9/11 conspiracy theories

[The Man]

The REAL culprit for 9/11 (from point of view of having culpability for having allowed these uys to operate unhindered) is stilol lauded as a great statesman around the world! I refer to the ol' cigar smoker, M'sieur Clinton. His legislation making it illegal for government agencies to use known criminals as sources of intelligence and information crippled the intelligence agencies (already functioning poorly due to some dodgy appoitntments by his administration). This effectively reduced their humint assets worldwide by almost 70%, they now estimate, and ensured that any information coming from these sources either could not be acted on, or would ensure that the intel officer receiving it could look forward to receiving his severance slip and possible criminal charges.

 

Yes, Bush has exploited it forn his own (and his oil buddies) gain, but the blame lies at Clinton's door more than it does the crazy Texan.

 

Never mind, he (Bill) is still Tony B's special friennmd!

[JustMe]

Well although there may not have been some government department that authorised the 9/11 attacks there are still some odd questions that I have not seen answered. Such as why, with fires raging below, some of the people from the top floors in both towers did not get to the roof in the hope of helicopter rescue?.

[Evil Inky]

Well although there may not have been some government department that authorised the 9/11 attacks there are still some odd questions that I have not seen answered. Such as why, with fires raging below, some of the people from the top floors in both towers did not get to the roof in the hope of helicopter rescue?.

 

Were the doors to the roofs locked ? ( I don't know if they were or not, but it seems the most obvious reason. )

[Fjool]

I thought the stairwells were acting like a bit chimney, so they'd have been pretty unpleasant; anyone trying to use them might have passed out or been burned badly by the hot air.

[JustMe]

Evil Inky wrote

Were the doors to the roofs locked ? ( I don't know if they were or not, but it seems the most obvious reason. )

As there are ample precedents for people getting rescued from the roofs of tall buildings by helicopter I would have though that although the doors might have been locked the key should have been available for such an emergency.

 

As for Fjool's point about the stairwells acting like a chimney I seem to remember people from the restaurant did go down a floor or so which implies that at least one stairwell was ok to use.

[Evil Inky]

Evil Inky wrote

Were the doors to the roofs locked ? ( I don't know if they were or not, but it seems the most obvious reason. )

As there are ample precedents for people getting rescued from the roofs of tall buildings by helicopter I would have though that although the doors might have been locked the key should have been available for such an emergency.

 

As for Fjool's point about the stairwells acting like a chimney I seem to remember people from the restaurant did go down a floor or so which implies that at least one stairwell was ok to use.

 

According to Wikipedia, some people did try to get onto the roofs, but the access doors were locked, and a helicopter rescue would have been impossible anyway due to the flames and smoke. ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks )

 

I'm not convinced there's an odd question that needs to be answered.

[JAStewart]

Yeah, the helicopters couldn't land or stay in the intense smoke for too long, so rescue was not an option, sadly.

[JAStewart]

I'm not convinced there's an odd question that needs to be answered.

 

Since the CT's are being constantly debunked, the CTists are resorting to other issues like 'death ray beams' and stuff. Its pretty laughable.

 

But regarding a question that needs answered:

 

Why was foreknowledge (I don't mean they knew, I just mean warnings and stuff) ignored?

[The Man]

For your answer, see my post at the top of the page. The US govt and intelligence services are amongst the worst bureaucracies in the world. No proof? (i.e. no verifiable, 'legal' proof - by Mr C's administration guidelines) No action. Besides, he'd left the free world believing that EVERYONE loved Uncle Sam, especially those folk in the Middle East. George wasn't going to dispute that (and open a can of worms) when he came in. They were ALL convinced that the threat was from other quarters. Those who went against policy and said otherwise were quietly shifted sideways, retired or otherwise pigeonholed into positions where they would do least "damage". Like I said, William Clinton has a LOT to answer for, and yet he still swans around like some sort of would be modern day JFK (and look at the legacy he left, with Vietnam, etc!!!)

 

Gets my goat something rotten!

[JustMe]

JAStewart wrote

Since the CT's are being constantly debunked, the CTists are resorting to other issues like 'death ray beams' and stuff. Its pretty laughable.

 

Just finished reading the first novel I have seen with 9/11 as its theme. Not at all sure that it is right for the events of that day to form part of a work of fiction but it did get me thinking about the events of that day and in particular the flying skills of the hijackers.

 

I seem to recall that one hijacker had some airline experience while the rest had some training on light aircraft. In Hollywood movies we see the hero (with some experience on crop dusters or the like) bringing a plane to a safe landing with the aid of the best looking stewardess after both pilots are incapacitated in some way.

 

That was in Hollywood movies. 9/11 was in real life. I have serious doubts that, perhaps aside from the ex airline guy,the hijackers would have had the level of skill needed to find the WTC, far less the skill to hit the towers first time. I have always thought that even with a gun held to their heads the flight crew would have pulled some last minute manoeuvre to end up in the river or the sea. Same is true for the Pentagon........in fact that would have been a lot harder to hit as it was necessary to be a lot more precise on the height.

 

So there we have a question.......how did pilots with limited skills manage to fly to and hit their targets?.

[Njugle]

It is a very difficult factor in the whole attack JustMe, The towers would have been reasonably easy to hit once the 'pilots' had visual contact with them, but i would be interested to see an accurate plot of their track prior to impact, as from my perspective it is unlikely that a novice pilot would manage to gain that visual contact without wiggling all over the place or perhaps circling the city first.

The pentagon impact is, as you say, nothing short of incredible. Spotting the Pentagon from the distance necessary to begin that approach would take a very keen eye without, once again, circling the area for landmarks. The skill required to hit the wall is considerable, perhaps they were lucky but that's a hell of a piece of luck. Unless of course they were aiming for the centre of the building, for instance, and fell short.

 

In short, if they all flew straight in, there may well be more to the story than has been revealled, if they didn't it may be roughly as it has been portrayed, in my opinion.

[JAStewart]

JAStewart wrote

Since the CT's are being constantly debunked, the CTists are resorting to other issues like 'death ray beams' and stuff. Its pretty laughable.

 

Just finished reading the first novel I have seen with 9/11 as its theme. Not at all sure that it is right for the events of that day to form part of a work of fiction but it did get me thinking about the events of that day and in particular the flying skills of the hijackers.

 

I seem to recall that one hijacker had some airline experience while the rest had some training on light aircraft. In Hollywood movies we see the hero (with some experience on crop dusters or the like) bringing a plane to a safe landing with the aid of the best looking stewardess after both pilots are incapacitated in some way.

 

That was in Hollywood movies. 9/11 was in real life. I have serious doubts that, perhaps aside from the ex airline guy,the hijackers would have had the level of skill needed to find the WTC, far less the skill to hit the towers first time. I have always thought that even with a gun held to their heads the flight crew would have pulled some last minute manoeuvre to end up in the river or the sea. Same is true for the Pentagon........in fact that would have been a lot harder to hit as it was necessary to be a lot more precise on the height.

 

So there we have a question.......how did pilots with limited skills manage to fly to and hit their targets?.

 

ach there is a video of an amatuer pilot re-creating the flight and hitting the pentagon. can't fin it though.

[The Man]

All you folk questioning the impacts as controversial, given they were learners, who knows how good a learner they were? Plus i very much doubt they just said as they boarded the planes, "Y'know, lets hijack this plane and go look for summat to bnlow up, like the WTC or pentagon! Now, does anyone know the way?" These guys PLANNED the attacks or had other smarter less suicidal folk to plan it for them. Are you gonna tell me they were incapable of identifying a series of landmaerks that would lead them to their targets through basic course changhes that even learners could use? Have you ever seen the decks of these jets? they are mainly ciomputers tese days. Enter the right numbers (and ahain, someone else could have written them down for them) and they take you right there. Then its "autopilot off, manual on" for the crash. Sheesh. They planned a long time. They wanted to make sure it worked. Give them some credit for having a FEW brain cells betwen them.

[Fjool]

I thought this was an interesting article. Of course it draws out the tin-foil hat wearing brigade in the comments section but the article itself is quite rational.

 

It's not directly about any particular conspiracy, rather the dual nature of complicity versus conspiracy.

 

Worth a scan.

 

Is 9/11 Paranoia Bad for the Country?

[Sherlock]

To quote from my namesake,

 

"It is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences, each dependent upon its predecessor and each simple in itself. If, after doing so, one simply knocks out all the central inferences and presents one's audience with the starting-point and the conclusion, one may produce a startling, though perhaps a meretricious, effect."

 

Written a LONG time ago now, and yet still speaks for this topic and the other conspiracy theories, if you ask me.

 

It's just my opinion.