Why go through all the trouble?

reply to post by blackrain17

Black boxes are virtually indestructable. Planes crashing into building won't destroy it. The government clean up crew did take the boxes away. But it would be hard without the buildings collapsing. [/ex

Really????

While the flight recorders are designed to survivve most crash scenarios are not indestrucible

There is a tradeoff between survivability and weight - overdesigning the boxes means nore dead weight costing
fuel which translates in lot of $$ over life of aircraft

Witness cockpit voice recorder from AA77 which hit Pentagon

It was cracked open and the tape inside destroyed

Here is another example from Nov 2001 - American 587 which crashed soon after take off from JFK in New York

.Investigations into the crash of American Airlines flight 587 in New York on Monday have been hampered by damage to the flight recorder, which was recovered from the crash site on Tuesday.
"The most significant information will probably be in that data recorder," the national transportation safety board (NTSB) spokesman, George Black, said yesterday.

"The memory is there. We just can't get to it."

The damaged memory component of the recorder which has prevented access to the data has been shipped to its Florida manufacturer for decoding.

Show me other flight recorder which survived being ploughed into building at 500mph, having 110 story building
fall on it and then have the rubble burn for months ....

reply to post by Chevalerous


The Enron investigation did not "disappear" with WTC 7. It proceeded and Skilling got 24 years in due course :-

www.usatoday.com...

This is just another truther myth that keeps getting repeated but has no basis in fact.

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by nightbringr

 

You are assuming everything happening exactly as planned. What if the planes missed the target and crashed somewhere else? Hmmmmm... Planes without black boxes. Isn't that suspicious. Hindsite is 20/20...

If one or both planes had missed then black boxes would have been the least thing to worry about. There would have be one or two Towers standing there packed and ready for controlled demolition according to many truthers.

It is truthers who assume that everything went to plan and never seem to consider how ridiculously complex the supposed plot was. So elaborate that 1001 things could have gone wrong. No conspirator would have signed up to a plan that called for simulating the collapse from aircraft strikes but was a cd really. So much to go wrong, so much more evidence, so many more in the know. And for what ? Hundreds died in the initial impacts so plenty of cause there.

Originally posted by canselmi
Let me start off by saying that I do not think there was a 9/11 conspiracy. If I were to believe any one of the numerous theories, I could possibly believe that the government knew of the attacks before hand and did nothing to stop it. But that would be about it.

But on to my question...if it was an inside job, why go through all the trouble of installing explosives, all the coordination it would require, the many people (and potential whistle blowers) to carry it out, etc.

Evidence points to Building 7 housing the command and control center for the operation, and it definitely held entire criminal cases against corrupt corporations like Worldcom. "Oh yeah! What ever happened to WORLDCOM?" Its executives off the hook after 9/11. Most likely, the govt planned in advance to "pull" building 7, to hide the evidence & profit off of the elimination of these fraud cases. And since they were pulling building 7, they had to pull them all. Imagine if Building 7 had collapsed into its own footprint while the towers sat there for weeks/months with gaping holes in them? That would have been PLAINLY ridiculous.

There's many better questions you should be asking. Like, "why immediately ship overseas every last scrap of metal from the fallen twin towers?" Obvious answer: "To hide the evidence."

reply to post by Observer99


Yet another truther myth. What is all this stuff stored in a hangar at JFK ?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by canselmi
reply to post by mb2591

 

By all means, open my eyes.
I personally don't think I'm blind, but I'm not so stubborn as to deny the possiblity that I might be.

I do find it (any many other examples) suspicous. But I could just as easily believe that in all the chaos and with all the regular lines of communication clogged, that there was bound to be misinformation.We see it today in "breaking news stories".

edit on 17-6-2011 by canselmi because: (no reason given)

Watch 9-11 press for truth, so far it has not been disproven.

Watch the PBS special, John P. O'neill, the man who knew.

Read up on all you can about Sibel Edmonds the whistle blower
who was fired from the FBI for telling the truth.

There is more of course, but that should be enough to show that
ppl within the government are at a minimum engaged in a cover up.

Also the numerous video cameras both gov and corporate that filmed the
plane hitting the pentagon they refuse to release the video, same deal
for the OKC bombing.

What a Co-wink-a-dink.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Observer99

 

Yet another truther myth. What is all this stuff stored in a hangar at JFK ?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I watched the steel trucked off to boats, it happened within weeks, amazingly fast. Why? Where's the journalists studying this supposed saved debris? Oh, there aren't any because mainstream media are forbidden to bring up the topic. And what would it be supposed to prove? That's like if you may have killed your wife and kept the crime scene evidence in your basement for 10 years, and someone comes in thinking it will prove anything. You had 10 years to go over the evidence to remove anything to implicate yourself. Any evidence they kept has been swept clean as a whistle by now.

There's only one relevant issue -- building 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. Anyone who doesn't believe that is an utter fool. Anyone who doesn't then conclude that 9/11 was a coverup is a fool. I don't waste time on fools.

reply to post by Observer99


How can you say " the mainstream media are forbidden to bring the topic up" when I hust posted an article from the msm giving information and pictures of some of the stuff stored in the hangar at JFK ?

That the hangar has been used to store WTC steel and other items for years hasn't been a secret to anyone but truthers like yourself who don't want their prejudices exposed to facts.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

The Enron investigation did not "disappear" with WTC 7. It proceeded and Skilling got 24 years in due course :-

www.usatoday.com...

This is just another truther myth that keeps getting repeated but has no basis in fact.

Well, that was not the point I was trying to make, was it?

I didn't mean that the whole investigation disappeard!

I was talking about very specific documents and other evidence of that corporate fraud investigation kept in offices at WTC7, that possibly could have tied the Enron scandal with people in the Bush administration more than what has been revealed - people in the government and corporations near the government who were well connected to all major players in that scandal and made the Enron adventure in foreign countries possible from the beginning and took part in the scam to make money.

And you think by posting an article where some people got their sentences is enough to prove that no such connections on higher levels in the administration and that many more documents kept in offices at WTC7 never existed?

Sure, it's a theory so far - there is no real evidence to prove this right now since those documents probably disappeard, but nevertheless the links to the same people are still there, and it is not too difficult to imagine the implications of such documents.

Bush and his administration have been revealed as entwined in a story of corporate greed and political manipulation by an energy firm called Enron, now under double criminal investigation.

The scandal - in which the life savings and retirement funds of tens of thousands of employees vanished while a number of executive directors lined their pockets - reaches so high that John Ashcroft, the Attorney-General, has had to withdraw from the investigation because he received Enron money, and lawsuits are the pipeline to force Vice-President Dick Cheney for details of his contacts with the company.

But now the White House is laid bare by what rivals call 'Enronomics' - the political fable of the Enron corporation.

It has long been reported how the Bush administration and family is beholden to the energy industry. Before the Afghan war, an 'Energy Task Force' favourable to the industry was the main concern for Cheney, who himself came to office from the biggest oil equipment firm in the world.

Enron was just the kind of scandal a war would hide. The company plunged from a stock rating worth $60 billion - seventh on the Fortune list of US companies - into the biggest bankruptcy filing in US history, registered on 2 December.

The ethical - maybe criminal - core of the scandal is that Enron trapped its employees into a 'stock-lock', whereby they were not allowed to sell share options bought by way of savings. When the company collapsed, they lost everything. Meanwhile, Enron's executives - blessed by inside information and foresight - made a killing by scrambling to sell shares before the price collapsed.

The beneficiaries of the company's surge to power were those who boarded the wheel of perpetual motion that binds the Bush administration to the energy industry. Then the company's brass even tried to make their fortune out of its fall as well.

The Observer has dug into Enron's past to find that intimate connections with Bush and his Texan Republicans started long before the campaigns that brought them to Washington

Enron is a Houston-based utility trading company that sells energy to consumers, industrial and domestic. It is one of the biggest of its kind in the world - a standing it owes in no small part to Bush's governorship in Texas.

Texas's 1992 Energy Policy Act opened a regulatory black hole into which Enron moved and thrived, forcing established utility companies to buy energy from it. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, under the presidency of Bush's father, allowed for an exemption in trading energy subsidiaries. The practice would be Enron's downfall.

The 1992 trading commission was chaired by Wendy Gramm, wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm, close friend of the Bush family and recipient of $97,350 in political donations from Enron.

Once the exemption was accomplished, Mrs Gramm resigned to join the Enron board. As a member of its current audit committee, she is expected to play a key role in the forthcoming lawsuits and criminal investigation into bankruptcy and document destruction.

In 1997, Enron was anxious to break into Pennsylvania, one of America's biggest energy markets, with its huge consumers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The company was having difficulty, and Lay asked Bush (who liked to call him 'Kenny boy') tohelp.

Bush duly called the then state governor, Tom Ridge, to pitch for Enron, whose bid duly succeeded. 'I called George W to kind of tell him what was going on,' said Lay at the time, 'and I said it would be very helpful to Enron if he could just call the governor and tell him Enron is a serious company'. Ridge was made Secretary of Homeland Security - Bush's new White House office - after 11 September.

Lay and Enron have been bountiful contributors to George Bush Jnr. Since 1993, company executives have donated nearly $2 million to him personally. Lay also donated $326,000 in soft money to the Republican Party over the three years prior to Bush's presidential bid and his wife added $100,000 for the inauguration festivities.

The administration is splattered with senior officials owning stock in Enron. Economic adviser Larry Lindsay and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick went straight from Enron's payroll into office.

The biggest holding is that of Army Secretary Thomas White, who as a former Enron executive holds stock and options totalling $50m to $100m.

Rove himself holds as much as $250,000 in stock, and other holders include Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his assistant William Winkenwerder, Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Weinberger, Economic Undersecretary Kathleen Cooper, Education Undersecretary Eugene Hickock, the ambassadors to Russia, Ireland, the Emirates and officials in the energy department, including its chief financial officer Bruce Carnes.

It is not known which - if any - of these privileged stockholders sold their shares along with the Enron bosses, or suffered the same loss as everyone else. Such details will appear when they make this year's filings - leaving any that did so open to ethical, if not criminal, inquiry.

Bush has pursued the aggressive deregulation policies preferred by Enron and its kind, including legislation that exempts key elements of Enron's energy business from oversight by the federal government - pushed by none other than Senator Phil Gramm.

Enron was so close to the bosom of the administration that Lay and other executives were called to the White House for six meetings with Cheney and his staff - the last one only a week before the company made the staggering announcement that it was slashing shareholder equity by $1.2bn.

For Enron was playing a double game. In the run-up to the announcement, its president, Greg Whalley, was frantically lobbying another wing of the administration for help in arranging loans. His point man was Undersecretary Peter Fisher.

Lay discussed the upcoming bankruptcy twice with Commerce Secretary Don Evans - one of the Texan 'Iron Triangle' that propelled Bush to power. Later, he also twice pleaded Enron's case to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

And among Enron's top point men in Washington during the bankruptcy saga was Clinton's former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who was revealed by the Washington Post yesterday as having made a representation last November to the current Treasury on behalf of the company. Rubin is now chairman of the executive committee of the Citigroup bank, one of Enron's principal backers, trying, with the JP Morgan bank, to raise $1.5bn in an effort to see the company through the bankruptcy crisis.

These are matters for the six Congressional committees preparing to investigate Enron. But they will have to wait for the two criminal investigations launched this week: one into Enron's bankruptcy, the other into the admission by the company's auditor, Arthur Andersen, that it destroyed thousands of documents about the bankruptcy.

The crucial criminal issue is whether executives misled investors by inflating revenues and minimising debts. The political issue is how closely entwined is the Washington elite - and the immediate circle around Bush

Source Guardian

If the government was involved, the planning involved would had to have been very tedious, detailed, etc.

But if I'm to belive the Truthers, when it came time to plan the Flight 93 portion, the government just said "The heck with crashing another jet, let's just dig a big whole in a field and call it good".

The same goes for the Pentagon crash. "Let's just shoot a missle at it, no one will know the difference."

But yet they felt the need to have scripts for reporters to read.

I just can not believe they would plan to the level of detail that some theories put forth, yet gloss over really important aspects of the plan.

reply to post by canselmi


I think the main details are all there, but people tend to speculate and fill in the blanks by adding more details such as reporters reading scrips.