9/11 conspiracy theories

[angle20]

One topic we haven’t touched on, I think, in our recent discussion is Mohammed Atta’s connecting flight from Portland, Maine to Boston on the morning of 9/11. Even the official Kean Commission (which sceptics regard as a Hutton-style whitewash) acknowledged that this was puzzling.

 

Atta was the ostensible leader of the operation and the hijacker of Flight 11, the plane which made the first strike on the WTC North Tower. Atta was in Boston until the early evening of 10 September. For reasons which have not been established he, with accomplice Abdulaziz Al-Omari, then felt it necessary to make a journey - by road - to Portland, Maine (about 130 miles away).

 

They took a connecting flight back to Boston the next morning. This introduced an additional element of risk into the operation, however. Any hold-up with the Portland – Boston flight could, given Atta’s role as the leader, have thrown the whole attack off the rails. Given the huge amount of training and planning which would have gone into the plot one would have thought that any unnecessary risk would have been avoided. If it really was necessary for Atta to visit Portland on the evening of the 10th could he and his colleague not have driven back to Boston the same evening?

 

Then there were the contents of the men’s checked-in baggage: a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, airline uniforms, an Arabic suicide attacker’s handbook written in Islamic rhetoric, and the owner’s last will and testament. Short of wearing a big pointy hat with an ‘I am a terrorist’ badge on it one could scarcely do more to incriminate oneself, should the contents of the luggage be subject to inspection. In the event the baggage was held back and did not make it on to Flight 11. But Atta could not have known that would happen – unless he had an accomplice in baggage handling. If the purpose of the incriminating luggage contents was to make an Al Qaeda claim of responsibility there was no guarantee this would have worked: if the luggage had made it on to Flight 11 and been destroyed in the crash. On the other hand, if it had alerted airport staff to undertake a security check on him it might have foiled the attack – so why take the risk?

 

The sceptic version is that the subsequent opening of the luggage conveniently gave immediate confirmation of the official story of Arab/Al Qaeda responsibility. An explanation of the connecting flight from Portland concerns the fact that Portland, but not Boston Logan airport, had surveillance cameras. So leaving from Portland created a ‘photo opportunity’ – useful in disseminating the official story about those responsible immediately after the attack. But of course Atta was unlikely to have known there were no cameras at Logan: unless he had an inside accomplice, official or otherwise. This takes us towards a strong MIHOP (make it happen on purpose) sceptic account: that there was official infiltration of even the first two plane attacks.

[venger]

which is why I have half an idea about what I'm talking about

 

No surprise there, just I try and urge you to consider a bigger picture, some of the more reasonable facts contrary to the official farce.

[StarSparkle]

No surprise there, just I try and urge you to consider a bigger picture, some of the more reasonable facts contrary to the official farce.

 

You're wasting your time with some people, Venger - they refuse to look up from the miniutiae to see the bigger picture, precisely because they're too afraid of what they might find.

 

StarSparkle

[Tony]

So do you believe this guy is lying then Tony ?.

Probably.

 

My sound card is our of action, so I can't refresh myself on that at the moment (and life's too short) but a little knowledge of the background of Rodreguez shows us that this janitor seems to have suddenly aquired inside knowledge of the US presidency, secret services, military, and probably the Illuminati for all I know.

 

His central claim in court is that

Specifically, it is the crux of this action that defendants, acting outside the scope of their lawful duties as government and military officers, either:

(A) sponsored, planned, and executed the 9-11 attacks, including the destruction of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York, or in the alternative,

(B) were criminally complicit in the attacks, as defendants, having foreknowledge of the attacks, permitted the same to occur — not negligently, but by withholding, obstructing and/or delaying counter-measures to stop the attacks, with the intent that the attacks be carried out.

 

Not bad for a janitor eh?

 

 

 

But... when you read this in the NY Times...

 

"August 21, 2006 -- The next 9/11 tale to hit the silver screen could be that of a World Trade Center janitor whose heroism helped save hundreds of lives.

William Rodriguez says he is in talks with actors Charlie Sheen and Esai Morales to turn his riveting story into a feature film - and a top writer-director, David Marconi, is already involved in the project."

 

... then I exercise extreme caution. He looks like becoming a very rich janitor.

 

 

Anyways, the link has Alex Jones introducing Rodriguez

Ah yes! Alex Jones. I tend to find that anything with his name attached to it is worthy of humongous dollops of scepticism. The mans made millions out of promoting conspiracy theories and from what I've seen he cares not what bonkers idea he promotes as long as he gets to make something from it.

[Tony]

they refuse to look up from the miniutiae to see the bigger picture,

Will the above do you?

[Crayfish]

This is an unusual post for me to make. I am a scientist, and not easily drawn to wacky, baseless ideas - see any of my contributions to the threads on religion. I'd normally run a mile at the words 'conspiracy theory'.

 

But on the other side of the coin, I try to analyse the evidence objectively whenever I can rather than believing whatever I read and hear. Recently I've become very nearly 100% convinced that something very, very bad is going down in the neighbourhood, and that unless we sit up and take notice of what's going on now we could be in a dire situation in the next decade or two.

 

Look at any of the videos detailing the 9/11 attacks again, ignore the words, all that the media says and all that you've heard or read about it, and just look at them. They don't make sense. If a plane hit a building of that size in a movie, it would leave a large hole - common sense says that this is the most that would happen in this situation. What the building most certainly would not do is to spontaneously collapse, layer by layer, in a fashion reminiscent of a controlled demolition. This would be the movie equivalent of a lorry rolling slowly into a lamppost and suddenly exploding into vapour.

 

Now, for anyone needing a little more convincing about this - there is a lot of information out there. This is a growing idea and while there is Zero coverage of it in the popular media, anyone who has taken the time to sit down and have a look back through the evidence is convinced that the world is not quite as rosy, the Western world not quite as free, democratic and objective as our televisions and newspapers would try to tell us.

 

http://www.loosechange911.com/ This is good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video) - This highlights a few inaccuracies and counterarguments. However even though some of these seem valid, gut instinct, common sense and the rest of the evidence seems to point to a confirmation of the key points of the video.

 

Also good is a DVD called 'Confronting the Evidence', which I can't find online.

 

I don't want to go through all the evidence here, but rather the implications - to be honest, I don't want to believe this because of the ramifications that it has for the future. It seems to me so far that the neocons (bush administration) have worked out a way to abuse the democratic system in order to rig an election and gain the power of presidency. From there, they've abused their position for personal gain in terms of money, and in terms of carrying out their personal agendas (various theories as to what these are, varying from affiliation to a cult known as 'end timers', who seek to fulfill a biblical prophecy (incidentally this prophecy requires Israel to stand as a complete nation, and for a temple to be constructed there and then demolished, and then armageddon) to protection of the petroleum industry to world domination by the USA and all points in between).

 

The 9/11 incident was staged by USA government elements to provide a 'catastrophic, catalyzing event' to speed the establishment of a new world order (suggested in an earlier document produced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century this organisation, whose members include many top figures in the white house).

 

I'm not thoroughly convinced that there will be another true democratic election in the USA. Still working through the implications of all this in my head, and I suppose there's a chance I might change my mind yet, but so far I am very convinced about something that I at first had a lot of skepticism over - the evidence seems damningly overwhelming, and in some strange way it is very understandable how this could happen. I'm sure there's historical precedent somewhere - suppose Nazi Germany might be a broad parable in terms of propaganda and its gradual onset.

[Crayfish]

Oh bugger. I completely missed this thread and just wrote a massive post in a new one. Meh.

[Tony]

No problem crayfish - I spotted it and merged it

[venger]

Probably.

 

 

... then I exercise extreme caution. He looks like becoming a very rich janitor.

 

 

 

The same janitor who refused millions of dollars from the US Government to keep his mouth shut about what he experienced on that day.

 

He now travels and works telling his story funded by private donations.

[downtroad]

This is an unusual post for me to make. I am a scientist, and not easily drawn to wacky, baseless ideas - see any of my contributions to the threads on religion. I'd normally run a mile at the words 'conspiracy theory'.

 

.

 

Man as a scientist you should know that the media not talking about it and a few conspiracy films do not count as evidence

 

I have always had an open mind on this. I certainly think the US government is capable and it's a fact that the CIA and Pentagon have considered fake terrorist attacks on Americans to justify invading other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods). And I know about the PNAC and their "event as big as Pearl Harbor" comments, I also believe if any administration was going to try something like this it would be this one. In fact one of the options discussed in going to war with Iraq was to paint a plane in UN colours and when Saddam attacked it we had a reason to invade. So our "leaders" do and have lied to us (which is where some of the uncertainty about 9/11 comes from IMHO) and they are willing to create events to manipulate the public in to supporting war.

 

But I have come to the opposite conclusion. There is quiet a bit of scientific analysis out there and so far I have seen little of substance to show weaknesses in the official story.

 

Try this for a start - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html