9/11: a 7-Man Job

[Mind_your_head]

<snip>
A common objection to the argument that 9/11 was an inside job is that the conspiracy would be too big to keep quiet. In other words, the argument is that it is impossible that so many people could have kept quiet for so long. SOMEONE would have talked or made a mistake, so that the conspiracy would have been discovered.

Is that true? Maybe.

<snip>

To anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a "need-to-know basis", along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won't even know the big picture.

<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

So, we're now up to perhaps 7 people total to pull off 9/11.

<end snip>

More..........
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html

------------------

You have to read it to see how the author arrives at only 7 people needed for 9/11. It's interesting conjecture to consider. It's well written and very well sourced. Great reading, imho.

[WoodrowFan]

1. Except a lot of what he says is untrue

Alas, a lot of what is says is simply untrue, such as the power-down, the removal of the bomb sniffing dogs etc. In other words, he has to lie to make his case.

BTW, Bush's brother left that company in 2000. But the MIHOPers neglect to mention that, don't they.


bye bye

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

[bryant69]

2. You'd better watch out - you don't want to anger the MIHOP faithful

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[WoodrowFan]

4. not hard to do

insult their religion and they get testy. ;)

[Mind_your_head]

21. Interesting how the 'usual suspects' always appear first to make it silly

you couldn't have read it ALL w/in 2-3 minutes of it being first posted....and start talking about 'unicorns' and 'planet Xenu' (or whatever)....just to be the first posts and make it all sound silly.

"Sensible people" interested in this topic would read what the author has to say and, at the very least, reading/listening to the links that the author provides that are of a historical nature related to this and other events, such as Pearl Harbor, bombings in Italy, etc.

-----------------

Thought I'd move this up higher so people can see it before they have to go through the dumb comments from *the 3 of you*. You're not the only ones who can play that 'game'.

[greyl]

33. Ad hom bullshit.. The "essay" was published days ago.

It's not necessary for it to be read "in 3 minutes".

How are you doing refuting the arguments here?

edit: changed story to "essay"

[petgoat]

50. The point is being obscured. The claim that MIHOP required

a vast conspiracy of thousands is ridiculous.

I count about ten. (plus the hijackers)

Cheney, Rummy, Myers, Rice to do nothing.

Frasca and Maltbie to obstruct the FBI.

Someone to tell al Qaeda when the war games would disrupt the air defense.

(Maybe) a demolitions team at the towers. Al Qaeda could have done this, renting
offices in the buildings and planting explosives in the elevator shafts after midnight.

[greyl]

61. Is it possible for you to let people speak for themselves?

Occasionally it's appropriate to jump in, but damn. Talk about obscuring the point.

[Twist_U_Up]

79. pot meet kettle. nt

[911karma]

84. Good Point About the Elevator Shafts

Remember the head of the company who cleaned up the WTC site mentioned pools of molten metal at the base of the towers....hmmm....

[WoodrowFan]

86. so what

explosives don't cause molten metal, long hot fires do. And it's not even certain that there WAS molten metal present.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[mirandapriestly]

103. didn't notice this was an old threadnt

[MervinFerd]

116. And what evidence have you of this small conspiracy????

Hijackers still alive?---what's the point of making fake Ay-rabs if you are just helping real ones?

Fake hijacker passports---see above.

Cell phones don't work in planes---What's the poing of faking calls if the passengers see real Ay-rabs hijacking them?

Explosives in the buildings--If Al Qaeda could have done it, it doesn't prove Bush did it.

Ay-rabs can't crash jetliners---If it wasn't Ay-rabs, you need a lot bigger conspiracy than 10 people. Fake hijackers willing to die for ????. And an army of experts to create fake Ay-rabs.

Logic, Mr. Goat.

[petgoat]

122. Logic.

Unfortunately, I can't follow the logic in your points 1-3.

As to point 4, I never said WTC explosives would prove Bush did it. And what's your
reason for making that point? What difference does it make?

Unlike some people around here, I try to avoid linking scientific questions to their
political effects. Ever since I began considering the evidence for CD I have been
asserting that al Qaeda could have done the job, renting offices in the buildings
and planting the charges after midnight in the elevator shafts. The officials could
then be covering this fact up because it's embarrassing to Marvin Bush's security
company.

If it wasn't Ay-rabs, you need a lot bigger conspiracy than 10 people.

I see no reason to think it wasn't 19 arab hijackers. Of course if they were recruited
by a CIA operative for the job, they were patsies. On the other hand, it's never been
proven that they did the job.

Logic, Mr. Goat.

Right. Try it some time.

[MervinFerd]

123. Symbolic logic: if OBL=CIA then "OCT" = AOK

Its simple.

If Bin Laden is a CIA agent who recruited Arab patsies, then the standard story is true.

Real Arab Muslim fanatics hijacked the planes, the real passengers called real relatives to tell them about real Arab hijackers, the planes really flew into the buildings and everybody really died, etc.

That's how a real undercover conspiracy would work: as few lies as possible. As few people as possible. Certainly not crowds of people creating 19 fake identies and making large airplanes disappear.

But, then, the 'evidence' so popular with the CT crowd doesn't make sense. The Real Hijackers really died; they are not living in the Middle East. The phone calls to relatives were real; Cell phones really do work in airplanes. Ay-rabs really can crash airplanes. etc.

So, then, what is the evidence of this Small Conspiracy?

It's all disappeared.

[petgoat]

128. Absurd conclusion

If Bin Laden is a CIA agent who recruited Arab patsies, then
the standard story is true.

Baloney. The official story is that we were attacked by Islamic extremists.
If Bin Laden is a CIA agent, we were attacked by the CIA, and suspicions
that anti-terrorist investigations were inhibited, the air defense was inhibited,
and the post-9/11 investigations were inhibited are justified.

[MervinFerd]

131. Suspicions, but where is your EVIDENCE???????

Again and again...

If OBL is a CIA agent behaving like an Islamic extremist, then everything except OBL is just as it appears in the standard story.

No fake Ay-rab IDs, not fake phone calls, no fake airplane crashes.

You can show the military response was suspiciously inadequate, but that is very hard to distinguish from incompetence or neglect or a general willingness to allow an attack to happen. To get evidence the OBL is CIA, you have to investigate the CIA, not the WTC.

Got it?

[petgoat]

133. Ah, difficulty in distinguishing between malevolent inaction and

incompetence makes the issue untenable in your book. Look, if the night watchman
let the burglars in the building, he's usually held accountable. Except under Bush
he's promoted!

To get evidence the OBL is CIA, you have to investigate the CIA

OBL was definitely CIA when he was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. The only question
is when, if ever, did he stop being CIA?

you have to investigate the CIA, not the WTC.

Lacking subpoena power, we have to investigate what we can.

[dailykoff]

134. He also left out smoking guns 1, 2, and 7. (n/t)

[MervinFerd]

139. At some point there is no difference....

<<OBL was definitely CIA when he was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. The only question
is when, if ever, did he stop being CIA?>>

Yes, and in what way will 'investigating' implausible conspiracies help answer that question?

<<Lacking subpoena power, we have to investigate what we can.>>

You know the old one about the drunk looking under the lamppost for his keys?
He actually lost them in the street, but the light was better under the lamppost.

YES!! A thorough and independent inquiry must happen--would have happened in any other era.
YES!! The Bush admin blocked that inquiry and no doubt has many things to hide.

BUT!!!! 'Investigations' of conspiracy theories that the average citizen will dismiss as flat-ass insane will not help force an investigation. OR help elect Democratic Congressmen who can be pressured to hold one.

You want investigations? Make the case that the Bush admin was criminally negligent in not preventing 9/11. Document the warnings. Document the lack of action. Then hold up signs and call into radio talk shows about that.

DON"T go public claiming the Pentagon was hit by a missile and the CIA planted bodies and pieces of a 767 in the Pentagon. Or with any theory that could only be accomplished by Invisible Jewish Elves.

[petgoat]

142. Bush has waged a war on truth. Truth fights back on several

fronts, implausible or not.

The WTC collapse issue is important because the images are central to the terror.
If we can show the official story behind those images is a lie, we attack at their
strongest point.

The negligence argument is not impressive to people after five years of thinking of
W as a war hero.

I'm not propounding any hologram or missile theory, simply defending them as possible,
and not worth the time to investigate to know one way or the other.

Since Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could have brought the WTC down, and since this
view is consistent with the conventional wisdom that stood for four years, the zipper
theory, I will believe that a few people could have planted explosives to demolish the
WTC, and no armies of conspiratorial jewish elves were necessary.

[Sinti]

137. Isn't that like finding a murder crime scene, and just running off

to find the guy you think might have done it? Wouldn't it be wise to gather up all the evidence, bullets, foot and fingerprints, possible hairs and fibers, examine the body thoroughly, etc?

Isn't the lack of a thorough investigation what we OCT skeptics complain about so much?

[petgoat]

143. Not just lack of investigation. Obstruction of investigation.

Suppression and destruction of evidence. Intimidation of witnesses.

[mirandapriestly]

102. I noticed that, they are also trying to intimidate/scare off

new posters, I've had three of them PM me.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

5. he does mention Star Trek though

But anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum movie, or even watched enough Stargate, Star Trek or Alias, knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies, especially when they've got a high-level military or government person on board.

yes, those are realistic examples, aren't they? :eyes:

[Orrex]

6. Why didn't the hijackers just use their phasers, then?

Aside from that, I'm sure that the theory is 100% airtight...

[Ian David]

15. That would have violated The Temporal Prime Directive n/t

[Ian David]

14. I would have thought of The Seven Samurai. Or The Dirty Dozen

Or Oceans Eleven.

Or maybe Force Ten from Navarone.

[Orrex]

16. What about Snow White et al?

[WoodrowFan]

22. let us not forget

the dreaded white plastic chairs!

[Ian David]

26. Or The Three Little Pigs

I think the house of straw was imploded from the inside.

By invisible Jewish unicorns from Planet Xenu.

[petgoat]

46. You can't think these dusty recycled witticisms are funny, so I

must conclude it's your intention to disrupt.

Try mounting an argument if you want respect.

[Bushknew]

87. How about the recent largest bank heist in England?

It is incredible what a small group of highly trained people can do.

Just imagine what that small but highly trained group of people could do WITH
the government’s help.

[Mind_your_head]

89. Yes, indeed.....something to consider

I wish you would've posted this somewhere below post #53 in the heirarchy.....b/c most everything above that point is disruptive drivel that a lot of people got caught up in (myself included, at times).....it strays from the point that (and a LOT of people will miss the point/post).

a) most people think 9/11 couldn't have been an "inside job" b/c it would require too many people to be complicit (and that wouldn't work, things would leak).....The author's point is "perhaps it DIDN'T TAKE THAT MANY PEOPLE

b) but yet, people are willing to accept 19 'kind of random' hijackers caused all of this havoc

When does the 'disconnect' stop that ..... if you believe 19 'nobody' arabs caused all of this trauma, ask yourself, as you say how many (or how few) individuals who were highly trained and had the government's help ~ how much could THEY 'achieve'?

on edit: The official US government story is that it only takes 19 'random' people to wreak 9/11 type havoc....why would any individual think that it takes 'more' than 19 people if 'one' has the help of the government too! It doesn't have to be a 'big group' of conspirators to 'pull-it-off' :shrug:

[petgoat]

98. Really important point, Head!

Add the notion that the war games completely disrupted the air defense and it takes
not many people at all.

[simonm]

8. Not credible

It looks like the author of that web site doesn't want to be known. His domain information is private and no "about us" page.

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.

Registered through: www.dynonames.com
Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM

[Mind_your_head]

11. So? What do you think about what he/she has to say? eom

[simonm]

32. Please see #30 for my response

[Mind_your_head]

41. My apologies. I see now you were refuting the validity of

the 911myths.com site that Post #1 was referring to. I thought you were referring to the site I referenced in the OP. :blush: (I bet that's what 'snappyturtle' in post #28 thought as well).

In any event, I love your response in post #30. Thank you for taking the time to dissect the points like that! That's really the important thing.

:-)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

51. You just made 4 essentially false statements!

Amazing for such a short post.

"Not credible"

That conclusion is based on the other false statements instead of any of the content of the site.

"It looks like the author of that web site doesn't want to be known."

He supplies his name on the site.

"His domain information is private"

Using Domains by Proxy doesn't mean that his info is private. It just means it more difficult to access from web-bots.

"no "about us" page."

It's right here: http://www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

Here's his email address [e-mail]

I must say, I will weigh your critique of films in light of this. ;)
________________________________________________________________________________

edit:

Why have you registered 911myths.com in a way that keeps you anonymous?

You have my real name and an email address, so it’s not exactly anonymous. The only extra information you would get if I hadn’t registered 911myths.com by proxy is my home address. And would you happily post your address online, in the middle of a heated and vitriolic 9/11 debate? Neither would I, which is why I chose to protect that.

If you still feel that’s wrong, then perhaps you’d like to consider some of the other sites with registration records that don’t point to someone’s name or home address (and there are plenty more):

911truth.org - registered via proxy
physics911.net - registered via proxy
loosechange911.com - registrant company name only
fromthewilderness.com - registrant company name only
st911.org - private registration

Although of course I’m sure I’ll receive an email very soon explaining why it’s entirely different when these sites do it...

http://www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

[simonm]

64. Whoa, you proved me wrong!

Mike Williams from UK at [e-mail].

That settles it, he is no longer anonymous. :sarcasm:

[greyl]

73. Your sarcasm isn't appropriate because I really did prove you wrong.

It seems I'm getting to you.

[mirandapriestly]

95. I actually emailed that guy awhile ago

at first he rebutted my points and was reasonable then he started getting really angry when he didn't have an answer to my questions and started saying things like "you think that the US is the center of the world" and that I have no right to be interested in this because I am in the UK?" (I never said anything like that) and railing really unreasonable weird stuff at me instead of answering the questions, which I noticed debunkers do when they can't respond, look at this thread and the Star Wars stuff. Try writing him, you'll see he really doesn't know much, it's funny people use his web site as a credible source of information.

[petgoat]

96. The Pseudoscience board people rely on 911myths as an

authority.

Both their articles I've read were so silly I haven't read any more. One of them claiming
that the complexity of a demolition operation precluded that having been done on the towers
was clearly ignorant of Van Romero's and Tom Eagar's opinions.

I can't remember the other one.

[greyl]

100. No, just a convenient time saving resource. nt

[petgoat]

101. It reminds me of Dave Kopel's "59 Deceits" site that claimed

to debunk Fahrenheit 911 (and didn't). It looks impressive if you
don't know anything about the subject matter.

[simonm]

30. That site is mostly speculation

#1.Thousands of people would have known about this, from local employees to staff in other parts of the company, but none of them have confirmed this yet.

Thousands? How many IT and non IT employees are working on the weekend in WTC2 floors 50 and up? A basic estimate would be nice.

#2. why would such a lengthy "power down" be necessary for a cable upgrade? This plainly didn't have anything to do with the main power lines into the building, as it only affected floors 50 and up.

Two words.. detonator cord.

Setting charges requires avoidance of all electrical fields. Last thing you want is an unplanned BOOM!

#3, are we supposed to believe that security systems fed off the same power system as everything else? So a power cut meant no security at all? Look at the affected tenants -- First Commercial Bank (floor 78), Fuji Bank (79-82), Fiduciary Trust, Atlantic Bank of New York... Do you really think these companies would live with a situation like that, or not object that all security for their offices has been disabled?

That is assuming the security system has no backup power source and no extra hired security guards. I haven’t even mentioned cellular or satellite uplinked alarms. Duh!

#4, even if all this were true, it still only provided access to half of one tower. What about the North Tower? WTC7? No mention of "power downs" there.

That is a good question. Unfortunately, we never had a real investigation with subpoena power to question witnesses. Schematics would also be helpful. Oh wait, the blueprints are still super secret.

#5, the power down time was reported as 36 hours, not nearly long enough to prepare for a controlled demolition

The step involving charges would require the power down. All other steps could have been done beforehand without interruption.

Again, assumptions made without the relevant knowledge. Scott’s story is consistent and supportive of the controlled demolitions theory. I have yet to see anyone debunk it factually and thoroughly. Speculation without facts is worthless.

“I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems” -Scott Forbes

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

[petgoat]

42. "Bush's brother left that company in 2000"

In fiscal year 2000. He had been a major shareholder. Did he sell his holdings?

His cousin Wirt Walker III was chairman and CEO of Stratesec.

This 911myths article is no better than the other one I've read. It repeats the old saw that
demolition is so horribly complex as to be impractical. Not so. Dr. Van Romero said the
towers could be brought down with a few charges in key places. So does Eagar's zipper theory,
which was conventional dogma for three years.

Not even 911myths says the power down is not true. It says it's uncorroborated. Mr. Scott Forbes
appears to be a real person, most recently stationed with Fiduciary Trust in London I believe.

You wish to clear the table when others are still eating their soup.

[Andre II]

54. Dogs

what's your problems with the story of bomb-sniffing dogs being removed a couple of days before 911?

[mirandapriestly]

94. The reason we get mad is you say things that aren't true

or that miss the point..
Why do you say there was no power down? Is this a new development? Last I knew, a credible person, Scott Forbes, from Fiduciary Trust said there was a power down and that has never been proved to be not true. Even if it were, access to that building would have been easy prior to 9-11. Securacom had a contract which ended the day the towers came down, Marvin was no longer a director as of fiscal 2000, but that doesn't mean the connections ended there.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-02/articles/10292-1.html
Such an investigation could reveal some embarrassing Bush family connections with a company “that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.” As Margie Burns reports in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.

Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities.
According to Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, it is somewhat unusual for a single firm to handle security for both an airline and a airport. It’s also unusual for a firm linked so closely with a foreign-owned company to handle security on such a “sensitive” international airport as Dulles. “When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything,” he said. “Somebody knew somebody,” he added, or the contract would have been scrutinized more carefully.



Marvin Bush’s alleged connections to these companies may shed new light on the Bush administration’s determination in the days after 9/11 to push legislation protecting foreign-owned security companies in the Homeland Security bill. These and other issues will be taken up this week, when Roemer and his colleagues convene the commission’s first meeting.

[Mind_your_head]

7. Interesting how "the usual suspects" appear w/o reading the article first

b/c you couldn't have read it ALL w/in 2-3 minutes of it being first posted....and start talking about 'unicorns' and 'planet Xenu' (or whatever)....just to be the first posts and make it all sound silly.

"Sensible people" interested in this topic would read what the author has to say and, at the very least, reading/listening to the links that the author provides that are of a historical nature related to this and other events, such as Pearl Harbor, bombings in Italy, etc.

[peacetalksforall]

18. Yes... yes - the precise formula for debunking was just pulled off

above. Again.

I haven't read the article yet, but I see the pattern of put down (no matter what the article says). Ridicule by more than one in a back and forth banter. Easily recongizable strategy.

[bryant69]

25. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

You figured it out. Fucking Brilliant. I never would have thought one of you would solve it, but you did. The truth is that the government pays me $1500 a week to post on this board and make fun of MIHOP arguments. Unfortunately because of my "bad attitude" and the fact that Stevo, our supervisor, is a total jerk, I'm getting laid off tomorrow.

You should know that this operation consists of some 300 people who monitor DU and post misinformation - all working together to keep DU divided and stupid, and incidentally, to make fun of MIHOP. You see MIHOP is just the tip of the iceberg (or so I am told) and if people ever started realizing the self-evident truth that Vice pResident Cheney killed 3,000 people to further his political ends, well, they might start asking other questions, right? Can't have that.

So congratulations, for figuring it out higher class - truely you've lived up to your moniker.

Bryant

[SidDithers]

38. Give Stevo a kick in the ass for me...

I surely do miss that weekly stipend since I was laid off right before Christmas.

Sid

[bryant69]

19. I did read the article

Found it, as I have found all of these sorts of articles, unconvincing.

Plus bringing in FDR and Pearl Harbor weakens the case since I think that's crap.

Bryant

[WoodrowFan]

23. same here

and having read some interesting threads on what all it actually takes to use explosives to knock down a building I think his idea of a two man team running through the buildings hidding explosives sounds like a really bad movie, totally unrealistic. Another tinfoil article written by someone without even a smidgion of a clue.

[petgoat]

44. Woody, Dr. Van Romero says that a few charges in key places

could have brought down the buildings.

The zipper theory that everybody found so plausible for three years until NIST abandoned it (and now
it strangely seems no one will defend it) essentially says that a few broken truss "clips" cause the
floors to unzip and pancake and "boom boom boom boom" total progressive collapse is inevitable.
They make it sound like you could bring the towers down with a crowbar.

If the zipper theory is plausible, then blowing off fifteen truss clips could have brought the building
down. You can't have it both ways.

[petgoat]

43. "weakens the case since I think that's crap"

Yeah, "Bryant thinks it's crap" always demolishes the opposition. A rhetorical nuke!

"Found it unconvincing." Thank you for sharing. Try mounting an argument.

[JohnyCanuck]

24. It's more fun talking about unicorns and planet Xenu than

Operation Gladio and Operation Northwoods and the precedent they have set for the high-level planning of false flag terror by Western military and intelligence services and the implementation of a successfull coverup (for some 40 plus years in the case of Gladio) of murderous false flag attacks designed to finger a designated "bogeyman" of the day, and as expressed by one of the Gladio operatives, designed "to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

[snappyturtle]

9. I agree---great reading!

Do you think with all the "distractions" currently on going that what really happened on 9/11 will surface?

[Mind_your_head]

13. I don't know

But it does seem that b/c this was such a HUGE event and has impacted so many people's lives in so many different ways, that it lends itself to this LARGE voice of people that NEED to know (and hopefully will DEMAND to know) what really happened that day.

It's an open wound that's refusing to heal. For truth's sake, I think that's a good thing.

[snappyturtle]

17. Agreed. n/t----

[tatertop]

10. "The New Pearl Harbor" is worth reading

I attended a lecture by the author, David Ray Griffin.
Superb.

[WoodrowFan]

12. except he's lying

here, judge for yourself.

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[petgoat]

48. Strong words, Woody. Dr. Griffin is lying. Care to back that up

with some evidence instead of using a big fat web site as a blunt instrument?

[greyl]

59. The original claim is that the book is worth reading.

(I have hope that you'll catch on to this process of logic thing eventually, really I do.)

The burden is on tater to provide evidence that the book is worth reading.
Woody actually provided a link for patient people to consider at length, which is more than tater did to support the book.

[petgoat]

65. You are very fond of this argument. Someone makes a claim,

someone else makes an unsupported counterclaim, and it's illogical for me to ask for
some substantiation of the counterclaim.

The burden is on everyone to support their claims.

[greyl]

68. What's your reasoning behind that? nt

[petgoat]

72. Unsupported claims muddy the waters. nt

[greyl]

75. I agree. The claim that the movie "explains everthing"

is thick mud indeed.
It's specifically off topic from the OP. (!)
It doesn't explain everything like its marketer here would like you to believe.
It reduces the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

[CJCRANE]

83. 193 reviews on Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/o4g3t

I think there's enough there for people to get a general idea what the book's about.

[CJCRANE]

82. Have you read the book?

All Griffin's sources are mainstream news or official statements.

[petgoat]

85. As opposed to the 9/11 Commission which sources its

allegations in classified documents.

[Make7]

88. Have you?

CJCRANE: "All Griffin's sources are mainstream news or official statements."

²⁷ Stan Goff, "The So-Called Evidence is a Farce," Narco News #14: October 10, 2001 (www.narconews.com), quoted in Ahmed, 173 n. 313

⁵¹ Hufschmid, 38.

⁶⁷ Jeff King, "The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show," Indymedia Webcast News, Nov. 12, 2003 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?artide_id=73428cgroup=webcast).

⁸² Those who accept this theory of controlled demolition are made additionally suspicious by the report that Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom, which provided security for the World Trade Center (as well as United Airlines), especially when this news is combined with testimony from WTC personnel that after the security detail had worked 12-hour shifts for the previous two weeks because of threats, five days before 9/11 the security alert, which had mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, was lifted (The World Trade Center Demolition: An Analysis" [www.w________________d.com/shake2.html]).

⁸⁸ Scott Loughrey, "WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse" (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html).

⁹² Bollyn, "New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation."

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355_comment.php

Those are some of the footnotes from just the first chapter of The New Pearl Harbor. Two of those sources (82 and 92) are not even allowed to be used here at DU, and none of them are what I would consider mainstream news or official statements.

- Make7

[petgoat]

93. Griffin's work does not depend on fringey sources.

Hufschmid is cited because he published otherwise unavailable photos.

Stan Goff is a former military instructor from West Point; note he is quoted in Ahmed's book.
Nafeez Ahmed's work on Afghanistan is recommended as a resource by Harvard University’s Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research.

#82 is cited to credit the question "Why did they clean up the WTC site so fast if they had
nothing to hide?"

#88 was similarly cited not for evidence but to credit the question it posed. "Do we now live in an era when tall steel structures can collapse in cities without any significant discussion of why?"

Bollyn is cited as the source for this statement: "Molten steel was also reportedly found at this
site."

Congratulations, out of 94 cites in chapter one, you've managed to find 6 that you consider fringey.
Dr. Griffin's work does not depend on fringey sources. In the course of analyzing alternative theories, he occasionally quotes their originators.

[Make7]

97. Is the following statement true or false?

Posted by CJCRANE:

All Griffin's sources are mainstream news or official statements.

Post #82

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

125. Specifically, how is Dr Griffin "lying"?

I'll bet anything you have not read the book. He doesn't "lie", he describes what happened that day using main stream sources, then gives his opinion or analysis of what those events mean. If he were to invent things that happened that day and print them as facts, then he would be lying, but he does not do that. You people are not well read about the events on 911. All you do is give links to Myths 911 and other Straw Man sites to "prove" that people you have never heard of are liars.

[Twist_U_Up]

20. How did wtc 7 fall ?

[Ian David]

27. Gravity. It's not "just a theory." Gravity is real.

"Intelligent Falling" is just a myth.

[Twist_U_Up]

76. spin baby spin

[Orrex]

29. Demolition expert Charlie Sheen knocked it down

fnord

[Twist_U_Up]

77. Funny but a non answer

[MervinFerd]

106. Spontaneous Diesel Combustion (SDC)

It's like Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC), only with diesel fuel.

There was a lot of that in the basement of WTC7. You can trigger the process with a beam of Scalar Electromagnetic Waves. The military has been working on SHC, SAC(Spontaneous Airframe Combustion) and SDC for years. Perfecting it as a weapon.

Or maybe the building was damaged by the fall of the nearby towers and the fire (which you can see burning furiously in the angle the Conspiracy Hobbyists never show) weakened the structure and it fell. (Down, which is the direction gravity works. Usually. The military is working on this special gravity that makes things fall UP.)

[petgoat]

111. Please provide these pictures of the furiously burning fires

in Building 7.

[MervinFerd]

124. Check out that 911 Myth site you despise so much.

Being a little on fire is a lot like be a little bit pregnant. If the fire was big enough the firefighters couldn't control it in several hours, it was a furiously burning fire.

[Sinti]

126. They should have built WTC 7 more like that Windsor building in Madrid

Look at that baby burn, that is one hot fire Check out the structural steel sagging just a bit there. WOW



Still, the next day it's still standing, a burned out, and hollow shadow of its former self.



Whereas, check building 7 right Before collapse:


This is the South side fire and damage everyone talks abut. Nothing but a scratch to a building like that Windsor one.



FWIW - it wasn't that the firefighters couldn't put the fire out, they decided not to fight that fire early on, like 10:30 or something. I think they had their hands full, know what I mean.

[MervinFerd]

130. Quite possibly so.

The designs are different, the results are different.

What's so hard about that?

You REALLY can't tell what was going on INSIDE the building from external photos. The firefighters seem to have concluded that the building could not be saved and that it might collapse. THEY had been inside the building.

You and I were not.

[petgoat]

135. "THEY had been inside the building. "

Right, but whatever they saw somehow didn't make it into the FEMA report, which
had to admit it couldn't explain the collapse.

[Sinti]

136. The firefighters at building 7 you mean?

The firefighters seem to have concluded that the building could not be saved and that it might collapse.

That's not the case, actually. They didn't expect it at all. They decided early on "not" to fight there small fires. Subsequently, they were told it was going to collapse much later in the day. They didn't fight the fire, because they didn't have the available water to do so. At least that's what the report says, not that you can really believe a word of it, considering the two reports differ so much. I'm personally waiting for report 3.0, the third generation often gets it right.

I know what you mean, though. WTC 7 was a steel-framed building. Windsor had more masonry, less structural steel. Funny thing is, Windsor had the collapse of a couple of floors. No steel framed building has ever fallen, or even had floors collapse, even from raging fires that lasted for hours. They did "fear" collapse with this One Meridian Plaza Building, though.

THE ONE MERIDIAN PLAZA BUILDING FIRE: At 8:40 PM on February 23, 1991 a fire initiated on the 22nd floor of the 38 story Meridian Bank Building in Philadelphia. It was a 12 alarm fire bringing to the site 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units and over 300 firefighters. The fire raged uncontrolled for 19 hours, completely consuming all combustibles on eight floors of the building. When the fire fighters arrived the fire on the 22nd floor was already well developed and heavy smoke had already entered the stairways above the 22nd.

There was a complete failure of the building's electrical system and there was inadequate water pressure for fire fighting operations. Fearing collapse of the building due to severe temperatures within this steel framed building, the fire fighters abandoned efforts to control the fire. Three fire fighters had already died and 24 had been injured. The fire finally stopped its upward progress when it reached a floor that contained a fire sprinkler system. This fire was notable for several reasons. If the building had been full of occupants at the time probably the fire fighters would not have been able to rescue those above the burning floors.

With the failure of the electrical system the elevators went out of service and the fire fighters were already exhausted after climbing up the many floors carrying the needed equipment. Because this fire occurred within a major city an abundance of equipment and manpower was available, yet the fire could not be controlled by the fire fighters. Although this building did not collapse, due to the severe deforming and damage to the steel framing, the building had to be later demolished. The financial loss was approximately 100 million dollars in direct damages and 4 billion dollars in civil damage claims, according to FEMA.

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/index.asp?layout=articleXml&xmlId=384161958

[petgoat]

138. Windsor had the collapse of a couple of floors.

That's because it was built without fireproofing.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

[petgoat]

127. You imply that 911myths has pictures of furious fires.

If so, please link them. I've never seen them.

If the fire was big enough the firefighters couldn't control
it in several hours, it was a furiously burning fire.

Since the firemen didn't even try to control the fire, the logic
is fallacious.

"{M}edical technician Decosta Wright said: “I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . {W}e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?” (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said: “{T}hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said ‘we know’” (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11)."

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

[MervinFerd]

129. You should read it yourself, but here's the direct link...

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

<<“{T}hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said ‘we know’” >>

Uhhhhhh. "Fire was burning on 3 separate floors. Just burning merrily. " Sounds pretty serious to me.

Could it be the firemen knew more about the situation than this witness? And that they knew they had not the resources to put it out? And they knew that a collapse was a real possibility?

You still have not answered my question in the post above:

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR 'SMALL CONSPIRACY'?????

if OBL=CIA then 'OCT'=AOK.

If there is no vast conspiracy, there is no evidence of ANY conspiracy.

[petgoat]

132. Just as I thought., nothing new there.

"Fire was burning on 3 separate floors. Just burning merrily. " Sounds pretty serious to me.

Since fires don't cause steel-frame buildings to collapse, it wasn't serious.

Insurance rates on high-rise steel buildings are predicated on the belief that they don't
collapse from fire. If WTC7 disproved this belief, insurance rates must have skyrocketed
after 9/11. Did they?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR 'SMALL CONSPIRACY'?

The fact that intelligence was ignored, that just two FBI guys (Maltbie and Frasca) were
able to block the major anti-terrorist efforts, the fact that FAA ignored SOPs, the fact
that there was no air defense, and the fact that there is no evidence that a large conspiracy
was required.

If there is no vast conspiracy, there is no evidence of ANY conspiracy.

Wow. You see your own nonsense, and raise it.

[dogday]

31. Someone explain why those building fell like a

precise demolition.. All the TV announcers said it as well. Also many TV announcers and fireman and cops and others said they kept hearing explosions... Someone please explain that to me.

[greyl]

34. They didn't. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

Regarding the explosions, why is it suspicious to you that very loud noises are heard when a huge fucking burning skyscraper collapses?

[simonm]

36. Video Evidence

Seeing is believing.

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html

[simonm]

35. Video Explains Everything

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html

[greyl]

37. That video doesn't "explain" anything.

It just poses a bunch of very stupid questions and tarnishes the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

The narrator who sounds like a Smith from the Matrix is a scream.

[simonm]

39. Explain

It just poses a bunch of very stupid questions and tarnishes the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

The video doesn't contain wild theories and provides strictly scientific analysis. How does that tarnish the 9/11 truth movement?

The narrator who sounds like a Smith from the Matrix is a scream.

You got me! His voice brings up old experiences of boring documentaries in college. They should have picked a better narrator.

[greyl]

47. You made the initial claim that it "explains everything".

The burden is on you, sir or madam.

"The video doesn't contain wild theories and provides strictly scientific analysis."

When you first said that a couple of months ago, I took you at your word and downloaded it even though I'm on 28.8 dialup. I was extremely disappointed. Your characterization of the movie is GROSSLY exaggerated.

[simonm]

55. technically, not everything. Do you prefer pods and holograms?

I offered you a free licensed DVD copy since the 28k video quality sucks. There is alot more to digest that only high res video can display. My offer still stands.

[greyl]

62. No thanks.

The commentary was so full of faulty logic and stupidly posed questions that it's obvious the video didn't support it. If there's something so earth shattering about the footage itself, the footage would be the issue. The video is similar in ways to a time-share sales meeting, a palm reading session, or an amateur magic act. A lot of dishonest Sleight of Word.

edit: To whomever it may concern: Please don't take my word for it. Watch the movie yourself and reach your own conclusions.
edit: after reading post 51, if you don't mind.

[simonm]

67. lol you are funny

The video is similar in ways to a time-share sales meeting, a palm reading session, or an amateur magic act. A lot of dishonest Sleight of Word.

LOL! The video is a scientific documentary and the narrator has a monotone voice capable of putting anyone to sleep. It was not made for entertainment.

Next time, I'll post something with colorful balloons and clowns to satisfy you.

9/11 Video Evidence:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html

[greyl]

70. Straw man.

Are you being knowingly obtuse?

My criticism doesn't approach resembling "it wasn't entertaining". Doublecheck my post and try again.

[simonm]

74. I'm sincerely sorry to the OP

..for being off topic. Greyl, believe whatever you want.

[Mind_your_head]

40. You're not one bit interested in the 9/11 truth movement

(except for how to disrupt it). You just yell, scream, swear, call people names, and make fun of others and their thoughts.

"It just poses a bunch of very stupid questions"

Btw, didn't anyone (your mother, a teacher perhaps) ever tell you, "There's no such thing as a stupid question. The only people who are stupid are the ones who never ask any questions."

[greyl]

45. More Ad Hom.

Yes, I am interested in the 9/11 truth movement. I'm the kind of person who is interested in its integrity. Others are interested in sensationalistic publicizing of very weak "theories" with no regard to logical integrity.
Which kind of person are you most like?

"Btw, didn't anyone (your mother, a teacher perhaps) ever tell you, "There's no such thing as a dumb question. The only people who are *dumb* are the ones who never ask any questions."

They were very wrong. I know you'd agree that teachers and parents aren't always correct and that they sometimes even lie.
Here's just one example of a stupid question: Is it possible that that lightbulb just blew out because it spontaneously gained consciousness, realized the futility of its existence and committed suicide?

[petgoat]

49. You claim you watched the movie and its questions were

stupid, but you haven't described any of the questions or explained why they're stupid.

Imagine debunking Newton the same way. "Haa Haa Haa, he says unicorns keep the planets on
their courses." "I read the Principia and found it unconvincing." "Newton is a liar.
It says so in this big fat book, but I'm not going to tell you where."

[greyl]

52. The original claim is from simon*

He said it "explains everything" and supports that assertion by repeating the ridiculous canard "seeing is believing".

I don't see how he met his burden of proof. Do you?

[petgoat]

56. I've seen the movie, so I have my own opinions. You have made

no attempt to back up your assertions with examples.

[greyl]

60. The movie itself supports my assertions.

Talking about that movie is as valuable as talking about nukes, holograms, and pods.

[simonm]

63. A conclusion fit for a troll

You have no real interest in 9/11 truth.

[petgoat]

69. He says the questions are dumb, but he won't tell us which ones

or what's dumb about them. And then he wants to be treated as the Voice of Reason.

[greyl]

71. Watch the movie yourself. Seeing is believing.

Right?

[petgoat]

92. There you go again. No evidence you've even seen it. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

78. good analysis thanks nt

[Mind_your_head]

53. Anyone seriously interested in this let's 'stay on topic'

How many people would it take to "pull off" the events of 9/11?

(thank you, Petgoat, for reminding us in post #50, to stay "on-topic") :-)

I, for one, am going to ignore the disrupters (if they have debates with websites, unicorns, or their parents lying to them, etc.)....they can start their own thread about it ~ somewhere else)

[simonm]

57. 10-20

Enough for:

Demolition team
High level federal & state officials. -To command subordinates & block further investigations.


The Iran Contra conspiracy is a good example.

[jschurchin]

90. I tend to agree with..........

the lower number for WTC 1,2 and 7. Controlling airspace and the "so called" investigation would take a few more. Overall I agree with your estimate.

[greyl]

58. In that case, start with reply #1 with no ad homs, mmmkay? nt

[petgoat]

66. I already did. Post 42. nt

[savemefromdumbya]

99. It was a operation that included other countries

[Rich Hunt]

80. what about the people...

What about the people who told the workers in the south tower to go back upstairs....when the building next door was on FIRE because a plane crashed into the neighboring building??

Stupidity, or complicity?

[petgoat]

81. "Stupidity, or complicity?" Is there any way to know?

Security people would prefer not to have uncontrolled mass exits from buildings. Documents, floppy
disks, expensive computer parts, and personal valuables tend to disappear at such times.

On the other hand, those issues are of greater concern to the security of the tenant institutions than
they are to Building Security.

[jschurchin]

91. Stupidity.

[Chomp]

104. Here are the 7 guys:

(These are all direct quotes...)

"Mr. Cheney would probably have had 1 guy manning the secret service communications system and another guy sitting at a computer inserting false radar blips onto air traffic controllers' screens. But this demonstrates that you didn’t need thousands to pull off 9/11."

"One guy in the Bush-linked security company lets in the bomb-setters;

A 2-man crew of demolition experts sets the radio-controlled explosives while everyone is out of the building;

And the same crew detonates the explosives using a radio transceiver.

That adds only 3 more guys."

"So, we're now up to perhaps 7 people total to pull off 9/11 (Cheney, another guy making sure intelligence warnings aren't acted on, the secret service agent and the the radar guy, the security guy and the two-man demolition crew)."

...


So, one of the guys involved in the greatest act of treason and murder in US history is the Vice President of the United States, and another is a WTC security guard who presumably has a big buch of keys hanging off his belt as he schlubs around the lobbies of the WTC. Jesus, what a load of bollox.

This writer's credibility is quite simply ZERO for making auch ludicrous claims.

[Sinti]

105. One guy in the Bush-linked security company lets in the bomb-setters

You don't need that guy. A good team could easily get in there and set them without being noticed. Dogs don't recognize every kind of explosive possible. Some of the more "exotic" stuff the dogs aren't trained for.

You need a couple of high level men in DIA and CIA black ops, IMO.
Two man team for setting/detonating the charges.
Deep cover op in the ME to arrange for the hijackings.
A couple of extremely high level personnel in the executive, who seem to be micromanaging a bit...

Everyone else just does their job, in perfect compartmentalized fashion, follows orders, doesn't ask why, and when you aren't interested in certain info, they don't give it to you anymore.

Afterward, you claim everybody was off their game, didn't know to expect it was a dangerous world, contemptible incompetence... we were out golfing. People who ask too many questions are considered insane, having an agenda, *-loathing hate mongers... you'll lose your job, your pension, your high regard as a normal citizen in your community... go along to get along. And if they don't go along, they get fired and shut up.

It could be done. It might not have BEEN done. But, it could be done with very few people actually knowing the whole story.

How many "black ops," not low level political-scandal-conspiracy-October-Surprise type things, but "black ops" do you know about?

[MervinFerd]

107. But he could be a Mid Eastern terrorist, and not a Bush.

The trouble here is that, if seven men could do it, anybody could do it.

You lose your argumemt that "Bush did it".

The first 9/11 conspiracy argument, remember, was that these operations were so complex that only a gov't agency could pull them off.

Also, I think you have forgotten to hijack the airplanes. Who did that?

[Chomp]

109. That's a good point Mervin

The contention that only the government was capable of pulling off such a thing has morphed into about 100 different sub-variations of that position.

Thus, nowadays, the MIHOP people can't decide whether it was 7 guys or hundreds of guys including the likes of Larry Silverstein and the CEO of AA.

The utter, utter ludicrousness of the 7-man contentions is staggering: the secret government plans this extraordinary plot involving messing with ATC radar and communication systems, but they also need to get some security dude to open the door for them at the WTC. I mean, that is, literally, laughable. It is funny it is so silly. It's like something from a bad 70's TV heist movie - the fat security guard looking at TV and reading porn magazines as the 2 bad guys creep past him, balaclavas on.

And 2 demo guys? That makes my head spin. I would love to see a comment from a demolition professional on that contention.

[petgoat]

114. Where did you get this fat security guy from? Conventional

locks are no problem for any skilled black ops guy.

2 demo guys is not so impossible, given time. Using the roofs of elevator cars
as movable staging they could set charges quite efficiently in the elevator
shafts. Dr. Van Romero said a few charges in key places could have brought the
towers down. Thomas Eagar's "zipper theory", which passed for conventional wisdom
until recently, seemed to suggest that if you blew a few flimsy truss clips
off the columns the whole building would come down.

[Sinti]

110. You are mistaken, or did not read my post properly

I said:

You need a couple of high level men in DIA and CIA black ops, IMO.
Two man team for setting/detonating the charges.
Deep cover op in the ME to arrange for the hijackings.
A couple of extremely high level personnel in the executive, who seem to be micromanaging a bit...


The "deep cover op" (op = operative) would arrange the hijackings, i.e., have his devout followers actually hijack airplanes.

I personally disagree that the "first 9/11 conspiracy argument is that the operations were too complex." In fact, I would strongly suggest that ANY well organized intelligence apparatus could do this. Cavemen could not.

What would be very, very difficult for them to do is to change the law so that NORAD was waiting for the Sec Def, who was in a meeting the entire time. To cause so many high level persons to ignore the warnings, etc. If they had an inside man, in the US, they could perhaps know when the war games were going on, however.

As you can see below, I did not say Bush did it. In fact, I'm not certain Bush even had to know, at least until after it was done, particularly if he was just listening to advisers.

It could be done. It might not have BEEN done. But, it could be done with very few people actually knowing the whole story.

Please do tell me if I've left something out. :)

[MervinFerd]

117. Yes, inside assistance possible, but it leaves no evidence......

All the supposed evidence requires a vast conspiracy by the "Secret Government"----

Fake Arab hijackers, faked phone calls to relatives, planted explosives, and of course fake planes hitting the Pentagon. All that requires the efforts of many, many people. And even then would be impossible.

This is a Bait and Switch.

[Sinti]

119. I may simply have an excessively devious mind, but I would do my

best to "plant" as much fake, and ridiculous evidence as possible, which could be done without the planters necessarily knowing the discord they were sowing. The more forks there are in the road, the less likely anyone looking at it would come to the correct destination.

You could get a lot of folks to do good disinfo, by telling them you're protecting the American public from the knowledge of what the "terrorists" managed to do. They'd be doing what they thought was right in their pure and patriotic hearts. Tell them, let's say, they managed to plant explosives in WTC, they had insiders and got the inside dope on the military war games going on that day, i.e., the day when our guard was down, if you will. As long as the dogs are chasing their tails, they ain't gonna bite you.

IOW, I would have some guys actually start up some kind of 9/11 conspiracy story, including as many ridiculous propositions as possible, from the get go, basically while the rest of the country was still in shock. After all, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves," right.

BTW - I covered the ease with which well trained men could plant explosives, I certainly don't think it's above their capabilities. After all, planting things, usually bugging devices, is a big part of what intelligence agencies do, at least that's what they tell us in spy novels. :)

[petgoat]

121. Once again, what's "vast" about it?

Why do you keep insisting on these fake fakes, and recruiting people into the conspiracy
who are not really part of it? If a gussied up Global Hawk hit the Pentagon, do the people
who built it have to know about it? No. How many people does it take to fly a remote control
Global Hawk? (Especially if there's a radio beacon in the building?)

[MervinFerd]

140. O' Come on....I thought we were making progress here...

<<If a gussied up Global Hawk hit the Pentagon, do the people who built it have to know about it?>>

O' Good Grief!!!!

Remember the 767 full of people? How many people to dispose of that?

The hundreds or thousands of rescue workers and investigators who were in the crash site withing minutes and thought they saw the wreckage of a 767.

How many people to plant body parts of all but one of the passengers and most of the 767, which was recovered from the site?

The FAA investigators.

The RADAR records that showed the path of the 767 and would have shown it leaving the vicinity and shown the Global Hawk?

The hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a 767 and DIDN'T see a Global Hawk?

GOOD GRIEF!

This is SPHERICALLY STUPID. (Stupid from any direction you look at it).

[petgoat]

141. How many to dispose of a 757? One, I guess, to fly it into the sea.

hundreds or thousands of rescue workers and investigators who... thought they saw the wreckage of a 767.

Saw what they expected to see. Stagecraft is easy. You had 125 bodies lying around. A few burned
seats, some landing gear parts, engine parts, and the impression is made.

How many people to plant body parts of all but one of the passengers

No need to plant passenger body parts. You have 125 bodies already. Passenger tissue samples are
added to the set from the 125 when they're transported to the lab for analysis.

most of the 767, which was recovered from the site?

Really? Is that what they took out under that blue tarp? I haven't seen a picture.

The FAA investigators.

There was an FAA investigation?

RADAR records that showed the path of the 767

Ptech and Mitre were in the basement of the FAA. The war games involved radar injects.

hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a 767 and DIDN'T see a Global Hawk?

Several eyewitnesses saw a plane smaller than a 757. Many would not be able to distinguish
a Global Hawk painted to resemble an AA 757 from an AA 757. Few witnesses who saw flight 77
actually saw it fly into the Pentagon. So it may have overflown the region and flown away.

I am not propounding the no-757 theory, as I have insufficient data to make any determination
of what happened. But I haven't seen anything to rule it out yet. In any case, the point
is moot because the Pentagon's defensive missiles should have caught whatever it was before
it struck.

[petgoat]

113. "anybody could do it"

Maybe, if they knew when the war games would disrupt the air defense.

According to the OCT, "anybody" (complete outsiders) DID do it.

They couldn't arrange the intelligence failures, though. Couldn't arrange
for Ashcroft to refuse to take David Schippers's calls.

Some of us choose to examine the facts without trying to censor them according
to their implications.

[MervinFerd]

108. He forgot to hijack the airplanes.....

These guys are so focused on the supposed bombs in the buildings, they have forgotten all about the airplanes.

A pecularly circular kind of reasoning.

FWIW, for purposes of argument, I wouldn't put anything past Cheney. But he can't insert blips on ATC radar screens from the WH, or control the military communication systems. And none of that would have made a whit of difference anyway.

[petgoat]

115. "Cheney...can't insert blips on ATC radar screens from the WH"

Are you sure? According to Richard Clarke, the Secret Service could see everything that
the FAA could see on their radar (see p. 7, Against All Enemies).

According to Norm Mineta, Cheney was tracking flight 77 as it approached Washington
at 9:25.

The PROMIS-type software that mediated these data-sharing systems is discussed by Michael
Ruppert at great length. The PTech company that installed such things was partially financed
by Yassin al Qadi, a suspected al Qaeda financier the investigation of whom by FBI agent
Robert Wright was shut down by Bush in 1/01. Its clients included the FAA and the Secret
Service, the White House, the FBI, the DOE, NATO, USAF.

Working with Mitre Corporation it had an installation in the basement of the FAA on 9/11.

The assumptions upon which you base your opinions are not justified.

Yes, the 7-man conspiracy assumes 19 real hijackers or rigged aircraft (the riggers of which
would presuably be killed). Of course if Osama is a CIA agent, then he's just conspirator
number 8 and the 19 hijackers he recruits to die for Allah are just patsies.

[MervinFerd]

118. No, he can't change the blips....

Seeing the blips is a very different thing from changing them. That would be an extraordinarily complicated technical feat that would have to be designed into the system from the outset. And that would compromise the reliability of the whole system. You make the local systems independent and then feed the data to a central site. That way the whole system doesn't come down at once. All the engineers working on the system would know about such a strange design and wonder.

More basically, what would be the point? A shootdown required an order directly from the President. Without that order fighter interceptions were irrelevant. Just delay the President's decision a few minutes. And there was no possibility of a shootdown before the towers were hit.

"Rigged Aircraft" would also be a complex technical feat. Plus, WHO kills the riggers? WHO creates the fake hijackers? WHO fakes the phone calls? You are up to a large crowd of conspirators very quickly.

If Osama is a CIA agent, none of the supposed evidence of conspiracy makes sense. Real Ay-rabs hijacked real planes and flew them into real buildings. No need to fake anything. And no evidence of faked anything.

Logic, Mr. Goat.

[petgoat]

120. You're still making up your facts.

If data is fed to a central site, that data can be subverted. It's as easy as faking your grandma
out by putting a VCR in the CATV feed and showing her a tape of last night's news which she thinks
is tonight's news.

All the engineers working on the system would know

Your assumption that their knowledge exceeds "need to know" levels on National Security systems
does not seem reasonable.

A shootdown required an order directly from the President. Without that order fighter
interceptions were irrelevant.

Baloney! The purpose of interceptions is to establish communication, order the plane down, and
show them that resistance is futile. To suppose that one must wait for a shootdown order before
initiating an interception is an example of the kind of absurd operational impediments with which
you guys always try to spiderweb these issues.

there was no possibility of a shootdown before the towers were hit.

After 11 hit, 175 could have been shot down.

"Rigged Aircraft" would also be a complex technical feat.

In August of 2001, Raytheon landed a remote-control 727 6 times with no pilot on board.
Not flew-- landed .



(See cooperativeresearch.org--Thanks Paul! :hi: :patriot: :yourock:)

WHO kills the riggers? Your usual CIA assassins, I suppose. I don't know. Maybe Rummy
did it personally. Note many Raytheon people supposedly died on 9/11 flights. How convenient.
(See cooperativeresearch for that, too.)

WHO creates the fake hijackers? Who needs fake hijackers if Osama can provide real ones?
Besides, maybe they were spook wannabees who thought they were just doing war games.

WHO fakes the phone calls? Who says they're fake?

You are up to a large crowd of conspirators very quickly.

Enough ideologues were surely salivating over the boost to the military-industrial-security complex
that the New Pearl Harbor would bring that recruiting personnel would not be difficult. A large
conspiracy is not impossible. We're just pointing out that it is not necessary.

Real Ay-rabs hijacked real planes and flew them into real buildings. No need to fake anything.
And no evidence of faked anything.

Even if the first sentence is true, there's still a need for faking. The towers had to come down.
Even if fire could have done it (and I doubt it) the only way to be sure they came down was to use
explosives and/or thermite.

The difficulty of the Pentagon spiral meant an expert suicide pilot had to be recruited and perform
flawlessly, or the plane was remote controlled, or the plane people saw did not hit the Pentagon.

Flight 93 may have involved faking to erase the evidence that it was shot down, and evidence that
it was heading west (back to Pittsburgh) when that happened.

Logic, Mr. Goat.

Yeah, try it some time. If you try to stay within the realm of what you regard as "common sense"
you will only cramp your thinking. You have to examine the evidence logically and then follow the
implications of the logic wherever it leads. The vast amounts of missing information here means
we must avoid premature conclusions.

[petgoat]

112. Your burlesque of the security guy, a satirical irrelevance,

seems to be the crux of your argument.

A comparable argument against the OCT would be:

"So you're trying to claim that a bunch of Islamic religious
fanatics got on a plane with their prayer rugs rolled up and
used them to batter down the cockpit doors...."

And you claim that such a feeble effort damages someone else's
credibility.

Also, as Sinti pointed out, no security guy is needed on the team.
Tenants could have smuggled explosives into the building in the
freight elevator, and planted them in the elevator shafts after
midnight.