The Painful Truth and Lies Behind 9/11

You guys crack me up. All over one twisted line.

Originally posted by jlm912
Well, if you could read exactly what I wrote, you'd see that specific quote was not that 7-8 of the hijackers were alive, but the names found to be of individuals that are/were still living post 9/11.

Yep, I believe in magical, resurrected Arabs. THE HIJACKER'S ARE ALIVE!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The FBI, as of November 2001, had absolutely NO doubt in their list of the hijackers. And as of today NO ONE has seen those 19 men alive.

Given. The FBI has no doubt.

Originally posted by exponent
the BBC themselves, the source of most of the original claims, have repudiated them.

BBC ABC news, Telegraph, CNN, Saudi embassy, along with Arab newspapers.



Not to mention the FBI's fingering of the Bukhari brothers who couldn't possibly have been involved, but "That was before November 2001!!!" right? Yeah, so was the event we're debating

Originally posted by exponent
How is it possible you can support a premise based on one report over a decade ago but cannot even bring yourself to understand things like jet fuel, which was attested to by tens if not hundreds on the day and they remain alive and you can ask them questions to this day.

SO again
1) There is more than one report
2) We're talking about an event that happened over a decade ago

And finally, I never refuted jet fuel, expo. Please point out where I have

Originally posted by jlm912
SO again
1) There is more than one report
2) We're talking about an event that happened over a decade ago

I was only aware of the additional telegraph report, they have also repudiated it. How does it change my point? You're relying on information that's over a decade old, and ignoring the repudiations of that same information by the people who published it.

How is it remotely logical to ignore new information?

And finally, I never refuted jet fuel, expo

Oh! Sorry in that case. It's really hard to keep track of who believes what, so I do apologise if I accused you of something you don't do. Let me just get it straight though, do you accept that jet fuel was reported on practically every level of both towers, and many people attribute it to fireballs which were sourced from or adjacent to elevator shafts?

Most 'truthers' (again, not trying to insult here) deny this despite the massive preponderance of witness evidence, and instead rely on 'basement bombs' or similar.

Originally posted by jlm912

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
tenet either let it happen to cover his butt, or to further his agenda with AQ

What agenda did tenet have with AQ? Allowing a known terrorist and USS Cole bombing suspect to come to and live here in the U.S....

What would he have been covering his butt from?

it's all in the video

Oh - I forgot to add: - also you don't plan an op like this featuring 19 patsies flying into buildings AND THEN LEAVE THEM ALIVE AND WANDERING AROUND THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!


For someone to actually posit this as a credible conspiracy theory - is quite simply beyond belief, I mean really who is that stupid to believe anyone would allow that - which is why I believe that most of this garbage is actually put out there as a smoke and mirrors op - to taint the whole subject with a loony-tunes aura.

reply to post by exponent


Attributing the fireballs to jet fuel - I can follow that

I do not see, though, how jet fuel could have blown the elevator doors open. Maybe the elevators themselves falling had something to do with it? I'm not sure how the doors were built, so I'm not writing that off as a possibility.

Jet fuel on practically every level? That I haven't heard and don't quite follow how that could happen? Most elevator shafts for the lower half of the building didn't even extend up to the impact site nor did most elevators at the impact site run all the way to the base. I mean, I could possibly see some seepage if the impact site maybe flooded with fuel, but if fires were as rampant as claimed I don't follow how it could've lasted long enough to hit every floor let alone heat the columns up as "sufficiently" as is presumed.

There were too many victims at windows and at the impact site to believe so easily that fires were that widespread. It's definitely more understandable as a claim for 7 - there was deep, black smoke coming from 3 of the four sides.

As for the hijacker list, my point with that was the FBI screwed up quite a bit at first. They did eventually connect names of Saudis who've been missing since shortly prior to the attacks, but aside from the flight manifests, and the few who made it on camera the night before, there's not much else to go on saying they were actually there. I'm not even claiming it's completely illogical to go along with that list, I just don't find it "concrete" beyond any doubt. Does that make sense, yet? All they had were circumstantial names.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


I see. He gives his take on one possible reason and "agenda" with AQ... Because they wanted a guy on the inside... I can kinda see that, except that we're talking about the CIA. Global operatives, where matters internal to the country are more than not handled by FBI and such, who, as was stated, would've lead their own investigation immediately because they already have focused networks here. I find it a little hard to believe that the director himself would think it any easier to infiltrate here on the homeland as opposed to in some other country. What I take is - this guy has limited information, as is made obvious by his lack of report on the Malaysia summit. He knows that. He's done the best to rationalize with what he does know. I don't have too much trouble believing there was more that he wasn't informed of. What then? It only leaves more speculation...

Originally posted by jlm912
Attributing the fireballs to jet fuel - I can follow that

I do not see, though, how jet fuel could have blown the elevator doors open. Maybe the elevators themselves falling had something to do with it? I'm not sure how the doors were built, so I'm not writing that off as a possibility.

There's not very much information on which doors were opened or not. In some cases elevators were said to be 'blown out of their tracks' but I expect this is more to do with the initial impact forces than anything else. No explosive or fuel explosion should be able to do that.

Jet fuel on practically every level? That I haven't heard and don't quite follow how that could happen? Most elevator shafts for the lower half of the building didn't even extend up to the impact site nor did most elevators at the impact site run all the way to the base. I mean, I could possibly see some seepage if the impact site maybe flooded with fuel, but if fires were as rampant as claimed I don't follow how it could've lasted long enough to hit every floor let alone heat the columns up as "sufficiently" as is presumed.

The problem is that people want you to imagine the elevator shafts as simple sealed shafts with no way in or out. In reality they were complex mechanical spaces with a lot of open space as there were huge Mechanical Equipment Rooms in the towers. Imagine turning a fire hose on in the top floor of an apartment block and then saying you only expected it to run down the stairs. It'll find any little nook and cranny as it is driven down by gravity.

Besides, I'm not claiming that I saw this, it's all from the eyewitness accounts. I can find Gravy's spreadsheet if you like, it had an excellent summary.

There were too many victims at windows and at the impact site to believe so easily that fires were that widespread. It's definitely more understandable as a claim for 7 - there was deep, black smoke coming from 3 of the four sides.

It's funny, this has been a thorn in my side for years. It's always been a common 'truther' argument that EDNA CINTRON WAS STANDING WHERE NIST SAYS 10000000 DEGREE FIRES WERE BURNING.

They just don't though. The floors were 12 feet between slabs, and NIST predicts high temperatures within a few feet of the ceiling, and not throughout the entire floor. I can run you through what they predict and where if you like, but they have a huge database of fire pictures that makes it easy to see just how large and violent the fires were.

As for the hijacker list, my point with that was the FBI screwed up quite a bit at first. They did eventually connect names of Saudis who've been missing since shortly prior to the attacks, but aside from the flight manifests, and the few who made it on camera the night before, there's not much else to go on saying they were actually there.

Oh sure, it's worse than you know too. They did actually include some pictures of people who were alive and living in the original lists. They definitely screwed up. With regard to the passenger lists, I guess you can believe that they're falsified if you like, but for me it is just another connecting part in the whole story.

I'm not even claiming it's completely illogical to go along with that list, I just don't find it "concrete" beyond any doubt. Does that make sense, yet? All they had were circumstantial names.

Sure, but it's not like they stopped investigating within a week. The 911 commission report, although untrusted by some, contains the summary of thousands of smaller investigations and details, and since 911 we've had huge amounts of documents released to places like 911Myths that give you much more detail.

Random example: The 'insider trading' at the stock market was dismissed by the FBI after some time because they found a newsletter advocated those positions and it had no terrorist connections. Some years later they accidentally released the name of that newsletter. I can find you people today claiming the 'insider trading' was real and definite and the FBI cooperated etc etc. It's just fear and hysteria magnified by ignorance and time (no offence intended, you seem to be taking a critical approach which is always good to see)

reply to post by exponent


Well, the elevator doors being blown open, I've only seen one witness' account of that, from the basement. Then there's the evidence of the lobby windows broken in the north tower before either collapse with the witnesses claiming to be "blown back onto the street." One guy specifically said he saw a fireball coming down before the explosion that knocked windows out and blew him back. Question - Can a fireball of jet fuel explode on hitting a solid surface with that kind of energy? I'm genuinely curious. I could see some sense in a yes outcome depending on the volume of said "ball" of jet fuel and the fact that it would be thinly distributed upon impact perhaps causing a second, more violent fuel-air type ignition...

Originally posted by jlm912
Well, the elevator doors being blown open, I've only seen one witness' account of that, from the basement. Then there's the evidence of the lobby windows broken in the north tower before either collapse with the witnesses claiming to be "blown back onto the street."

Certainly before collapse, the firefighters reported arriving on scene to find many people burned and the lobby destroyed by a 'fireball'. There were a few lobby level mentions of a smell of kerosene too I believe, I'd have to go check Gravy's spreadsheet.

Question - Can a fireball of jet fuel explode on hitting a solid surface with that kind of energy? I'm genuinely curious. I could see some sense in a yes outcome depending on the volume of said "ball" of jet fuel and the fact that it would be thinly distributed upon impact perhaps causing a second, more violent fuel-air type ignition...

Yeah I very much doubt the actual fire itself could cause that sort of explosion, but the very nature of gasoline or other flammable fuel is that it consumes atmospheric oxygen. Whether it was ignited or not while falling down the shaft, a significant portion of liquid would remains, heated if ignited. Once it impacts the surface, that liquid is going to splash violently and form an aerosol. I think in either case, as long as it can be ignited fairly readily, you're going to get a big fireball. A quick youtube search for 'gasoline accident' would probably find you a few examples. I probably wouldn't recommend it though!

Originally posted by Sinny
I found out Cheney had oredered the Pentagon *not* to use its anti aircraft/ missle defence systems to shoot down the plane that hit the pentagon..

Funny how the pentagon never had an "anti aircraft/ missle defence systems" in 2001.... but do not let that fact stop your silly conspiracy theory!