August 01, 2007

• Insane tinfoil hat paranoia? pretty much, same as the rest of 'controlled demolition/pull it/cruise missile' theories. Lets send prepared scripts to news stations before 9/11 for them to read on the day, that'll never get out.
• Well, I don't think this means anything, but I'm sure we haven't been told the truth about the events of that day. The collapse of WTC7 is particularly suspicious, imho. I just can't see what this is supposed to mean, other than that the information was coming from the secret service, which would indicate that they were 'part of it' whatever it was. It's curious.
• I am not sure that they would benefit from scripts. That would seem silly. They mention the BBC talking about the collapse of the WTC7 before it even collapses. Certainly, that sounds odd. But why a script? Wouldn't you give a script for something that the media might have trouble discovering or figuring out on their own? You don't need to alert the media to the collapse of a giant building in a major city. I am pretty sure the media will be able to figure that one out when it happens. I am guessing that the Camp David thing involved people speculating as to where that plane was headed. Some people probably believed it was headed to Camp David and when it crashed, they excitedly concluded that it had. How CBS could run such a story without any proof is outrageous, of course, but there is such competition in the media now that the networks are not afraid to go with rumours.
• I'm inclined to disbelieve it, though not for any allegiance to the official story (and like Chy, I'm certain only of that we'll never know). I'd chalk this up to overeager sources and news outlets. Camp David may be a symbolic target, but it's not a physically obvious one. A bunch of comparatively low buildings in the woods. On careful examination, it'll be clear that it's a major complex of some kind, but for fairly inexperienced pilots to come screaming upon it at at least 500 mph and expect to hit it with any accuracy at all -- I doubt it. The WTC were giant things right at the end of the Hudson river, or right at the mouth of the harbour. The pilots only had to find the natural features, follow them, and aim for something they could see miles and miles away. As on that day, I still have it in my mind that Flight 93 was going for the Sears Tower in Chicago -- as easily found as the WTC, and it'd spread the sense of panic, but, again, we'll never know. Which brings into question how they could hit the Pentagon -- a low-lying building in the shadow of a valley, and I still don't believe they did that either, but that's a whole different story.
• Say, there, Captain, the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. No shadow, no valley. Have a looksee on The Google Earth. It's huge. Easy target.
• Well, maybe not a valley, but definitely the leeward side of a hill, which is supposedly the direction that the plane came in on. And yes, it's huge, but it's not all that tall, really. An essentially-untrained pilot would have to find this thing at fairly high speed. Even if they could find the building (not impossible, given its sheer size), they would still have to aim and hit it, even though it'd be nothing but a very narrow band off in the distance. Even if that narrow band could be found, it's quite another thing to be able to hit it, and not plough the plane into the parking lot instead, or overshoot it completely. There's no way you can practice this sort of thing beforehand, and the amount of control required to do it, as opposed to a giant thing sticking out into the sky, where it didn't matter where you hit it -- I have my doubts. Also because for all of the footage we've seen of the planes slamming into the WTC, we've never seen the same thing for the Pentagon. All we have is a stop-frame bit of footage of the side of the building on a clear day, and then a massive fireball -- we don't actually see the plane flying into the building, nor do we see a plane at all. Hell, we haven't seen any other film of a plane in the area whatsoever, and this at the organizational headquarters of the largest military on Earth. Surely, if I'm on video hundreds of times when I'm at the mall, video cameras at the friggin' Pentagon must be unreal. The security systems must be unreal, and so would the defense arrangements. At that moment, they would have known that something big was going down, and the Pentagon must have all kinds of early-distant-warning systems for missles and bombers and whatever -- somebody had to be looking at a screen somewhere in there and say "hey, guys, this looks like it's coming right for us scramble a couple jets up there turn the cameras around, so we don't have to use the ones from the gas station across the street." Add to that that the damage to the building was fairly compact -- at the very least, it should have been the entire wingspan of the plane. Add to that the initial reports that the initial explosion was of a tanker truck, something probably more in line with the damage caused, and something is very, very fishy. But then the problem becomes "what happened to the plane", which is a completely different conspiracy theory altogether. All of which is respectfully submitted.
• It'd be different if the plane hit it from on top -- then, the Pentagon would be the biggest bullseye around. But the damage was at the side. Impossible. Just sayin'. Please continue.
• Yes, it is. Think back to that day, I'm sure you'll still remember it well. High anxiety. Confusion. The internet, for all intents and purposes, ceases to function from billions of fingers refreshing CNN, MSNBC, etc. BBC holds up longer, but soon, even it goes down. The president still hasn't even come on TV. Everyone wants to know what the fuck is going on, and no one has the foggiest notion, and the entire nation is glued to whatever source of information they have, just waiting for updates, information, NOW NOW NOW. To me, it seems reasonable to believe that a news desk ran with an incomplete and inaccurate story in the early parts of the situation described above.
• One thing that I have never seen "newly uncovered" is video of something I saw with my own eyes on television coverage that day. I wish I had noted which network and the time of day. But it was shortly after Flight 93 was reported down. An anchor person read this as the quote was also shown on screen: A statement from Vice President Cheney: "I support the President in his difficult decision to shoot down commercial airliners [being used as weapons]." I forget the exact wording but the I know I have the first part correct. I doubt that someone completely made up the Cheney statement. This clearly said to me that it was Cheney who issued the orders and was attempting to give Bush the "credit" for it. It was also an all-but-admission of the shooting down of Flight 93. (Not that anyone could really fault them for that decision). It also explains why there are two impact sites for the wreckage - miles apart. Rushing the cockpit does not cause parts of the plane to fall off, leading to the crash. Then somehow, word got out of the "Let's roll" story and that was pushed HARD by the networks. I would love to again see all of the footage of the news coverage of that day, just to reconstruct the timeline of various events.
• I heard it was all orchestrated by John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe from their secret underground compound where they have been living together for the last forty-four years. They were just following the orders they got from the Illuminati.
• hsst, Brian! Ixnay, dude.
• Answer: Confusion.
• You know what? I'm a lot more concerned about the things the current administration ADMITS to doing than I am about some conspiracy. Throwing American citizens in military brigs for years without charging them with any crime, wiretaping American citizens, torturing prisoners, ignoring congressional subpoena, no-bid contracts, unchecked spending, and an attorney general who must have a serious memory problem. That's more than enough for me to be pissed about. I don't need to go looking for more.
• Jccalhoun, you got it. There's not much we can do with all the 'what-ifs' IMHO. What we need to focus on is the 'what-is,' and what is stinks.
• yeah, but think how convenient it was for these cocksuckers to get that 'new Pearl Harbor catalyzing event' the PNAC policy paper 'Rebuilding America's Defense' said would be necessary as pretext to create a cultural predisposition in the US for world dominance by a hegemonic America. I bet they were really surprised that it just happened that way. Surprised and pleased. Really pleased. Wish coincidences like that happened in my life.
• Here's a joke for which I have no punchline: How do you get the 300 firemen that responded to the Pentagon blast to go home and NOT say "Hey, honey, the funny thing about the blast today - there wuz no plane parts innit." Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy and his magic bullets, but you just can't get hundreds of municipal workers to wink wink nudge nudge say no more. It ain't gonna happen.
• I'm not sure I have any kind of conspiracy theory to offer, Ralph. All I'm saying is that I'm far from convinced that what the official story said happened is what actually happened. It would be an incredible alignment of the stars -- so many defense failures, incredible luck on the pilot's part... And why haven't we seen it, as we did the others? Too many things just don't fit for me. We'll never know. As for missing airplane parts -- dunno. Truck parts mistaken for airplane parts? And jccalhoun is right, regardless.
• Strawman argument, Ralph.
• The recession -- no question, I remember when I was campaigning, I said, would you ever deficit spend? And I said, yes, only if there were a time of war, or recession, or a national emergency. Never thought we'd get -- (laughter and applause.) And so we have a temporary deficit in our budget, because we are at war, we're recovering, our economy is recovering, and we've had a national emergency. Never did I dream we'd have the trifecta. (Laughter.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-8.html
• Just confusion, that's all. As for hitting the Pentagon, I think it is entirely possible. I bet they practiced, practiced, practiced on some flight simulator software somewhere, and had enough flying lessons to understand the differences (turbulence, etc.) between the sim and the real thing. I don't see it as particularly amazing.
• Hank, that is not in any way a straw man argument. Parts of flight 77 were found in the Pentagon rubble. Had there been none, hundreds of beer-drinking joes who were on the scene would have said so. And if the tin foilers were correct, and a guided missile or a truck full of fertilizer blasted the Pentagon, where is flight 77? It's hard to crash a 757 in the DC area without somebody noticing it, and it is equally hard to fly it somewhere else without dozens of air traffic controllers spotting it. So for this to be anything other than what was reported, one would have to have in collusion the hundreds of rescue workers, policemen and Pentagon employees, the DC area air traffic controllers, and hundreds if not thousands of private citizens who were in the area at the time. Hey, what was that? Wasn't it Occam's Razor?
• I'd really love to, one day, finally be able to read all the classified transcripts and sealed dossiers about that mess. An objective, detailed timeline of who, when, what, in some history book. The report of how the meeting went, in some stinky cave or shady office, where the plan was first hatched. But doubt I'll live that long.
• I must admit that I always get a chuckle out of looking at this simulated image.
• I'm with Ralph. The more people who would have to be "in on" a conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true. And this one would be enormous. Given the choice between terrorist-piloted flight 77 and an elaborate cruise missile/bomb plot and even more elaborate cover-up; I'll go with the official story. Not that I believe it because it's official...but because it's the only plausible story I've heard.
• From the tin foiler's web site: "Although it is still speculated as to what exactly happened to United Airlines Flight 93, it is widely believed that it was shot out of the sky by military aircraft considering the wide debris field of the plane’s wreckage." Umm, if the gov't scripted it, WHY WOULD THEY SHOOT DOWN THE DAMN PLANE BEFORE IT HIT CAMP DAVID!!!!!!! Get a clue
• Lol, Debaser626. You're right. I'm struck by how the author of the website thinks that the only possible explanation for CBS' reports is a conspiracy. If anything, the erroneous news report points to the opposite, namely that during a time of chaos, misinformation spreads wildly. In fact, you should be very suspicious if all news sources get it right. Real conspiracies are always much tidier. (like when they "vote" in North Korea, there's 100% turnout for the Dear Leader...)
• Regarding the 'so many people involved, someone must talk'... I find that quite a flawed point. For one thing, people have talked about inconsistences and strange events prior and during the attacks. That they haven't been given big media exposure is another thing. And, that it postulates a monolithic cabal, a single team carrying out a plan. I doubt that. I think that day, many sides came out to play. Doubt everyone would have been aware of the big picture. Also... people keep secrets all the time. Because they fear a non-disclosure agreement lawsuit or some other simpler, more direct consequence. I imagine the truth about that day is less exotic than something involving demolitions and switched planes, but those FlightSim ace pilots, their incombustible passports and the burning black boxes also leave a sour taste in my mouth.
• From one of these 9/11 conspiracy folks: Surviving a Nuclear attack or a "Dirty Bomb".Read it NOW!! Make it a TOP PRIORITY!! YOUR LIFE MAY DEPEND ON IT!!!!111!11!11! Somehow I find this really illuminating of the mindset of tinfoil hatters. Like they WANT bad things to happen, and WANT there to be secret explanations.
• ~~~ IF YOU ARE READING THIS ON-LINE, PRINT OUT SOME HARD-COPIES NOW! ~~~PDF version for best printed copy is here http://www.ki4u.com/guide.pdf IF you can do so quickly, e-mail the link to this page to all on your e-mail list… www.ki4u.com/guide.htm …with the brief message from you urging them to “Print and Read Now!” Your top priority right now, though, is preparing for your own immediate family survival! Do I have time for a sammich first?
• All the exclamation points and urgency of that guide makes it sound quite loopy, but there's nothing but common sense advice there. Of course, it's easier just to wait for FEMA to arrive and take charge. They've proved to be up for the job...
• Actually, I just read the rest, and it is good advice. Just got me chuckling at the thought of an attack happening between when I opened the page and when I got to the end. Now I see that the writer assumes most people will get to his page when The Big One is already on the way.
• "Hank, that is not in any way a straw man argument. Parts of flight 77 were found in the Pentagon rubble." Yes it is. Parts of *a plane* were found in the rubble. And bodies. The firemen & response teams are not expert aircraft crash investigators. They cannot recognise which parts of planes come from which. Only a crazy person thinks a plane did not hit the Pentagon. But what plane? You are saying that just because airplane parts were found, that it was the plane we are told it was. You are saying that the responders would be able to identify it. This is not logical. That's the strawman. The responders reported small amounts of debris, seats, bodies, but interestingly, no large fuselage parts. "...there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." - Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher The impact site on the Pentagon seems inconsistent with the size of a Boeing 757, & with other modern crashes into buildings, such as the El Al Amsterdam crash. The official report is contradictory with the telemetry data & the observed, photographed damage. The hole in the wall, before the responders 'punched out' the sides, showed no wing damage, the wings carry the fuel. These discrepancies have been endlessly documented. The FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force did the crash investigation, not the NTSB. Most of the videos of the crash, from many CCTV cameras in the area, have not been released. The few that have, show not very much except a blur. I fail to understand why the other videos can't be released. There are no reconcilable answers to the many discrepancies at this time.
• "if the gov't scripted it, WHY WOULD THEY SHOOT DOWN THE DAMN PLANE BEFORE IT HIT CAMP DAVID!!!!!!!" They didn't shoot it down. The hijackers deliberately ploughed the plane into the ground in response to the passengers' attempts to storm the cockpit. This is what the cockpit voice recorders showed. So, if the nutters are right about the 'plan' to have 93 hit Camp David, that is why the events did not fit with the 'script'.
• I think debaser's point is that the guy who's claiming that Camp David was the scripted target seems also to think that 93 *was* shot down - which isn't logically consistent.
• Parts of *a plane* were found in the rubble.....But what plane? Let's assume that it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. So what happened to 77, its passengers, and crew? Back on subject, it turns out that the CBS report of an attack on Camp David wasn't the only erroneous report on 9/11. From the wiki: Unconfirmed and often contradictory reports were aired and published throughout the day. One of the most prevalent of these reported that a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters, the Truman Building in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C. This erroneous report, picked up by the wire services, was reported on CNN and in a number of newspapers published that day. Soon after reporting for the first time on the Pentagon crash, CNN and other media also briefly reported that a fire had broken out on the Washington Mall. Another report went out on the AP wire, claiming that a Delta 767—Flight 1989—had been hijacked. So now the question is why didn't the FPP video mention any of these other "off script" incidents?
• "So what happened to 77, its passengers, and crew?" Every time I hear this question, it surprises me that someone has asked it. Given that we're discussing the possibility of an horrendous atrocity perpetrated on our own people by "someone" on our own side, leading to thousands of deaths, the subsequent whereabouts of 77 is moot. It could have been ploughed into the sea. It could have been flown to a remote base & destroyed. It could have been flown to a remote base & the passengers shot in a ditch. It is irrelevant. What we need to determine are whether the facts we have been told are correct. Once that determination has been made, then we go off looking for the other stuff.
• I remember hearing on the radio that the State Department HQ was hit that day.
• I remember hearing that day on the radio that the State Department HQ was hit. Makes more sense.
• The debris found at the Pentagon contained the personal effects of almost all of the flight 77 passengers. The airplane parts that were found were consistent with flight 77. Eyewitnesses on the ground reported seeing a large airliner crash into the Pentagon. Air traffic controllers tracked flight 77 to the Pentagon where its signal disappeared. Why is this so hard for some people to believe?
• The dog barks at the moon. It is something the dog must do. The moon does not notice.
• Given that we're discussing the possibility of an horrendous atrocity perpetrated on our own people by "someone" on our own side... This sounds like faith-based thinking. i.e. Assume a conspiracy, now look for everything we can to support the assumption. It's the same thinking that GWBush and company used: "We believe that Iraq has WMD. Here are some suspicious photos. Atta was in Bagdad with Saddam Hussein". If we want the truth, we don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. We start with the evidence and work forwards. If you do this with 9/11 you quickly come across plenty of evidence that contradicts a lot of what conspiracy theorists have put out. But the kicker is that if you look at conspiracy websites, you won't see the contrary evidence. You don't see mention of the false report of the attack on the State Department HQ or the Washington Mall in this guy's video, for example. Personally i find this fascinating from a cognitive psychology point of view. Conspiracism seems to be a form of fundamentalism. You do not question the underlying assumption of The Conspiracy.
• ...which is to say, Hank, that the whereabouts of Flight 77 is not moot. If there's evidence that proves that Flight 77 is not the plane that hit the Pentagon, what is it?
• I'm not saying it was that, & I'm not prepared to speculate further. I'm saying if there was some other play of events... I don't know what really happened. I do have my doubts about the impact site at the Pentagon, but that is as far as I go. I simply don't believe what comes out of the mouthpieces of the Bush government & their appointees. These people invaded a foreign country on a preposterously fake pretext, & have committed war crimes. They have lied again & again about almost everything. I simply don't trust them as a source of information. I think only an idiot would believe these people. If they told me the sun rose in the East I would get a second opinion.
• These people invented a foreign country on a preposterously fake pretext I agree - "Venezuela"? Who the fuck actually believes in THAT shit?
• /slap
• Ouch!
• Mister Story Bored nails the thing that bugs me about the 911 truth folks. If someone thinks for a bit about the arguments and comes up with a very good way of refuting a point, demolitions in the towers, steel girders weakening[but not melting], alternative video footage[WTC7] or simply phone calls to loved ones as the planes are heading in, the responses range from getting shouted down, to " I'm not prepared to speculate farther" and the same crap gets repeated the next day. Never mind that if you pull one block out numerous others take a dive too. People make a living off this and they can get very nasty if you point out the sometimes gaping holes in their arguments [which are repeated the next day/minute] Lack of critical thinking is embraced and If you use it you are A-no fun, or B-a goverment stooge.. One leader of this movement suggested that Popular Science, which did a book on this subject, could not be trusted because one of the publishers shared the same last name as someone in the Bush administration. Conspiracies are so much sexier than gross stupidy, laziness and bureacratic pissing matches. Air India could have been averted if some douchbag hadn't gotten his panties all twisted because a specific warning about it came through [in his little mind] the wrong channel. I think that the people who let this [911] happen are relieved that the 911 truthers are throwing this crap-circus over how pathetic the reality is. I don't mean to sound cranky, but this makes my brain bleed pooh.
• I've never been to a crap-circus.... but hopefully they feature the famous Venezuelan Slapping Dance.
• slapping dance (YooToob)
• Uncle Leo!!
• Strawman argument, Ralph. Misunderstanding of the term "straw man," Hank. These conspiracy theories are great. Obviously fictional due to the total lack of supporting evidence, but...fun to imagine nonetheless. re: the most likely explanation: Why is this so hard for some people to believe? Because it goes against their religion—the religion of Bush Orchestrated 9/11ianity.
• I'm more of a Bush-just-a-sock-puppet-that-also-got-played-on-by-the-real-conspirators-stic. The communion wafer are tastier.
• This is so much bullshit. Here it is in a nutshell Some guys... They hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings Then Some other guys hijacked democracy And used it to feed the military industrial complex.
• Argh for the win, So here's what I think, take it or leave it. The Bush administration hasn't shown that it can plan it's way out of a paper bag, so could they go through all the intricies of orchestrating the fly-in of the airplanes, with Arab suiciders on board, plus placing bombs in the buildings so that we'd all get even more scared and go for invading Iraq? And did they prerecord messages from passengers on those flights using actors? And coopt their families to support their script? And have the plane and people fragments ready to make it look as though the Pentagon got hit? Did they send a crew of people and heavy equipment out without anyone noticing before the US bombs hit the Pentagon? It sounds more and more like a super villan plot in a comic book. Bush and crew may be villans, but they're not super. If you look at the administration's claim the Saadam had scary weopons, and they were so good at orchestration, why did they allow the inspectors to deny their claim way back when? And why were none found? "Finding" that sort of evidence seems a hell of a lot simpler than pulling off the 9/11 scenario. They may be evil, but they're not necessarily good at it. Some folks give them too much credit.
• I don't have any alternate explanations -- I just don't believe that what they say happened is what actually happened. And we'll never know what actually happened. That's all.
• slapping dance (YooToob) Awesome, HW! Best of teh web! *whirls* *slaps everyone on thread* oops.
• I thought it was going to be THIS slapping dance.
• Listening to the whole thing unfold on the radio that fateful day, there were numerous reports that later got recanted. At one point the anchor woman said a plane hit Langley, VA, then there were reports that a hijacked plane landed in Cleveland. Just goes to show that the media is more interested in getting in first on a story than getting in first on an accurate story. I'm with those who above who know that we don't know the whole truth but I stop short of the whole planned detonations and scripts.
• Just goes to show that the media is more interested in getting in first on a story than getting in first on an accurate story. That's the nature of the medium. If you want accuracy and well-checked facts, read about it the next day in the newspaper.
• 9?11 was the ultimate in repeat play with irresponsible speculation by the talking heads. Whatever the story, GWtheASS has guaranteed that there will be another terrorist act in the future. His little war has cost us the respect of other nations, as well as developing hate in the Middle East. Just wait for it, folks. There's a whole generation of kids who have watched their families die and figure Americans are the ones to blame. Some of them have nothing to lose. And they're right about the blame.