The Truth Behind 9/11

[ans]

Why are you asking questions you know the answer to?

[Chinahand]

my last question to you was to name the 19 hijackers and you still haven't, or is this one of the so called 'stupid' posts you won't reply to. i personally don't think it's a stupid question. in fact it should be an easy question for you. surely there can't be any discrepancies about who actually hijacked the plane? as dave said, the passports were found of the hijackers shortly after the crash.

 

As ans says type 911 hijackers into Google - read the 911 commission report, read the Wikipedia entry, read the BBC blog that discusses the problems of identifying the hijackers.

 

"surely there can't be any discrepancies about who actually hijacted the plane" - er well, there is the fact that people had multiple pseudonyms, and there are reports of identity theft - so can I give you dates and places of birth, mothers maiden name and name and address of every person involved - no. Does this surprise me - no. If I can't does it mean anything - well I'll leave you to answer that one - what inferences do you draw from this uncertainty. Tinfoil hats out.

[Lonan3]

Every once in a while - out of boredom, I suppose - I return to this thread to see if anything new/interesting has appeared. I honestly don't know why I bother. Apart from a couple of excellent posts by the likes of Dr Dave, there really hasn't been any significant progress after more than 800 posts!

People who want to believe in conspiracies will always find 'evidence' for them. Rational people will always try to find explanations. Neither side will ever be convinced by the other.

Therefore, three questions:

1. As it's been going round in circles for four months or more (and no one appears to have had any change of mind about anything) why is this thread still going on?

2. Why hasn't it been moved to the 'Jokes' section?

3. Is it true that 'they' have been adding a chemical to breakfast cereals that reduces your intelligence so that you vote for people like Bush and Blair?

 

P.S. I'll look in agian sometime in JUne - see if it's made it to a 1,000 posts.

[Albert Tatlock]

Apart from a couple of excellent posts by the likes of Dr Dave, there really hasn't been any significant progress after more than 800 posts!

The real truth will be revealed in post #911.

 

[stevie]

As ans says type 911 hijackers into Google - read the 911 commission report, read the Wikipedia entry, read the BBC blog that discusses the problems of identifying the hijackers.

 

 

i thought us conspiracy theorists weren't allowed to google anything anymore because google lies? or at least thats what slim said.

 

How many times do we have to say it? Google isn't fucking proof of anything. I can go on youtube saying I'm the new messia if I like, it doesn't make it fucking true.

 

hey slim, who is we anyway?

 

anyway, back to me old China!

 

i googled 911 commission report for you and i can't find them identifying any individuals, only making a big fuss about the 'confession' that bin laden made. which, i might add, has been a proven fake since the commission report.

 

i read the BBC blog and to be honest China i felt quite at home. loads of tin hatters in there mate, i thought it was just tameelf, but there are loads who doubt the official 'story' in there. maybe you should post on there calling everyone a tin hatter.

 

so now i was left with this wikipedia you mentioned. so i googled it, found all the pages with the evidence from 9/11, including the hijackers.

 

and guess what china, what a surprise i got when i read it. after reading the 911 commission report and then the BBC blog i thought there must have been a lot of confusion over the identities of the hijackers. obviously not. wikipedia know all 19 of them. even the ones that are still alive!! it was updated on the 24/4/07 so it seems to be kept in check fairly regular.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of...2C_2001_attacks

 

they even admit in a few links at the bottom of the page, that the identities are uncertain. so why not change the article? why keep the lies up there?

 

how, if someone who doesn't know much about 9/11, are able to go on this site, get fed a load of shit and lies and come away thinking they now know what happened on 9/11?

 

people are being kept from the truth. i think if you conducted a poll outside this forum, to the average joe public, that only about 30% - 40% of people even know a third building fell that day. that is wrong. the facts are being hidden.

 

china please explain something to me, this is your post

 

"surely there can't be any discrepancies about who actually hijacted the plane" - er well, there is the fact that people had multiple pseudonyms, and there are reports of identity theft - so can I give you dates and places of birth, mothers maiden name and name and address of every person involved - no. Does this surprise me - no.

 

why doesn't this surprise you? it surprises me. they had to get past security, so they must have all had passports, national insurance numbers etc. they all must have been caught on CCTV. yet today, 6 years after it happened, we still cant say for sure who the hijackers were? bollocks.

 

even if there were cases of identity fraud, they knew this in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 yet still went ahead and made thier scapegoats.

 

china there is something seriously up if you don't think there is something not right about 9/11.

[Chinahand]

Stevie, what amazes me is your inability to understand the difference between primary and secondary evidence.

 

Passports, national insurance numbers, CCTV pictures - they have them, they've published them - they know who these people claimed to be - If you've read the Wikipedia entries I'm surprised you are saying things like "even the ones that are still alive" - which ones are still alive? You'll find early investigative reports giving people with similar names, or who's identities have been stolen, but these aren't the people on CCTV - that's what identity theft means - you do understand this don't you. Someone was inpersonating these people using their id, insurance numbers etc.

 

Since then investigations have it narrowed down - elimated people from their enquires etc. You go on about scape goats: what scape goats? - read the wikipedia reports - they say things like - initially there was confusion and XYZ was linked with hijacker A - after investigation it was shown that XYZ who's name is very similar to XZY was not involved and elimated from the enquiry. XZY was confirmed as the hijaker by the family and Saudi Authorities a year after 911. Who's the scape goat here XYZ? Err no - Can you understand that investigations can alter their focus over time?!

 

As far as I am aware there is very little confusion about the true identities of the people invovled. I've given you my sources to show you why I think this is so - where are yours to show I'm wrong: a press report from September 15th when there is a follow report the following April showing the initial confusion has been clarified - great investigative skills, stevie - and there is basically no confusion about the identities they claimed on entering, or living in, the US. They have their entry cards, immigration documents etc.

 

 

 

And then their is your obsession with WTC7. You also seem incapable of understanding that public indifference and ignorance doesn't stop investigations and due process. And sorry for all your obsessions there is a very good reason for public indifference on this issue - its an irrelevence, but that hasn't stopped the authorities spending millions upon millions of dollars investigating it.

 

WTC7 has undergone 2 major enquiries. FEMA and NIST. The final NIST report still hasn't been finalized. Thousands of hours of investigation has been put into understanding what happened in that building. You'll claim its all part of THE CONSPIRACY - what f-ing conspiracy is this by the way - because they have found ZERO evidence of the building being demolished by explosives - they've interviewed the fire fighters who inspected the building, who concluded it was unsafe - and pulled everyone back to allow it come down safely; they've transcripts of the radio conversations of the Federal Emergency engineers reporting it was structurally unsound; they've photos, videos, eyewitness reports, finite element models trying to explain what is going on. They've undertaken metalurgical analysis of the steel to understand the temperatures and stresses it was under. Damage and fire and no bombs - millions of dollars, serious, dedicated professional engineers all lying to you - cos they are in on the conspiracy.

 

You go on about how Silverstein was paid out millions of dollars - do you not understand that the companies paying out that money had a very very big incentive to invalidate his insurance. Oh but they're in on the conspiracy too.

 

You're obsessional on an irrelevence.

 

As I've asked time and time again of you nut jobs - where do all your random dots lead you? What is the story you are putting out - cos if its Dr Dave's summary you are just plain sad.

 

"something not right about 9/11" - what isn't right about 911 - enlighten me - no links, no videos, use your own words - what isn't right about 911? Cos if its WTC7 and missiles at the Pentagon - well your a joke.

[Slim]

i thought us conspiracy theorists weren't allowed to google anything anymore because google lies? or at least thats what slim said.

 

A perfect illustration of your fucked logic. I didn't say google lies, I said google isn't proof. There's a world of difference, and you can't see it, can you?

[stevie]

Passports, national insurance numbers, CCTV pictures - they have them, they've published them - they know who these people claimed to be - If you've read the Wikipedia entries I'm surprised you are saying things like "even the ones that are still alive" - which ones are still alive? You'll find early investigative reports giving people with similar names, or who's identities have been stolen, but these aren't the people on CCTV - that's what identity theft means - you do understand this don't you. Someone was inpersonating these people using their id, insurance numbers etc.

 

china, what amazes me is you complete inability to read english.

 

i understand that there has been identity fraud, but you are missing the point.

 

read my post...

 

they even admit in a few links at the bottom of the page, that the identities are uncertain. so why not change the article? why keep the lies up there?

 

we now know that these identities are fraud, so i want to know the real hijackers identities, not the people whose passport they have stolen. you can only blame a group of people like 'al queda' if you are positive of the terrorists identities. they are obviously not, which i did think anyway as you were so reluctant to tell me who you thought the 19 hijackers were.

 

please tell me china where you got this information from

 

read the wikipedia reports - they say things like - initially there was confusion and XYZ was linked with hijacker A - after investigation it was shown that XYZ who's name is very similar to XZY was not involved and elimated from the enquiry. XZY was confirmed as the hijaker by the family and Saudi Authorities a year after 911. Who's the scape goat here XYZ?

 

because this is the only wikipedea page on the hijackers that i can find

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of...ected_hijackers

 

The suspects were identified within 72 hours because few made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records and they were among the few non-U.S. citizens and nearly the only passengers with Arabic names on their flights, enabling the FBI to identify their names and in many cases such details as dates of birth, known, and/or possible residences, visa status, and specific identification of the suspected pilots within hours

 

they literally did take ages to identify the hijackers eh china?

 

As far as I am aware there is very little confusion about the true identities of the people invovled. I've given you my sources to show you why I think this is so

 

what sources are these china? i really hope you don't mean wikipedia. please tell me you don't mean wikipedia because that site is one of the poorest sites i have ever seen. people can actually edit a page to whatever they like! and after reading about the hijackers on there it is obvious most of it is incorrect.

 

explain this to me then, how come the names of the hijackers aren't on the passenger lists? or i suppose they hid on the plane and waited for the plane to take off, even though they had spent years stealing other peoples identities??

 

Let's go through the check-in routine, Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at either a United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your job to ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card.

 

 

here is the passenger list off flight 11, which crashed into the north tower with, supposedly, 92 people on board.

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...11.victims.html

 

so if there were 92 people on board including crew why can i only count 87 names? why is there no arab names on the list?

 

 

here is the passenger list off flight 77, which crashed into the pentagon with, supposedly, 64 people on board.

 

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

 

i can only count 56. with no reason as to why the names don't add up?

 

 

and the passenger list from flight 175, crashed into the south tower, 65 people including crew and pilots.

 

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

 

count the names, only 56 this time.

 

 

this leaves flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, 45 people on board.

 

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

 

Again, there is a discrepancy. Only 33 names appear on the list. A dozen names are missing. Among the missing names are the four Arabs who allegedly hijacked the plane.

 

I do not understand how 19 Arabs could have evaded the check-in procedures. I also do not understand why every passenger's name is not on the published lists. or can china find a different list?

 

You're obsessional on an irrelevence.

 

building 7 is an irrelevence? ok i can nearly believe that the two towers fell because of the immense fires from the planes, so that isn't where my main focus is. but i still do not believe and have not seen evidence to support that a 47 storey building can collapse into its own footprint due to small fires caused by the bigger fires in the other 2 buildings. not plausable.

 

and as for missiles at the pentagon? now you are just getting silly. of course a plane hit the pentagon, where else did it go? what was the object that thousands of witnesses seen? i take the evidence and look at it myself and make my own mind up, so it is quite obvious that yes a plane did hit the pentagon, but convieniently in a place that had just undergone major construction work.

[Chinahand]

Stevie, you have clicked the names under each photo and read the individual biographies of the hijackers haven't you?

 

They discuss at quite alot of detail the issues of identity confusion for every person identified by the CIA/FBI as suspects. I do not see the ambiguity you claim to see - the people identified after 72 hours were the names on the tickets - since then there have been changes postively identifying these people after initial confusion.

[stevie]

Stevie, you have clicked the names under each photo and read the individual biographies of the hijackers haven't you?

 

They discuss at quite alot of detail the issues of identity confusion for every person identified by the CIA/FBI as suspects. I do not see the ambiguity you claim to see - the people identified after 72 hours were the names on the tickets - since then there have been changes postively identifying these people after initial confusion.

 

i take it you mean on wikipedea? and yes i have. so they are the 19 hijackers then? there wasn't any identity fraud now? they were just people who had the same name? the list of names are the people that checked into the flights?

[Dr_Dave]

and as for missiles at the pentagon? now you are just getting silly. of course a plane hit the pentagon, where else did it go? what was the object that thousands of witnesses seen? i take the evidence and look at it myself and make my own mind up, so it is quite obvious that yes a plane did hit the pentagon, but convieniently in a place that had just undergone major construction work.

 

But you must admit that the plane being a missile is a well regarded meme in the whole "truther" memeplex?

 

Actually, I'd like to echo Chinahand's call for your closing argument. You've presented a lot of links, a lot of evidence, but I'm still not entirely sure what your thoughts on 11/9 actually are. I hope you'll take some time to spell out exactly what you believe happened here. No need for links or videos or quotes from others, just the full beginning to end stevie version of events.

 

Dave

[Slim]

Cop out. Either you havn't the intelligence to form a complete picture or you know how stupid it'll look if you actually spell it out. The complete picture on what happened is key to these crack pot theories, as Dr Dave so clearly illustrated with his WHAT TROOOTH REALLY HAPPEND post. You can ask questions all you like, but until you fill in the gaps between daft assumptoions and follow those through to the utterly rediculous conclusions that you wont see what a mentalist you are to the rest of us.

[stevie]

and as for missiles at the pentagon? now you are just getting silly. of course a plane hit the pentagon, where else did it go? what was the object that thousands of witnesses seen? i take the evidence and look at it myself and make my own mind up, so it is quite obvious that yes a plane did hit the pentagon, but convieniently in a place that had just undergone major construction work.

 

But you must admit that the plane being a missile is a well regarded meme in the whole "truther" memeplex?

 

 

in some people heads, yes. but mine, no.

 

i honestly think the government has a video recording of the plane hitting the pentagon already in thier possession. the reason they haven't shown it yet is because they want everybody to start beating the "no plane at the pentagon" drum, and then, and only then, will they release the video to the world to laugh at and ridicule the 'tin hatters'.

 

the part you might have missed during the "truther" memeplex is not what hit the pentagon, but where it hit the pentagon. do your own research dave, thats all i'll say about it for now.

 

and yes i know china wants me to come up with some sort of 9/11 commission report on what i think actually happened. there will be a day, but it is simply not as black and white as some people may think. there are parts of the day that i am still unsure about, whichever way i look at it.

 

but i still stand by my first post, i'm here to ask questions that have not yet been answered, not to try and influence people in either way by giving my thoughts about what happened.

[stevie]

Cop out. Either you havn't the intelligence to form a complete picture or you know how stupid it'll look if you actually spell it out. The complete picture on what happened is key to these crack pot theories, as Dr Dave so clearly illustrated with his WHAT TROOOTH REALLY HAPPEND post. You can ask questions all you like, but until you fill in the gaps between daft assumptoions and follow those through to the utterly rediculous conclusions that you wont see what a mentalist you are to the rest of us.

 

what crack pot theories are these then slim?

 

hey and slim, this doesn't even make sense

 

You can ask questions all you like, but until you fill in the gaps between daft assumptoions and follow those through to the utterly rediculous conclusions that you wont see what a mentalist you are to the rest of us

 

unless you meant to say 'then' instead of 'that' ???????

 

and please look up how to spell havn't , assumptoions and rediculous before you post on here, you make tameelf look like a genius!

[Slim]

Of course, spelling and typo's are highly relevant to this discussion, well done you! You can't give a straight answer can you? You don't have a clue without your bollocks links.