Us orchestrated 9/11?

[Acecube 0]

Now this one is NOT about the survey and NOT about knowing where certain countries are located. Also I MUST emphaize that I'm NOT a conspiracy fanatic or some thing like this. The only thing I would like you to think about (or maybe even discuss here) is the old what do WE realy know question.

For me as the little media consuming sucker I am, there is AS many reasons to belive AS NOT to believe that AQ-terrorists did 9/11!

I will for now put aside the quantitative aspect of media coverage about 9/11 (often repeated information will not make the information it self more true than it is). The only more or less objective perception I had was of two planes crashing into two buildings and that these buildings colapsed.

Still there is a hell lot of unanswered questions that of course made conspiracy theoretics go wild. But even if you subtract all of the UFO bullshit written there you will end up with a several really interesting points that will badly put the credibility of the media informations into question.

I will spare you on the mentioned points as I believe you can find them all over the web if you're interested. Personally I don't have a belief in a certain truth about 9/11 yet.

What I'm really curious about is:

On which premisses, who's informations, which sources do your beliefs about 9/11 actually base and why do you take them for credible?

cheers

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Good question. I guess first of all I trust my EQ. I started to catalyse the entire 9/11 when I was able to read about the terorists themselves. Mohammed Atta and his past in Germany. His conections with fundamentalist groups in the area and his trip to Afghanistan. The ideology of Bin Laden, his training camps in Afghanistan and the words he spreads. The centre of 9/11 is to be found in current Arab ideologies and not in the sick mind of a political advisor (a la "wag the dog")

[Warin 0]

I dont think anyone would deny the involvement of AQ in the events of 9/11.

What we doubt is that Iraq has any connection to either AQ or 9/11. Now, from what i hear, 26 pages of the 9/11 report are censored as 'national security concerns' and the rumours i hear are that those are hte sections dealing with the complicity and overt support of certain Saudi families for AQ, and funding for the 9/11 attacks. No wonder they are censored. Here your goernment is trying to link AQ and 9/11 to Saddam... it wouldnt do for the same government to release a report that says it was actually one of your allies!

[denoir 0]

There is one thing, although I would not call it a conspiracy, but more revisionism, that I'm fairly certain about is shady.

When I got home from a lecture on 11/9 2001 I met a neighbor in the hall who asked me if I've heard the news. I told him that I had not and he told me that some form of small private airplane had crashed into the WTC and that they were showing the fire in the building live on TV.

So I got into my apartment, turned on the TV, and true, they were showing live footage from CSPAN or Fox, I don't remember. A minute after I had turned on the TV, I saw the second plane crash. Whoa! Not good. I continue watching TV and try to get some information from the web. The CNN homepage is down and most other networks don't have any information yet. Then the buildings collapse. Not good. Speculations about 20,000+ dead. Then the Pentagon news comes. Quite surrealistic. A fourth plane is said to be on the way to Washington.

This is where it gets shady. CNN's site is up and running again in a basic text mode. They quote an US Air force general who says that the plane heading to Washington has been shot down. They repeat it on the news on TV and they have a live phone conversation with two people in Pennsylvania who say they witnessed two F-16's engaging the plane.

Ok, that's understandable, they had very little choice. And I don't think any more about it. The victims in the two towers are what the news is focusing on and that's the story I'm following. An hour or two later, I notice that they're not saying anything more about the fourth plane that was shot down. Only that it crashed and that it was uncertain if it was involved. So I checked the CNN website and noticed to my surprise that I could not find a trace of the statement from that general - as a matter of fact, I could not find anything that would even remotely suggest that the plane was shot down.

And then, a day or two after the attacks came the story of the "heroic passengers" who stopped the terrorist at the cost of their own lives.

So you understand, I'm extremely skeptical about that part.

Edit: spelling

[theavonlady 2]

From what I recall, there were fighters already in the air on their tail but too far away to fire.

Who knows what that general thought or assumed at such a crazy moment.

[theavonlady 2]

From what I recall, there were fighters already in the air on their tail but too far away to fire.

Who knows what that general thought or assumed at such a crazy moment.

Snopes leaves it as a question:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/beamer.htm

Frankly, if it was shot down, why not just say so?

[ralphwiggum 6]

basically, denoir is suspicious about the event due to confusion caused by media reporters running like some mad monkey. I don't think there were many sane media reporters when 9-11 happened, and their confusion can be viewed as a part of conspiracy.

when i caught the glimpse of 9-11, it was 3 hours after initial crash, and there were still some sort of confusion on number of planes and etc. Does this mean that there were conspiracies? not really. media do not have all the info and is sending them out as they get it.

for the who done it part, AQ has been bragging about it ever since. so no question they did it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if the plane was shot down, debries would have scattered across a large area, but they ended up with a small crater.

[FSPilot 0]

Did they ever collect the black box from the fourth plane?

And Denoir, I wouldn't be surprised if what you saw on CNN about the F-16s shooting down the airliner was a simple rumor.

[denoir 0]

if the plane was shot down, debries would have scattered across a large area, but they ended up with a small crater.

911 Timeline

Quote[/b] ]10:20am EST, hijacked Boeing 757 United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania enroute to DC after surviving 45 passengers counterattacked. Eyewitnesses say US Air Force shot it down, with debris found over an 8 mile area. FBI says the debris flew 8 miles all by itself upon impact.

Apparently this is widely debated subject. I found some more information on it:

Edit: Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

<a href="http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html" target="_blank">

Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts</a>

[FSPilot 0]

If the plane nosedived it would of broken up in the air and scattered the debris all over the place.

That's pretty wierd for the FBI to say that it bounced 8 miles.

[toadlife 3]

The president gave the order to shoot down the fourth plane. This was openly admitted by the administration. If they had shot down the plane, I think they would have said so.

Weren't there multiple cell phone conversations between the passengers and people on the ground, and of which corroborated the story that there was a struggle in the cockpit?

Or course, perhaps the plane was hit by a missile while the struggle in the cockpit was happening, and the Administration decided to give credit to the passengers 'cause it would be a better story.

[FSPilot 0]

That could of happened, I don't know why they would of shot down a plane that was going to crash though.

[Akira 0]

GO GO CONSPIRACY POWERS!

Mystery Plane

[Akira 0]

Also don't forget the FBI investigated United 93's crash...not the NTSB which has the experience, tools, expertise and jurisdiction.

[ralphwiggum 6]

911 Timeline

Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

<a href="http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html" target="_blank">

Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts</a>

hmmm..i guess some suspicious individual has more credibility.

here in California, there was a domestic flight that plunged to sea after some mechanical failure.(not related to 9-11) the oil slick and debris were found well within 3 miles wide area. now consider that with hitting a ground.

[toadlife 3]

ONe quick observation on the plane breaking up before hitting the ground...

The plane was reportedly moving at a very high speed before beginning it's decent (~600mph). This is at the upper limit of a passenger jet's normal cruising speed.

Going into a steep dive at speeds like that would put the plane into dangerous speeds. I'm sure the hijackers didn't think to cut the throttle once the plane went into it's dive. It seems to me, a 757 going into a steep dive at full throttle would be in danger of breaking up.

[denoir 0]

It's possible that it was a media or otherwise fuckup. There was a lot of confusion that day.

However, look at these circumstances:

1) 8:46 American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower.

2) 8:52 Two F-15 Eagles have scrambled and are airborne from the 102nd Fighter Wing of Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts. An F-15 has a top speed of 1875+ MPH. Otis is 153 miles (according to The New York Times) eastnortheast of the WTC.

3) 9:02:54 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 impacts the south side of the South Tower of the WTC.

4) The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 MPH but were unable to catch up to the airliner [united Airliners Flight 175], Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver said.

5) 9:16 a.m. to 9:20: The FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 93 has been hijacked. (Reported as 9:20 a.m. in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

6) 9:24 Three F-16 from the 1st Fighter Wing from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton scramble

7) Three F-16 Fighting Falcons code-named Huntress take off from Langley AFB headed at first toward at NYC but were diverted towards Washington DC by request of the Secret Service.

8) 9:39 Flight 93 goes off course near Cleveland and heads towards Washington DC

9) 9:37 Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon.

10) 10:06 Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, 12 minutes from reaching the White House.

Later in an interview with Times Magazine, Cheney said that Bush immideately after the second plane impacted the WTC authorized shooting down hostile commercial airliners.

So, there were fighters in the area. There was plenty of time. They knew it was hijacked. They knew that it was heading for the White House. The fighters had permission to engage.

Does it not strike you as odd that they would have not been shot down?

[FSPilot 0]

WOULD not, maybe. COULD not, no. If they were out of range, didn't have a good shot, couldn't find the airplane, then I understand why they didn't shoot it down.

Even if they had a good shot on the plane I can still understand that they wouldn't of shot it down. as far as the pilots knew the passengers were flying the airplane. it was going in a straight line and not makign any hostile acts. if it had gotten close to the DC area then they should of shot it down.

[Akira 0]

911 Timeline

Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

<a href="http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html" target="_blank">

Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts</a>

hmmm..i guess some suspicious individual has more credibility.

here in California, there was a domestic flight that plunged to sea after some mechanical failure.(not related to 9-11) the oil slick and debris were found well within 3 miles wide area. now consider that with hitting a ground.

Alaskan Airlines Flight 261. Horizontal stabilizer jack screw was improperly, apparently, maintained causing it to strip, resulting in the loss of pitch control and subsequent dive into the ocean (arm chair investigator).

Hitting the ocean at those speeds is no different than hitting the ground. At speed it would be like hitting a concrete wall. But after the initial impact, disintigration, and sinking, the current plays a large part in distributing the wreckage.

[denoir 0]

WOULD not, maybe.  COULD not, no.  If they were out of range, didn't have a good shot, couldn't find the airplane, then I understand why they didn't shoot it down.

Fighters were in range and NORAD was tracking. So the "could not" doesn't hold.

Quote[/b] ]

Even if they had a good shot on the plane I can still understand that they wouldn't of shot it down. as far as the pilots knew the passengers were flying the airplane. it was going in a straight line and not makign any hostile acts. if it had gotten close to the DC area then they should of shot it down.

On a straight line to Bush's bedroom which it would reach in 10 minutes. And the pilots had been given orders to shoot down hostile commercial airliners.

So it doesn't add up.

[Akira 0]

WOULD not, maybe.  COULD not, no.  If they were out of range, didn't have a good shot, couldn't find the airplane, then I understand why they didn't shoot it down.

Even if they had a good shot on the plane I can still understand that they wouldn't of shot it down.  as far as the pilots knew the passengers were flying the airplane.  it was going in a straight line and not makign any hostile acts.  if it had gotten close to the DC area then they should of shot it down.

Finding the airplane would not have been a problem with numerous ATC vectors. The plane was apparently 15 minutes from D.C. Clearance for engagement of airliners was delivered no later than 945. UAL93 crashed at 1010. That leaves plenty of time to intercept, especially such a large signature like a commercial airline.

The transponder was turned off, modus oparendi of the other three planes, so UAL93 was indeed being watched.

[FSPilot 0]

Denoir

Quote[/b] ]On a straight line to Bush's bedroom which it would reach in 10 minutes. And the pilots had been given orders to shoot down hostile commercial airliners.

So it doesn't add up.

They were also going towards a lot of international airports.  I'm sure if they had violated the restricted area around the white house they would of been shot down.  But there's also the possibility that they were trying to land at an airport.

Yes, they probably could of found them, and yes they probably did have a decent shot at the airliner.  But they, probably, didn't shoot it because they wanted to give it a chance to get to an airport.  They didn't know what they were trying to do and they hadn't shown any agression yet.

[Renagade 0]

can`t u control airliners remote control

[NurEinMensch 0]

But then some terrorist could hack the remote controle making hi-jackin planes even easier.