the way. Where do you suppose they keep coming from? I think they're ex-army myself... mind you he does say that in his profileOriginally posted by Backatcha Bandit
Hang on a minute - are you the person who is qualified in avionics and 'used to work for ericcson'?
ZDNet
How do you explain that?
This guy was offering to show us all his avionic and telecommunication credentials; just the other day in fact. He'd better stickem' up pretty damn quick if he wants to retain even a semblance of credibility with the truth hunters here.
These people are obviously becoming pretty fucking desperate if they're coming on here falsely claiming to be avionics/telecom 'experts'... And even if he does manage to magic up some credentials then we can only conclude that this particular 'expert' hasn't got a fucking clue what he's talking about...
It looks like you've got a live replacement for the elusive Dr Kirsch editor. Personally, I'm very much looking forward to your rigorous examination of Professor Wouldbe's supposed bonafides and then his inevitable evisceration for telling bare faced porkies and feigning mock expertise and feeding us misleading information on your boards. We all know how much you despise these here today gone tomorrow, found on the internet, retired expert types...Go get him tiger!
Keep up the good work guys, we'll get there soon... you can tell from the level of hysterical nonsense being generated by those who support the 'official ' version that a breakthrough isn't so far away. The motheaten curtain of lies that has been woven to deceive us, is slowly disintegrating before our very eyes.
Don't believe a word from those liars in Washington.
I'm not convinced of the remote-controlled planes theory (seems a bit far out but then what do I know) but I am incredibly sceptical about the 'official' version.
On its own, the claim of finding the hijacker's passport near the WTC made me think something dodgy was up...I mean how convenient was that (excuse me if that point has already been discussed).
And of course, the fact that it happened under the (zero integrity) Bush administration has also made me re-evaluate what we are being told is the truth..I don't think I would put anything past them.
There is always that other theory that the US government knew something was going to happen and turned a blind eye, which seems more realistic.
On its own, the claim of finding the hijacker's passport near the WTC made me think something dodgy was up...I mean how convenient was that (excuse me if that point has already been discussed).
And of course, the fact that it happened under the (zero integrity) Bush administration has also made me re-evaluate what we are being told is the truth..I don't think I would put anything past them.
There is always that other theory that the US government knew something was going to happen and turned a blind eye, which seems more realistic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
