911 is a Lies ??

[ajpirzada]

There are overwhelming evidences and logical reasoning to prove 'otherwise', that these are truly loony conspiracy theories.

Take the planted explosives argument for example. The WTC was attacked with an underground parking garage bomb back in 1993. It failed. So either the CIA was utterly incompetent back then, or that it was an al-Qaeda operation. But if the CIA/Mossad decided to take over, then why bother to use airliners at all when so much explosives were 'hidden' to bring down the towers? Not only that...Why bother to bring both towers straight down when demolition experts can lay down a structure anywhere they want? Why not lay each tower down on its side to do even far more damages? It make no sense.

If the goal was to implicate Iraq to 'steal' Iraqi oil, then why framed 19 Saudis? If the CIA/Mossad was devious and silently capable enough to implant tons of explosives to bring down the towers in one of the world's busiest cities, then it should have been a piece of cake to frame at least one hundred Iraqis, perhaps even Saddam himself. It make no sense.

i dont want to go into theories. i can come up with my own theories which will also make sense.
my question is that wat makes u say that it was carried out by Al qaeda?? i dont want the theory i want the evidence.
those 19 saudis... later there was an article in BBC which suggested that many of those 19 saudis are still alive.
its all this which confuses me.
i dont support any of those conspiracy theories but its also hard for me to believe the official version

 

[gambit]

its hard to imagine a country bombin itself but its also hard to imagine al qaeda carryin out such a sophisticated attack.

It is not a 'sophisticated' attack. The operation planner did a masterful job of keeping to the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Sh!thead -- and the openness of American society made it easy for him.

Once an airliner, or any aircraft for that matter, is airborne, the captain is 'The Law'. His orders are supreme. The environment demands such a status. There is no one to help the aircraft and its occupants. If anything bad happen, the observers can only watch helplessly. The aircraft is truly independent of any manmade laws. Communication can be suspended and ground orders disobeyed. The pilot can fly his ship anywhere and anyhow he likes. Air traffic controllers are not in control, they can only give instructions and hope they will be taken seriously precisely because of the wish to remain alive safely by the aircrew and their passengers. With this understanding, it become easy to see how such an operation like 9/11 can be planned and executed.

In any military operation that involve discrete units working towards a common goal, it is desirable to have each unit to be as AUTONOMOUS as possible, perhaps even each can have its own plan. If we take each airliner as a discrete operation for a takeover and finally a weapon, we can see, with the above understanding of how air travel works, that there is no need for each unit to be in communication with each other. The only goal and order for the crews is to have the attack on so-and-so day, perhaps in the AM or PM. What is there to 'coordinate' when the target, the WTC complex, is immobile, highly visible and not defended against air attacks? There is not even a need to give the crews a set day. Just make it a requirement that all air attacks, from hijackings to crashing into the targets, occur on the same day, as close to each other as possible. Let the crews work out among themselves on who attack which ground target. If not Sept 11, then perhaps Oct 8 or around Thanksgiving Day holiday when air travel schedules are important to people. So it could be that Sept 11, 2001 was the day that all crews were confident that they would have the greatest odds of success. Osama bin Laden does not need to be in constant contact to 'coordinate' anything.

The argument that NORAD was ordered to 'stand down' or that the US military could have shot down any hijacked airliner is utterly absurd once the nature and mission of NORAD is known. The North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command is a joint US-Canada military operation whose mission is to look BEYOND the borders. By law NORAD have NO jurisdiction inside US airspace. The proper authority over civilan airspace is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Only the FAA can call upon the US military for assistance. NORAD does not have legal imprimatur to act on its own. US military personnel are forbidden by law to make formal arrests.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION 1 June 2001

4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A

Prior to Sept 11, 2001, air traffic controllers have the understanding that airline hijackings are mainly political statements with the hijackers WANTING TO REMAIN ALIVE to make their case to the media. If there is a hijacking in progress, the controller who has airspace jurisdiction which involve the aircraft in question would immediately call or 'squawk' code 7500 for an air piracy in progress, clear the immediate airspace and remain in contact with the aircraft to guide it to the nearest airport. On Sept 11, 2001 this understanding was not abandoned and the procedures to deal with a hijacking was followed as best as humanly possible. There were no procedures to deal with the possibility that the hijackers were suicidal and therefore refused to communicate with ground controllers.

As for the argument that NORAD was supposed to 'scrambled' armed fighters the moment any airliner deviate from its file flight plan -- STOOOPPPIIIIDDD. If a captain has a sick passenger or an expectant mother ready to deliver her baby, he has the authority to declare an In-Flight Emergency (IFE), which is mainly an FYI to ground controllers, and IMMEDIATELY deviate from his fligh plan, which is filed by his airline anyway. Wealthy capitalists with their private jets deviate from file flight plans with regular frequency. How is the USAF supposed to 'scrambled' any armed fighter yo make an intercept? How many fighter bases must the US have in every state within 5 minutes flight time to make any interceptions? Would that make the US pretty much a dictatorship? If so, then why bother with so free an air travel system anyway? How about recreational aviation like powered gliders or light homemade aircrafts? Best to do make them illegal so that the USAF would not have to make so much interceptions of suspicious radar echoes.

This is why the '9/11 Truth' movement is slowly dying an embarrassing death.

 

[ajpirzada]

It is not a 'sophisticated' attack. The operation planner did a masterful job of keeping to the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Sh!thead -- and the openness of American society made it easy for him.

Once an airliner, or any aircraft for that matter, is airborne, the captain is 'The Law'. His orders are supreme. The environment demands such a status. There is no one to help the aircraft and its occupants. If anything bad happen, the observers can only watch helplessly. The aircraft is truly independent of any manmade laws. Communication can be suspended and ground orders disobeyed. The pilot can fly his ship anywhere and anyhow he likes. Air traffic controllers are not in control, they can only give instructions and hope they will be taken seriously precisely because of the wish to remain alive safely by the aircrew and their passengers. With this understanding, it become easy to see how such an operation like 9/11 can be planned and executed.

In any military operation that involve discrete units working towards a common goal, it is desirable to have each unit to be as AUTONOMOUS as possible, perhaps even each can have its own plan. If we take each airliner as a discrete operation for a takeover and finally a weapon, we can see, with the above understanding of how air travel works, that there is no need for each unit to be in communication with each other. The only goal and order for the crews is to have the attack on so-and-so day, perhaps in the AM or PM. What is there to 'coordinate' when the target, the WTC complex, is immobile, highly visible and not defended against air attacks? There is not even a need to give the crews a set day. Just make it a requirement that all air attacks, from hijackings to crashing into the targets, occur on the same day, as close to each other as possible. Let the crews work out among themselves on who attack which ground target. If not Sept 11, then perhaps Oct 8 or around Thanksgiving Day holiday when air travel schedules are important to people. So it could be that Sept 11, 2001 was the day that all crews were confident that they would have the greatest odds of success. Osama bin Laden does not need to be in constant contact to 'coordinate' anything.

The argument that NORAD was ordered to 'stand down' or that the US military could have shot down any hijacked airliner is utterly absurd once the nature and mission of NORAD is known. The North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command is a joint US-Canada military operation whose mission is to look BEYOND the borders. By law NORAD have NO jurisdiction inside US airspace. The proper authority over civilan airspace is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Only the FAA can call upon the US military for assistance. NORAD does not have legal imprimatur to act on its own. US military personnel are forbidden by law to make formal arrests.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Prior to Sept 11, 2001, air traffic controllers have the understanding that airline hijackings are mainly political statements with the hijackers WANTING TO REMAIN ALIVE to make their case to the media. If there is a hijacking in progress, the controller who has airspace jurisdiction which involve the aircraft in question would immediately call or 'squawk' code 7500 for an air piracy in progress, clear the immediate airspace and remain in contact with the aircraft to guide it to the nearest airport. On Sept 11, 2001 this understanding was not abandoned and the procedures to deal with a hijacking was followed as best as humanly possible. There were no procedures to deal with the possibility that the hijackers were suicidal and therefore refused to communicate with ground controllers.

As for the argument that NORAD was supposed to 'scrambled' armed fighters the moment any airliner deviate from its file flight plan -- STOOOPPPIIIIDDD. If a captain has a sick passenger or an expectant mother ready to deliver her baby, he has the authority to declare an In-Flight Emergency (IFE), which is mainly an FYI to ground controllers, and IMMEDIATELY deviate from his fligh plan, which is filed by his airline anyway. Wealthy capitalists with their private jets deviate from file flight plans with regular frequency. How is the USAF supposed to 'scrambled' any armed fighter yo make an intercept? How many fighter bases must the US have in every state within 5 minutes flight time to make any interceptions? Would that make the US pretty much a dictatorship? If so, then why bother with so free an air travel system anyway? How about recreational aviation like powered gliders or light homemade aircrafts? Best to do make them illegal so that the USAF would not have to make so much interceptions of suspicious radar echoes.

This is why the '9/11 Truth' movement is slowly dying an embarrassing death.

i know all this. i never said that USAF should have sent fighter jets. that is just not possible. send a jet to intercept wat?? ur own ppl... that is just stupid... but
again u r tellin me the theory while i am askin u for the evidence. show me the evidence which proves the involvement of al qaeda.

 

[gambit]

i dont want to go into theories. i can come up with my own theories which will also make sense.
my question is that wat makes u say that it was carried out by Al qaeda?? i dont want the theory i want the evidence.
those 19 saudis... later there was an article in BBC which suggested that many of those 19 saudis are still alive.
its all this which confuses me.
i dont support any of those conspiracy theories but its also hard for me to believe the official version

If you ever called Americans 'brainwashed' with our media, what you said above make yourself guilty of the same sin. It is a marvel at the lack of critical thinking skills when it come to Sept 11, 2001.

If I use your name, I do not need to steal your driver's license or any other forms of identification, but only your name, to commit a crime, does that mean YOU committed that crime? No...Once you came to the police and proved your association with that name beyond any reasonable doubt, YOU will be removed from the crime, however, your name will remain associated with the crime because that is all the police has to go by. Someone committed that crime. You did not erase it from history just because YOU were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be innocent of that crime.

Cover Story: Panoply of the Absurd - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.

But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago."

Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.

Is that the BBC article you speak of?

Looks like the Germans -- Der Spiegel -- did a much more thorough investigative job than the BBC did...

The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."

The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of assassins.

Samman remembers his big story well. "That was a wonderful story," he says. And that's all it was. It had nothing to do with the version made up of Bröckers' and Bülow's combined fantasies.

"The problem," says Samman, "was that after the first FBI list had been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi that had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at some point received official flight training in the United States."

After Samman's story was reported by the news agencies, he was contacted by CNN. "I gave them Ghamdi's telephone number. The CNN people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said al-Ghamdi."

When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI's list of photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: "The Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke."

I do not engage this subject to change YOUR mind. Yours or anyone who chimed in here. But for every participant in this discussion there are several more who merely lurked and are uncertain about many claims. So the question remain...Which man in the photo above is the innocent pilot and which is the terrorist? If I can find this Der Spiegel article, why not you?

 

[gambit]

Can someone explain to me how the building near the world trade center,i think it was wtc 3 or something along those lines also collapsed with even being attacked?

The loony conspiracy theorists harped on WTC 7 and how it collapsed without an airliner crashed into it. They conveniently ignore the GLOBAL evidences from firefighters how fires can collapse a building, concrete or steel.

 

[ajpirzada]

If you ever called Americans 'brainwashed' with our media, what you said above make yourself guilty of the same sin. It is a marvel at the lack of critical thinking skills when it come to Sept 11, 2001.

If I use your name, I do not need to steal your driver's license or any other forms of identification, but only your name, to commit a crime, does that mean YOU committed that crime? No...Once you came to the police and proved your association with that name beyond any reasonable doubt, YOU will be removed from the crime, however, your name will remain associated with the crime because that is all the police has to go by. Someone committed that crime. You did not erase it from history just because YOU were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be innocent of that crime.

Cover Story: Panoply of the Absurd - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Is that the BBC article you speak of?

Looks like the Germans -- Der Spiegel -- did a much more thorough investigative job than the BBC did...

I do not engage this subject to change YOUR mind. Yours or anyone who chimed in here. But for every participant in this discussion there are several more who merely lurked and are uncertain about many claims. So the question remain...Which man in the photo above is the innocent pilot and which is the terrorist? If I can find this Der Spiegel article, why not you?

ya thats the article i was referrin to.. thanks for clarification.
so wat we have got here is that ppl who hijacked the plane are not actually known to us. they can be anyone, isnt it? most of these names which we have been readin were actually stollen?

 

[gambit]

i know all this. i never said that USAF should have sent fighter jets. that is just not possible. send a jet to intercept wat?? ur own ppl... that is just stupid... but
again u r tellin me the theory while i am askin u for the evidence. show me the evidence which proves the involvement of al qaeda.

It is telling to the readers that while you claim to have your own 'theory' you provided nothing so far regarding 'evidence'.

The US have been petitioning the Taliban from supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for as far back as the Clinton administration. We even offered direct conversations with Mullah Omar. We were rebuffed. So when 9/11 happened, the kid gloves came off.

 

[ajpirzada]

The loony conspiracy theorists harped on WTC 7 and how it collapsed without an airliner crashed into it. They conveniently ignore the GLOBAL evidences from firefighters how fires can collapse a building, concrete or steel.

im not a supporter of this theory but it was argued that metal used in WTC was theoratically supposed to withstand that much of pressure.

 

[gambit]

im not a supporter of this theory but it was argued that metal used in WTC was theoratically supposed to withstand that much of pressure.

How conveniently evasive...You presented loony conspiracy arguments while at the same time disavow any perceived beliefs in them. Be a man and take a stand.

 

[ajpirzada]

How conveniently evasive...You presented loony conspiracy arguments while at the same time disavow any perceived beliefs in them. Be a man and take a stand.

y should i take a stand when i am not convinced? and i dont want to be one of those men who take stand just for the sake of takin a stand.
u tried to avoid the argument by simply sayin that fire can bring down any building and its a global fact. y i brought up this argument was to enlighten u that ur point is too weak to negate other party's claim.
the only reason y am i debatin with u is to see if u can help me take a stand. but its of no use if u dont have any evidence.
u r only tellin me the possibilities.

 

[ajpirzada]

It is telling to the readers that while you claim to have your own 'theory' you provided nothing so far regarding 'evidence'.

The US have been petitioning the Taliban from supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for as far back as the Clinton administration. We even offered direct conversations with Mullah Omar. We were rebuffed. So when 9/11 happened, the kid gloves came off.

so when 9/11 happened u just assumed that only al qaeda can do such a thing and therefore u went for a war??

another way to put this very samething.....
u looked at the past trends and came to a conclusion that al qaeda is responsible for 9/11??

 

[gambit]

y should i take a stand when i am not convinced? and i dont want to be one of those men who take stand just for the sake of takin a stand.
u tried to avoid the argument by simply sayin that fire can bring down any building and its a global fact. y i brought up this argument was to enlighten u that ur point is too weak cant negate other party's claim. the only reason y am i debatin with u is to see if u can help me take a stand. but its of no use if u dont have any evidence.
u r only tellin me the possibilities.

Are you really that incompetent with a web browser?

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire

Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
By: Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.

INTRODUCTION
There have been, and remain to be, continuing concerns about the adequacy of structural fire protection in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. As significant as these events were, they were also clearly not representative of the normal accidental impact of fire on building structures. To assess the extent and nature of structural collapses due to fire in taller buildings, a review of existing information about fire incidents resulting in structural collapse was collected and reviewed.

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.

That building was in Egypt, merely 6 stories tall, made of concrete, which has better fire resistant properties than steel, and it collapse due to fire.

Steel melting point is around 1500C, but it loses more than half of its strength at only a few hundreds C.

Structural steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order for a fireproofing product to qualify for a certification listing of structural steel, through a fire test, the critical temperature is set by the national standard, which governs the test. In Japan, this is below 400°C. In China, Europe and North America, it is set at ca. 540°C. The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the national standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating.

Those national standards varies but notice they fall close to each other. So if a steel column is under heat stress up to 500C with pressure from above, the column does not need to melt in order to under go what is called a 'global collapse'. The context of the word 'global' here mean the entire column itself. The pressure is simply gravity acceleration of the floors, plural, above the impact points. Further...Steel expands under heat and as this column expand it is trapped by the ceiling above and the floor below. The column will deform and with constant pressure from the floors above, it will fail.

 

[gambit]

so when 9/11 happened u just assumed that only al qaeda can do such a thing and therefore u went for a war??

another way to put this very samething.....
u looked at the past trends and came to a conclusion that al qaeda is responsible for 9/11??

Why is that unreasonable? Did I not point out that we were attacked back in 1993 with a truck bomb in the WTC underground parking garage? Or how about the USS Cole?

 

[ajpirzada]

Why is that unreasonable? Did I not point out that we were attacked back in 1993 with a truck bomb in the WTC underground parking garage? Or how about the USS Cole?

unreasonable part of this whole thing is that u r basin ur decision on history and not on proof. meanin u r ruling out the possibility of someone else carryin out this attack.
wat if this wasnt carried out by al qaeda??
are u gonna prove me wrong by simply sayin that because last attack was carried out by al qaeda so this attack is definately al qaeada's work.

 

[gambit]

unreasonable part of this whole thing is that u r basin ur decision on history and not on proof. meanin u r ruling out the possibility of someone else carryin out this attack.
wat if this wasnt carried out by al qaeda??
are u gonna prove me wrong by simply sayin that because last attack was carried out by al qaeda so this attack is definately al qaeada's work.

Right...So now you are saying that it is unreasonable for the police to consider history in their investigations of crimes and criminals. You are saying that it is unreasonable for countries, in international relations, to consider the histories of their neighbors, potential allies and enemies. Do not bother to put up the pretense that you have not swallowed wholesale the loony conspiracy theories peddled out there. You have.