9/11 Coincidences and Questions

reply to post by jlm912


Sources provided in the video

Dawson's gone deep into not just just 9/11, but many events surrounding it. You OS believers just don't understand. You're only scratching the surface with your arguments.

I deal with statistics and probability in one of my consulting jobs and I calculated that for all three buildings to collapse within their own footprint the odds would be one in 15 million, about the same as me getting a roll in the sack with Angelina Jolie even if she was sober and awake!

Quote from PP link above:

"Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

No single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners. Until now. More and more individuals are looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the morning of 9/11.

Cheney: "The orders still stand" as Flight 77 approaches the Pentagon with no action taken to defend it

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the
Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as
Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the
9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got
down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice
President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target? "

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'



This could easily be the narrative of 77 being tracked and pursued, with the accompanying shoot-down order....."standing".

"Eyewitness" accounts of "explosions" by people who were too close to even know wth was going on, as well as news accounts, are FAR from conclusive. Come on guys!

I believe we saw what we saw on 9/11, inc the collapse of all 3 WTC towers. A fully fueled jet plane, the resultant fireball(s) could EASILY take down the TT in the pancake fashion we SAW. A lot of structural damage and a lot of heat....just friggin look at it!

otoh, I see also TONS of weird indications that there was more afoot than just a few dozen fanatics on a mission. I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Excuse me. a 4th explosion was reported by several live news channels at about a quarter to eleven(~10:45), after the first two towers collapsed. That's when the plane would've arrived.

Shanksville to NYC ~300 miles

Flight 93's speed estimated ~ 580 mph

Time fore flight 93 to have reached NYC from Shanksville ~30 minutes

Would've reached at ~10:40

edit on 29-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)

Excuse me but haven't you just completely changed what you said. You referred to UA 93 being able to reach New York within minutes of WTC 7's collapse did you not ?

What 10.45 explosion are you referring to ?

Whole concept is moot anyway because after hi-jack and turn around UA 93 settled on a steady bearing for Washington. Not only that but the hi-jackers dialed in the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) for Reagan National Airport to help get them there.

Originally posted by Techtron
I deal with statistics and probability in one of my consulting jobs and I calculated that for all three buildings to collapse within their own footprint the odds would be one in 15 million, about the same as me getting a roll in the sack with Angelina Jolie even if she was sober and awake!

(a) WTC 1,2 & 7 did not fall in their own footprints The whole WTC site was destroyed as were adjacent off-site buildings.

(b) What are the odds of two New York skyscapers having Boeing 767's flown into them on any given day ? Its meaningless.

Originally posted by Hessling
You can add this to the list:

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Odigo says workers were warned of attack

An Israeli Messaging Service being warned prior to the attacks? Who sent the warning? How would THEY have known?

Still another question that is asked after the events, but just seems to evaporate into the ethereal and never get addressed.

edit on 29-4-2012 by Hessling because: (no reason given)

Maybe all is not what you would like to think :-

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by jlm912


If WTC 7 was target

Why did hijackers fly half way across country when Newark airport is right across the Hudson river

Why if flying to New York were heading Southeast toward Washington, then why did dial in VOR radio beacon
at Reagan National Airport in Washington.....

Ok...hopefully this is the right place to post this...Was watching the trailer for the movie Battleship and whatever it was smacked into a building somewhat like the planes in 9/11...Only thing was the top of the buildings kinda snapped off the rest of the building as whatever went through the building...This was more plausible as for the buildings in the World Trade Centre imploding...

reply to post by Techtron

I deal with statistics and probability in one of my consulting jobs and I calculated that for all three buildings to collapse within their own footprint the odds would be one in 15 million, about the same as me getting a roll in the sack with Angelina Jolie even if she was sober and awake!

That's the dumbest thing I have evere heard.

Show us the calculations you used to come up with the 1 in 15 million.

Originally posted by Techtron
I calculated that for all three buildings to collapse within their own footprint the odds would be one in 15 million,

Except that they did NOT collapse within their own footprints, that is just a story truthers made up to support their silly conspiracy theories!

Just like you made those odds up!

reply to post by Happeetaz

Only thing was the top of the buildings kinda snapped off the rest of the building as whatever went through the building...This was more plausible as for the buildings in the World Trade Centre imploding...

Do you have any real qualifications in the revelant area to claim that?
Or is it just Hollywood qualifications?

You realize that tall buildings are constructed to be NOT to be rigid don’t you? They bend to a point then the steel buckles.

My red flag has always been the death of Barry Jennings. A very respectable man who was a first hand witness to explosions occuring within WTC7 as he was trying to escape, and then dies (of unknown causes) only days before the offcial NIST report is released of WTC7.

Then the private investigator hired to find the cause of death, refuses to continue the investiagtion. Of course.


Jennings Mystery

Infowars Article

More Info & More people that died

A Brief Overview

reply to post by BourneConspiracy


Barry Jennings, along with Michael Hess, was a firsthand witness to WTC 7 being clobbered by falling debris from the North Tower.

He died, years later after giving various interviews, but Michael Hess is still alive and well.

Same shills, different thread.

Why do I keep coming back to them? There are few thing more entertaining and laughable than the artful contrivances of a Co-Incidence Theorist.

What motivates a shill to defend murdering criminals for a paycheck?

And PROSTITUTION and REEFER are illegal..... what a world. Everything is the opposite of what it should be.

reply to post by Alfie1


Of course Michael is alive. He changed his story to align with NIST's when he did the BBC interview. So as long as he says what they want him to say, I guess he's got nothing to worry about.

It was Jennings that want on record numerous times (not only after he got out the building on the same day) saying he heards explosions.

Also, he experienced explosions before the the towers fell. Notably the explosion (he reports) that knocked the landing from underneath him when he was going down the stairs. Jennings also reports that there was another explosion, when he reached the 6th floor that forced him to go back to the 8th floor, and he clearly states both buildings were still standing at that time.

ETA: This link, noting all it's references Jennings & Hess

Too many coincidences...

Add to that the "coincidences" in the movies...

This BS about Barry Jennings is unfounded.

According to the stats about 8% of men die before age 50. I can't find the stats for age 53 and black.
Add to it his race and other factors and I'll bet it's about 15%.

You need to show that someone has covered up the reason. And the cause is falsely reported.
Otherwise it's just more internet fodder.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Happeetaz

 

Only thing was the top of the buildings kinda snapped off the rest of the building as whatever went through the building...This was more plausible as for the buildings in the World Trade Centre imploding...

Do you have any real qualifications in the revelant area to claim that?
Or is it just Hollywood qualifications?

You realize that tall buildings are constructed to be NOT to be rigid don’t you? They bend to a point then the steel buckles.

When has a steel building ever bent and then buckled ??? You are just making more crap up again, as usual.

Steel buckling also would NOT resemble a nuclear bomb going off, and leave a smoke trail very similar to fallout.

Amazing how tons of the building just suspended in the air...wow that is pancaking for ya.

I've seen shills on other forums, and it is amazing the line they take, over and over- it's all about personally insulting the intelligence of the poster, so the average person then discards what they say- shill 101.

Here's a link worth reading-

forum.prisonplanet.com...

The label "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business.

For example, just this week - after Tony Blair was confronted by the Iraq Inquiry with evidence that he had used lies to sell the Iraq war - Blair dismissed the entire Iraq Inquiry as simply being part of Britain's "obsession with conspiracy theories". (Not only did Blair know that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but the French this week accused Blair of using of ‘Soviet-style' propaganda in run-up to the Iraq war).

The fact that the term "conspiracy theory" has no literal meaning is one of the many things that was firmly established by the events of 9/11. The official explanation of events of that day is unequivocably a theory of conspiracy. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory for the world's most spectacular crime, but it's not called a conspiracy theory. That term is reserved for any ideas that contradict the official story. This is a very important point. Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies, they are about forbidden thought. The label "conspiracy theory" is a stop sign on the avenues of rational thought and inquiry. It says, "Stop here. Entrance forbidden."

When one reaches the stop sign, one must turn around, one must find another way, must bend the very laws of physics if that is what it takes, or throw them out altogether in order to avoid following a certain train of thought to its logical conclusion.

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as "heresy," "witchery," and "communism" also worked like this. The charge of "conspiracy theory" is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. "Conspiracy theory" implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.

It's amazing just how true this is.

My uncle is one of the most intelligent people I know, he never had the money to go to college back in the '60's but still managed to learn 3 languages, he's just a smart person. But you cannot disucuss 'conspiracy theories' with him because he will not entertain the idea. He even gets agitated and upset at the very idea.

We 'vote' (supposedly) our leaders into power, it's hard for people to accept that the people voted into power to protect us and share our interests may well be working with another agenda, one of greed and evil.

George Carlin-

www.youtube.com...