Another reason that points to an inside job !

Originally posted by dawnprince

And you think that records can't be falsified . For gods sake these people were hoping to get away with a 2.3 Trillion heist . They have every resource available to them . Falsifying documents is small potatoes.

It's only a small step from your position to "fake buildings", "fake victims", "fake planes". If any piece of evidence can be faked, why not all?

Once evidence can be discarded by merely noting that it could be faked, the pretense of rational debate is wholly a sham.

Originally posted by dawnprince
Ok , let's see what we have so far .
Supposedly a bunch of foreign terrorists not only managed to carry out their plan despite going up against some of the best intelligence op's on the planet . They then learned how to expertly fly commercial jets , after hijacking the planes armed with knives and sheep shears. They then flew the planes into the twin towers and the pentagon?

Ok , let's see what we have so far . According to your alternate 911 theory.

At some point in time on September 11 after the departure of flights, AA11, Ua175, AA77, and UA95, armed men boarded the planes and held guns to the heads of passengers and crew, forcing them to call family members, 911 operators, and flight operations. They held these guns to their heads until the planes crashed so they could share in the 2.3 Trillion Dollars that Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld stole from the Pentagon. Bush and Rumsfeld also payed someone to falsify the documents supporting those phone calls. And the Terrorist Attacks took place at the wrong time of the day for it to be real Terrorist attacks.

Do I have it right so far ?

reply to post by dawnprince


They could,nt possibly know how many people they might kill, or not...
.
Maybe their aim was to just damage, two of Americas greatest icons ? Just to show that they could perpetrate a major attack on the American mainland, and frighten the public in general, demonstrating that they were,nt beyond reach ?

Concerning the OP.

Terrorist's usually claim their actions. I say usually. If it wasn't claimed, than it probably wasn't "real" terrorists. I think everybody has to agree, weather one believes the OS or not, that the plan that unfolded that day, worked much better that anybody could have planed. And could have anybody planned such a thing? I have always wondered.

Let's review some bullets:

1. First you need at least 20 people ready to commit suicide. Check. Let's say, this is easier one to accept, since we know that fundamental religious brick heads are not too shy about blowing themselves up and taking everybody with them.

2. You need visas for all your would be hijackers. Also, since some of the alleged hijackers were actually on terrorist watch lists, you would need someone to ignore that fact and approve visas for all team members. To be fair, a friend of mine recently applied for the US visa and got it. Since I know his background and past, I'm gonna say...that those checks that US performs, are not all that thorough. I leave it at that. But being on a terrorist watch list isn't gonna make your day at the airport, that's for sure.

3. Than, after getting into country, you would go apply for flight schools, using your real name, asking to learn how to fly commercial jets. You would need to behave very suspiciously before the attack. Ordering hookers, eating pork, leaving Kuran around your whereabouts. Trying to attract as much attention to yourself as possible.

4. In order for 5 of the guys to hijack a commercial airplane, you would need to know how many people are traveling on that particular flight. Boing 767 can take on up to 375 passengers. Would they risk entering the plane with 5 guys, and not knowing how many passengers were gonna be on board? As if it doesn't matter? If it doesn't matter, than I say it's weak planning and lowers the possibility of success.

5. This one is my favorite.You would need to be certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your crew of 19 will successfully board their respective targets, even though, they were all arab looking, with arab names, some on terrorist watch lists, and were carrying concealed weapons (box cutters). You would need to be sure that none of them will fail to pass the airport security checks. If just one of them fails, the whole plan could just collapse. So 19...why 19? Does it make sense to have odd number of hijackers for an even number of planes? Was one of the planes easier to hijack than the rest and needed fewer guys to control it?

6. Upon successfully circumventing all security measures (government agencies, airport security, visa issuing agencies), you need to pray to almighty Allah to guide your hand when aiming at the towers/pentagon. Whatever we've red, I sincerely doubt that you could fly that plane, 3 times (and by various pilots) hitting dead on where you need it. Does it mean that if I play my Call of Duty, performing head shots like giving candy for halloween, that I can take a real gun and do the same IRL? Can you really compensate for hundreds/thousands of flight time experience of real pilots, by simply more or less winging it ad hoc, and hope to hit a target, that you've never ever trained/tried to hit ?

Either the real pilots are hugely overpaid or this story makes less sense than one can swallow.

7. Without going in to controlled demolition debate, let's say for the sake of the post, that it wasn't a demolition job. Can you really expect that to happen ? In order to hope for the maximum damage to towers, and taking in to account that you want to take the towers down with planes, you would pretty logically aim for the most lower floor possible, hoping to weaken the lower parts of the building in order to expect the weight of the towers to crush the lower foundation and thus collapsing entirely. But apparently, hitting anywhere does do job all the same. Both towers were struck on different parts of the building, yet dropped identically, without the most logical topple over effect that was about to happen, but magically didn't. Anyway...I see a lot of if's and maybe's...no way it was certain to do the job that apparently did.

It is by now almost certain fact that there was foreknowledge of some of the events, or at least suspicions about the hijackers. The famous agency cooperation that failed...but no one is to blame, cos it was prevented by the law. Well, let me ask you this...why is that ? Why are agencies that are supposed to be there for your benefit are not obliged to cooperate with each other on prevention of crime? Isn't that their purpose? To whom does it serve for those agencies not to cooperate? I would assume that cooperation is in people's interest? isn't it? And what is the harm of agencies cooperating for the benefit of their people ? Obviously dark, private agendas. Were the t'rrist aware of this? That was an extra blanket of protection for them.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

5. This one is my favorite.You would need to be certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your crew of 19 will successfully board their respective targets, even though, they were all arab looking, with arab names, some on terrorist watch lists, and were carrying concealed weapons (box cutters). You would need to be sure that none of them will fail to pass the airport security checks. If just one of them fails, the whole plan could just collapse. So 19...why 19? Does it make sense to have odd number of hijackers for an even number of planes? Was one of the planes easier to hijack than the rest and needed fewer guys to control it?

Rather than go through each of your 7 points I will just play with this one for a while,

First of all terrorist watch lists were not the same as they were after 9/11, the lists they were on were not circulated correctly between departments, the terrorists were on the state departments TIPOFF list which the FAA did not have access to. The fact that they were Arabs holds is of no significance however several were selected for CAPPS screaming, it was also quite easy before 9/11 to get on a plane with a box cutter.

On the issue of why 19, well there was supposed to be 20 hijackers however Ramzi Bin al-Shibh (others have been named as the 20th hijacker) was unable to attain a American visa so they made do with 19.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

First of all terrorist watch lists were not the same as they were after 9/11, the lists they were on were not circulated correctly between departments

Ah yes...the infamous inter agency uncooperation. Already mentioned.

So you're saying there was a list but the FAA didn't get that list? Okeydokey. For who was that list than intended? Security guy at the Walmart?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

it was also quite easy before 9/11 to get on a plane with a box cutter.

Sorry, honestly asking....so there was no security check before entering the plane? No frisking, baggage check etc.? No metal detector scanning?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

So you're saying there was a list but the FAA didn't get that list? Okeydokey. For who was that list than intended? Security guy at the Walmart?

It was a state department list intended for the state department it has thousands of people on it, not all of them were necessarily a flight risk some were individuals of interest, financers and sympathisers therefore the list would not have been practical for use in the FAA. In addition to this there was also the issue of dissemination of information between agencies and the priorities of those agencies.

If you don’t want to accept that historical fact then that’s fine, I won’t stop you all I am doing is providing you with the information.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

Sorry, honestly asking....so there was no security check before entering the plane? No frisking, baggage check etc.? No metal detector scanning?

The full metal detectors as far as I know that were sensitive enough to pick up the knifes. I know that the terrorists were scanned it was the so called “wands” that are waved over a person however it has been noted that the technique used was inadequate and in some cases the terrorists were not even checked.

Remember prior to 9/11 there had not been a hijacking against a American plane in 30 years so security was lax in comparison to today’s standards.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

So you're saying there was a list but the FAA didn't get that list? Okeydokey. For who was that list than intended? Security guy at the Walmart?

It was a state department list intended for the state department it has thousands of people on it, not all of them were necessarily a flight risk some were individuals of interest, financers and sympathisers therefore the list would not have been practical for use in the FAA. In addition to this there was also the issue of dissemination of information between agencies and the priorities of those agencies.

If you don’t want to accept that historical fact then that’s fine, I won’t stop you all I am doing is providing you with the information.

So the list was for the state department. Than I suppose, everyone that enters the country is compared against the list, by someone at the state department? Otherwise, the list is useless. Than someone who compared the list, should have notified somebody, that a potentialy "risky" person is entering the country?

So the list was for the state department. Than I suppose, everyone that enters the country is compared against the list, by someone at the state department?

And that was the problem, the agencies were not exchanging the information so no, nobody was looking.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

Sorry, honestly asking....so there was no security check before entering the plane? No frisking, baggage check etc.? No metal detector scanning?

The full metal detectors as far as I know that were sensitive enough to pick up the knifes. I know that the terrorists were scanned it was the so called “wands” that are waved over a person however it has been noted that the technique used was inadequate and in some cases the terrorists were not even checked.

Remember prior to 9/11 there had not been a hijacking against a American plane in 30 years so security was lax in comparison to today’s standards.

I don't have a problem with lighter security measures back than. But it's not as if there were non. And having in mind that these were armed, "known" terrorists...they were pretty boldly counting on to bypass that security.

But hey, I guess mindless optimism against all odds is a terrorist trait. They simply believed they will succeed. Belief is indeed strong.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

So the list was for the state department. Than I suppose, everyone that enters the country is compared against the list, by someone at the state department?

And that was the problem, the agencies were not exchanging the information so no, nobody was looking.

So the list is useless, and the state departmnet wasn't doing their job. Good to know you guys are paying their wages...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I know that the terrorists were scanned it was the so called “wands” that are waved over a person however it has been noted that the technique used was inadequate and in some cases the terrorists were not even checked.

So let me sum it up for us. Known terrorist entered the country, because nobody at the state departments checks or notifies anyone, than said terrorist proceeds to the airport where he is not checked, or wasn't even checked by the people that should check everyone that gets on board, after that this person hijacks the plane and kills 3000 people....and you think nobody is to blame for this?

Let me tell you, if I don't do my job as I am supposed to be doing, I will get fired. If my negligence caused a death, I will be prosecuted.

There are clear violations of protocol (that means doing your job) by the person/s that were to enforce these protocols. That's why we have protocols for everything. Even for hijacked airplanes...but it seems protocols are just characters on a paper for billing the financial department. And of course a nice excuse for not enforcing the protocols when needed..."ugh...we were just in the middle of a training of a protocol for the situation that was unfolding before our eyes, hence the confusion".

I suggest next time to schedule a protocol training for what to do in the event that you are training to prevent the event that is happening in the middle of your training to avoid the event. That way...this sort of thing will never happen again.

9/11 was planned and carried out by usa shadow government so you could (locate and recover) ancient ET technologies in mid east. This much is common knowledge. If you believe otherwise, the wool has clouded your vision.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly


So let me sum it up for us. Known terrorist entered the country, because nobody at the state departments checks or notifies anyone, than said terrorist proceeds to the airport where he is not checked, or wasn't even checked by the people that should check everyone that gets on board, after that this person hijacks the plane and kills 3000 people....and you think nobody is to blame for this?

Who has said that? Everybody acknowledges that the blame is on the agencies for jealously refusing to cooperate for self-interested reasons, and on the intelligence network for missing the elephant in the room for so long.

Even the 9/11 Commission report was frustrated because they couldn't make enough heads roll for those failings. They say as much (although Truthers traditionally try to pretend they're complaining that they weren't allowed to test for explosives or some other nonsense).

There are clear violations of protocol (that means doing your job) by the person/s that were to enforce these protocols. That's why we have protocols for everything.

No there weren't. There were no protocols for this event. Or there were ones that were ludicrously inept at dealing with it. I don't know how old you are, but before 9/11 taking a flight in the US was rather different in security terms to how it is now. Boxcutters were not even necessarily forbidden.

I say there were few protocols. There were in fact protocols for

hijacked airplanes

Ironically almost everybody followed them. Because they thought the terrorists would do what they had done before: land, make demands, and then wait it out. You would have done the same.

The only people who didn't follow protocol attempted to overpower the terrorists and retake the plane.

That way...this sort of thing will never happen again.

You have an extraordinary faith in the human ability to predict things. And a particular faith in institutions. In reality the US before 9/11 was not an impenetrable fortress with brilliant security. 9/11 was actually pretty easy to pull off. They needed a bit of luck, but not much.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade



To answer your question, I'm 37, but I have not flown on US soil ever.

Who has said that? Everybody acknowledges that the blame is on the agencies for jealously refusing to cooperate for self-interested reasons

Not everybody, because nobody took the fall but Osama...what you are saying are dead letters on a screen. OS apologists just shrug shoulders and say "incompetence"...which means..."not guilty".

Even the 9/11 Commission report was frustrated because they couldn't make enough heads roll for those failings.

When you say "enough", are you implying that some heads did roll? Which ones?

No there weren't. There were no protocols for this event.

What do you mean? There is a protocol for checking persons before allowing them in to the country. There is a protocol for dealing with hijackers. There is a protocol also for arresting the accused and having them tried for the crime for which they are accused of.

There are protocols for everything. Protocol for filling forms, for applying for jobs, for putting out fires...there are protocols for plethora of things. Protocol means...prepared response to a predictable situation. Hijacking airplanes is certainly predictable...as was 1000 times shown...and I hate to quote it again...but here it is...Operation Northwood. Claiming that such an event was somehow out of the realm of predictability...is IMO...looking the other way.


But sure...we can argue about specifics...since one of the Hijackers wore orange shorts...that somehow excludes this event from being resolved with protocol. There is a protocol for hijacked airplanes...and whatever the outcome of the hijacking is...protocols were not followed.

You have an extraordinary faith in the human ability to predict things

I do actually. Human behavior is more or less very predictable. Where I don't have faith is institutions...because they are run by the money...not morality. It is the very same reason that I don't believe the OS, because it's the established institutions that make money that are screaming..."it was the terrorists".

reply to post by th3awakening

9/11 was planned and carried out by usa shadow government so you could (locate and recover) ancient ET technologies in mid east. This much is common knowledge.

What on earth are you talking about?

reply to post by samkent



I think he is talking about this....
fairfieldproject.wikidot.com...

I don't put much to this "story"...but I imagine this is what he was thinking of. Story is a bit SF...but you never know.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

 

So let me sum it up for us. Known terrorist entered the country, because nobody at the state departments checks or notifies anyone, than said terrorist proceeds to the airport where he is not checked, or wasn't even checked by the people that should check everyone that gets on board, after that this person hijacks the plane and kills 3000 people....and you think nobody is to blame for this?

Oooooh, naughty naughty! At the time of the 9/11 attack airport security was handled by private security contractors who didn't have access to state department terrorist lists. At best they had access to FBI lists for drug smugglers. It was specifically because of the 9/11 attack that this oversight was recognized and airport security contractors was replaced by the TSA.

This was all documented in the 9/11 commission report ten years ago, and since you identify yourself as someone researching the events of 9/11 it was your obligation to know this already.