Some 9-11 Questios & Theories

reply to post by RenDMC

Then why not go for the White House? I mean, sure the WTC messed America up. But they had 4 planes, why not crash direclty into THE symbol of America?

They kept it open as an option...

Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult.Source

Hani obtained that license in 1999 from the FAA. Correct? "He obtained three Federal Flight Licenses from private contractors working with the FAA(1)". Yet, when Hani trained using a Cessna (which he was barely able to fly, according to his teacher) he should have "Been re-examined as a commercial pilot, as required by federal law(2)". So how did Hani get his license?

As for not being able to hit the White House, why not just hijack a plane from Regan International? Get it up, take control and turn it around. I mean Hani did do a full turn, so he was capable in some peoples views.

Well I just refreshed and noticed Boone has found a link. Nice work Boone, I always wondered why they never hit that.


(1) - www.govexec.com...
(2) - www.crono911.net...

Originally posted by jprophet420
First responders pointed them out many times. (explosions in the basement, lobby, and floors that were not burning). You use the word silly to describe it also, when there in fact had been bombs in the basement used in previous attacks.

All right, fair enough. Allow me to rephrase it- making much ado about explosions being heard in the basement is silly, since the collapse began at the point of impact of the aircraft, not at the basement, thus it's silly to imply explosives down in the basement somehow caused the building to start collapsing at the ninety-somethingth floor or the collapse of any of the floors in between.

The clarification still doesn't help your claims of conspiracy, at all.

As far as CD experts are concerned they met the industry standard definition of doing just that.

Then you will need to explicitely define "in their own footprints" as being the entire WTC complex and several Manhatten blocks beyond, but I don't have to tell you that such context makes the claims of "falling in their own footprint" largely meaningless.

reply to post by RenDMC


Targets were chosen for their symbolism and fact were very large
structures easily identified from air.

WTC was the Tower of the Jews - remember was attacked in 1993

Pentagon was Tower of War

Capitol Building - presumed target of United 93 was Tower of Laws

White House is actually fairly small, surrounded by trees and is difficult
to see from air.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Another box of rocks I see...

I got your box of rocks swampy. Your link goes to an article dated Nov. 2, 2001.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2, 2001
FBI: We Know Who Hijackers Were
FBI Says It Has More Than 400,000 Leads

www.cbsnews.com...


Let’s look at what Mueller said in May of 2003!

FBI Admits No Evidence Linking Hijackers To 911

May 29, 2003 - 14:40
'left no paper trial.' The FBI director stated flatly: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." In describing Mueller's evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that: Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks - all legal except for a few speeding tickets - they have found no evidence of their actual plotting. The Times reporters acknowledge that Mueller's comments "offer the FBI's most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have." The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used "meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works" to conceal their scheme.

100777.com...

You post statements saying that the FBI wasnt sure who the hijackers were. So when someone posts a story saying they know exactly who they were it confuses you....I get that.

Sorry, looks like you’re the one who is confused.

reply to post by impressme


Nope, not even close. You still are not getting it.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Nope, not even close. You still are not getting it.

Why don’t you just demonstrate what it is that We just don’t get?

reply to post by impressme


You have a mouse in your pocket? It is not "we" it is you. You get hung up on no "paper" evidence, and ignore the rest of it.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

You have a mouse in your pocket? It is not "we" it is you. You get hung up on no "paper" evidence, and ignore the rest of it.

Your lame insults are noted. I am not ignoring anything here.
You are off topic as usual!
We are not in here to debate what you think I have ignored, so stay on topic!

Do you have anything useful to add to this topic?
“Some 911 Questions & Theories”


[edit on 18-6-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
STOP LYING! What Robert Muller said is:

]In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."

Ahem. I notice you've just let slip that he said this in Sept 2002, BEFORE the 9/11 commission began its investigation (Nov 2002) and BEFORE their report was released explaining the evidence they collected (2004). You've artfully chosen a quote made at a specific time when they didn't have any evidence yet, which fits the definition of "quoting people out of context" by anyone's standards. You DO know it's 2009 now, right?

The only one lying here is you...or to be more precise, the conspiracy web sites feeding you this garbage. It's blatantly obvious you're not coming up with this yourself.

Right, and they share their info only with you, but you can’t post any sources to back up your ridiculous statements, from those websites that sell disnfo T-shirts that preach against the 911 OS is lunacy.

The fact that the FBI and CIA didn't share information with each other, and how they got into the situation of why they didn't share information with each other, is right there in the 9/11 commission report for *everyone* to read, not just me. It would be one thing for you to dispute the claim, but when you actually argue over whether anyone ever made the claim at all, it should be readily apparent that these conspiracy web sites of yours are only feeding you their own carefully edited side of the story.

BTW the fact that these 9/11 conspiracy sites are selling worthless junk like t-shirts, etc is likewise irrefutable. It only took me TEN SECONDS of Google searching to find it on the Loose Change web site...

Step right up and get yer T-shirts

I find it interesting that I seem to know more about what's on these conspiracy websites than you do.

Yes they were successful, because it was an inside job. (Prove it was not?) You can’t.

I don't have to prove it wasn't an "inside job" any more than I have to prove it wasn't an attack by space aliens. You're the one claiming it was an inside job so the responsibility is yours to prove it's true. If someone else claimed it was the work of space aliens, it would be THEIR responsibility to show THAT was true. It ain't a trick question, guy.

All lies, where is your proof? If there is no paper trail then why should we believe in hearsay? Governments lie all the time nothing but lies.

You claim to be an honest researcher, but if you don't know even the most basic of details of what the commission report covered then all your other claims are of thoroughly horrid credibility becuase to even say they're lies you'd necessarily need to know what it is they said to begin with. If I was ever so intellectually dishonest to accuse YOU of being a liar without even bothering to read your posts, I don't have to tell you that you'd be all over me like Rosie O'Donnell on a chocolate cake.

If you want people to take you seriously then I suggest you start posting some sources and not your opinions.

I've already said numerous times that I got this information from the 9/11 commission report, so my saying it one more time is unlikely to make any difference.

My philosophy is simple- it's lies, not the truth, that need fear critique. When I freely browse the 9/11 websites to see what they have to say, and yet you have all but admitted you go out of your way to avoid reading the 9/11 commission report to see what your opposition is saying, that says volumes, right there, about who here is doing honest research and who is not.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by RenDMC

 

Targets were chosen for their symbolism and fact were very large
structures easily identified from air.

WTC was the Tower of the Jews - remember was attacked in 1993

Pentagon was Tower of War

Capitol Building - presumed target of United 93 was Tower of Laws

White House is actually fairly small, surrounded by trees and is difficult
to see from air.

Ahhh I see the symbolism. But wasn't it actually the Feds in 93'? The White House is only about 4 miles from the Pentagon? ahh I dunno, Thanks for the reply anyway DMan

Originally posted by RenDMC
"The complexity and precision of the approach maneuver are nearly impossible to reconcile with the official account that the plane was piloted by Hani Hanjour, an incompetent pilot of even single-engine prop-planes"

Hanjour didn't need to be a good pilot, and in fact Hanjour didn't even need to be a mediocre pilot. He certainly didn't need to know how to take off, since they waited until after takeoff to hijack the craft, and he certainly didn't need to know how to land, since it was a one way trip. The only things he did need to know was how to use the automatic pilot, how to fly in a straight line, and how to fly in a circle. I'm not a pilot so I wouldn't know, but I'd imagine being taught how to fly in a straight line and how to fly in a circle are things they teach you the first week, and learning how to use the automatic pilot would probably be shown in their textbook. How complex and precise do they have to be in order to fly in a straight line and a circle, and flip a switch on an instrument panel?

On the other hand, to be a properly licensed pilot you'd need to know all the components of flying I.E. landing, taking off, adjusting trim, how to recover from a stall, etc. All the things they flunked him on are things he'd never use and almost certainly wouldn't have cared about. Besides, saying that an incompetent pilot WOULDN'T be able to figure out how to crash an airplane really is being rather silly.

reply to post by impressme


You chose to speak representing someone else in addition to yourself. So, who else are you speaking for?