The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Was 9/11 an inside job?

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Was 9/11 an inside job?

Yes
24
53%
No
21
47%
 
Total votes : 45

9-11

Postby Robin Hood » Mon May 30, 2011 5:01 pm

Kikapu,

Thank you for taking the trouble to formulate an interesting if rather a self opinionated and simplistic reply. I don’t think you have come up with a single fact to support your conspiracy theory, because without facts, that is all it is a theory. The only facts you see are the videos (that we all saw) and what GWB and his Administration told every body. You are as much a conspiracy theorist as the ‘Inside Job’ brigade you seem to have such contempt for.

A little knowledge can be very dangerous with some people.


You have aptly proved that you are one of them.

As you say ‘Case Closed’.
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: 9-11

Postby Kikapu » Mon May 30, 2011 5:27 pm

Robin Hood wrote:Kikapu,

Thank you for taking the trouble to formulate an interesting if rather a self opinionated and simplistic reply. I don’t think you have come up with a single fact to support your conspiracy theory, because without facts, that is all it is a theory. The only facts you see are the videos (that we all saw) and what GWB and his Administration told every body. You are as much a conspiracy theorist as the ‘Inside Job’ brigade you seem to have such contempt for.

A little knowledge can be very dangerous with some people.


You have aptly proved that you are one of them.

As you say ‘Case Closed’.


Thank you for taking the trouble to formulate an interesting if rather a self opinionated and simplistic reply.


My pleasure to set all you "inside job" theorists straight. I kept it specially simple so not to confuse you guys too much. I'm not so sure it was simple enough however. :lol:

I don’t think you have come up with a single fact to support your conspiracy theory, because without facts, that is all it is a theory.


Very funny.!:lol:

I don't have a conspiracy theory. Remember, I don't believe in a magician doing magic, but only tricks. It is you and all the "inside job" theorist who have latched onto the Fictional story tellers with their endless unanswered questions by them as to what happened on 9/11. All I did was to answer their questions with a simple common sense arguments, that's all.

You are as much a conspiracy theorist as the ‘Inside Job’ brigade you seem to have such contempt for.


I don't have contempt for the "inside job" theorists. I like a good fictional story now and then just as much as the next guy. The only difference is, I know what is a fiction and what it's a non-fiction, unlike the "inside job" theorists.!
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17477
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Robin Hood » Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm

The only difference is, I know what is a fiction and what it's a non-fiction,...........


Kikapu, that is the problem! You don’t know, no body knows because the events have never been fully investigated, you only think you know, because that is what you saw, you accept absolutely what you have been told and you do not have enough knowledge on associated subjects to form an opinion of your own.

However, I can empathise, and you are not alone ..... I was absolutely devastated when I found out that Father Christmas didn’t exist and that I had been duped and deliberately lied to by people I had trusted from the day I was born. But, I got over it eventually, like I did with Religions and Fairies (the bottom of the garden variety) and disproved the widely held belief that masturbation sends you blind!

As you said ‘Case Closed’ as it is pointless trying to have a debate as you are totally averse to the idea that what we saw and what we were told happened may not actually be the truth. Don’t forget GWB was the guy who saw the first WTC impact on TV before the only video of it was released, as he explained during an interview when he was asked, ‘... what were his first reactions to the events as they unfolded’? GWB, along with Tony Blair, was the one who told us all about the weapons of mass-destruction and chemical weapons that Saddam definitely had and was going to use, which I think has been sufficiently proved to have been just a tad short of the truth? This hardly qualifies him as a good source for truth!

Frankly, I would check my watch for verification if either of them bid me ‘Good Morning’.
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Postby Cap » Mon May 30, 2011 8:05 pm

Give it a rest you guys.

Although I won't even for a second entertain the notion that the US was some kind of 'innocent' victim in all of this.
The world's last remaining super power just happened to get bitch slapped by a handful of camel jockey's from the desert.

Yeah right.
User avatar
Cap
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Cypriot Empire

Postby Kikapu » Tue May 31, 2011 9:09 am

Robin Hood wrote:Kikapu, that is the problem! You don’t know, no body knows because the events have never been fully investigated, you only think you know, because that is what you saw, you accept absolutely what you have been told and you do not have enough knowledge on associated subjects to form an opinion of your own.


Robin Hood, why the hostility, as if you were sulking. I thought we were just having a friendly chat.!:shock:

Using a little common sense goes a long way to torpedo most of the unanswered questions the "inside job" theorists keep on asking. Are you seriously telling me that these people cannot answer most of the question they are asking themselves using a little common sense. Of course they can, but choose not to. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them when they can peddle their conspiracy theories on others that makes them money.

I'm one of the most sceptical people you can come across. I do not accept something to be true, just because someone told me or that it was on TV. Applying a little common sense however, one can cut across a lot of the crap.

Robin Hood wrote:However, I can empathise, and you are not alone ..... I was absolutely devastated when I found out that Father Christmas didn’t exist and that I had been duped and deliberately lied to by people I had trusted from the day I was born. But, I got over it eventually, like I did with Religions and Fairies (the bottom of the garden variety) and disproved the widely held belief that masturbation sends you blind!


Your problem is, you ONLY stopped believing in Father Christmas at later life. Most of us stopped believing in him when our Christmas presents were bought at the local store and that it did not arrive down the chimney with the "fat guy".

Robin Hood wrote:As you said ‘Case Closed’ as it is pointless trying to have a debate as you are totally averse to the idea that what we saw and what we were told happened may not actually be the truth. Don’t forget GWB was the guy who saw the first WTC impact on TV before the only video of it was released, as he explained during an interview when he was asked, ‘... what were his first reactions to the events as they unfolded’? GWB, along with Tony Blair, was the one who told us all about the weapons of mass-destruction and chemical weapons that Saddam definitely had and was going to use, which I think has been sufficiently proved to have been just a tad short of the truth? This hardly qualifies him as a good source for truth!


The problem that the "inside job" theorists have is, they want to turn anything they heard, or did not hear in the first few hours on what happened in 9/11, into some conspiracy, just because first reports are never conclusive or accurate, specially coming from different sources. Look how many times the story chanced about the killing of Bin Laden. It is the nature of the beast. First, second, third, forth....reports are always going to vary from each other. Everyone wants to get their news out. Now multiply that by a few thousand for everything that happened on 9/11, are the reasons why there are so many different stories. It does not mean that the US government flew those planes into the buildings, and when the buildings didn't come down on their own, they were brought down with explosives after the planes struck the buildings. It might make a nice reading as a Fictional story, but it cannot be the reality.

As far as Bush and Blair goes, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. And it is true, that going into Iraq was all about the oil. What has that got to with 9/11 and the conspiracy theories..? I have argued against Bush for the whole 8 years he was in office, but I cannot in good conscious accuse him of flying planes into building by killing thousands, costing Billions at home downtown New York in broad daylight. Do I believe the government knew there was going to be hijackings of planes at some point, the answer is a "YES". Do they know what was going to happened with those hijacked planes, and the answer is a "NO". Do I believe that United Flight 93 "crash" in Pennsylvania was shot down by the US rather crashed due to take-over attempt by the passengers with their "let roll" call, and the answer is, I believe it was shot down, because common sense dictates that it was shot down, and the truth is, it had to be shot down, but the US is never going to tell us that.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17477
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Paphitis » Tue May 31, 2011 9:41 am

Kikapu wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:Kikapu, that is the problem! You don’t know, no body knows because the events have never been fully investigated, you only think you know, because that is what you saw, you accept absolutely what you have been told and you do not have enough knowledge on associated subjects to form an opinion of your own.


Robin Hood, why the hostility, as if you were sulking. I thought we were just having a friendly chat.!:shock:

Using a little common sense goes a long way to torpedo most of the unanswered questions the "inside job" theorists keep on asking. Are you seriously telling me that these people cannot answer most of the question they are asking themselves using a little common sense. Of course they can, but choose not to. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them when they can peddle their conspiracy theories on others that makes them money.

I'm one of the most sceptical people you can come across. I do not accept something to be true, just because someone told me or that it was on TV. Applying a little common sense however, one can cut across a lot of the crap.

Robin Hood wrote:However, I can empathise, and you are not alone ..... I was absolutely devastated when I found out that Father Christmas didn’t exist and that I had been duped and deliberately lied to by people I had trusted from the day I was born. But, I got over it eventually, like I did with Religions and Fairies (the bottom of the garden variety) and disproved the widely held belief that masturbation sends you blind!


Your problem is, you ONLY stopped believing in Father Christmas at later life. Most of us stopped believing in him when our Christmas presents were bought at the local store and that it did not arrive down the chimney with the "fat guy".

Robin Hood wrote:As you said ‘Case Closed’ as it is pointless trying to have a debate as you are totally averse to the idea that what we saw and what we were told happened may not actually be the truth. Don’t forget GWB was the guy who saw the first WTC impact on TV before the only video of it was released, as he explained during an interview when he was asked, ‘... what were his first reactions to the events as they unfolded’? GWB, along with Tony Blair, was the one who told us all about the weapons of mass-destruction and chemical weapons that Saddam definitely had and was going to use, which I think has been sufficiently proved to have been just a tad short of the truth? This hardly qualifies him as a good source for truth!


The problem that the "inside job" theorists have is, they want to turn anything they heard, or did not hear in the first few hours on what happened in 9/11, into some conspiracy, just because first reports are never conclusive or accurate, specially coming from different sources. Look how many times the story chanced about the killing of Bin Laden. It is the nature of the beast. First, second, third, forth....reports are always going to vary from each other. Everyone wants to get their news out. Now multiply that by a few thousand for everything that happened on 9/11, are the reasons why there are so many different stories. It does not mean that the US government flew those planes into the buildings, and when the buildings didn't come down on their own, they were brought down with explosives after the planes struck the buildings. It might make a nice reading as a Fictional story, but it cannot be the reality.

As far as Bush and Blair goes, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. And it is true, that going into Iraq was all about the oil. What has that got to with 9/11 and the conspiracy theories..? I have argued against Bush for the whole 8 years he was in office, but I cannot in good conscious accuse him of flying planes into building by killing thousands, costing Billions at home downtown New York in broad daylight. Do I believe the government knew there was going to be hijackings of planes at some point, the answer is a "YES". Do they know what was going to happened with those hijacked planes, and the answer is a "NO". Do I believe that United Flight 93 "crash" in Pennsylvania was shot down by the US rather crashed due to take-over attempt by the passengers with their "let roll" call, and the answer is, I believe it was shot down, because common sense dictates that it was shot down, and the truth is, it had to be shot down, but the US is never going to tell us that.


I also believe Flight 93 was shot down! I do not believe that the passengers bought the plane down during a struggle with the hijackers.

It is not an easy thing to convince some sections of the public that the US had to shoot Flight 93 down and kill US citizens in the process. It would have been a headache, and those that are anti US and Bush would have had a feast day.

Since September 11, more Governments have introduced the option of shooting down intercepted hijacked aircraft. I bet they will do their utmost to cover it up as well.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 31822
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Postby Kikapu » Tue May 31, 2011 10:21 am

Paphitis wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:Kikapu, that is the problem! You don’t know, no body knows because the events have never been fully investigated, you only think you know, because that is what you saw, you accept absolutely what you have been told and you do not have enough knowledge on associated subjects to form an opinion of your own.


Robin Hood, why the hostility, as if you were sulking. I thought we were just having a friendly chat.!:shock:

Using a little common sense goes a long way to torpedo most of the unanswered questions the "inside job" theorists keep on asking. Are you seriously telling me that these people cannot answer most of the question they are asking themselves using a little common sense. Of course they can, but choose not to. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them when they can peddle their conspiracy theories on others that makes them money.

I'm one of the most sceptical people you can come across. I do not accept something to be true, just because someone told me or that it was on TV. Applying a little common sense however, one can cut across a lot of the crap.

Robin Hood wrote:However, I can empathise, and you are not alone ..... I was absolutely devastated when I found out that Father Christmas didn’t exist and that I had been duped and deliberately lied to by people I had trusted from the day I was born. But, I got over it eventually, like I did with Religions and Fairies (the bottom of the garden variety) and disproved the widely held belief that masturbation sends you blind!


Your problem is, you ONLY stopped believing in Father Christmas at later life. Most of us stopped believing in him when our Christmas presents were bought at the local store and that it did not arrive down the chimney with the "fat guy".

Robin Hood wrote:As you said ‘Case Closed’ as it is pointless trying to have a debate as you are totally averse to the idea that what we saw and what we were told happened may not actually be the truth. Don’t forget GWB was the guy who saw the first WTC impact on TV before the only video of it was released, as he explained during an interview when he was asked, ‘... what were his first reactions to the events as they unfolded’? GWB, along with Tony Blair, was the one who told us all about the weapons of mass-destruction and chemical weapons that Saddam definitely had and was going to use, which I think has been sufficiently proved to have been just a tad short of the truth? This hardly qualifies him as a good source for truth!


The problem that the "inside job" theorists have is, they want to turn anything they heard, or did not hear in the first few hours on what happened in 9/11, into some conspiracy, just because first reports are never conclusive or accurate, specially coming from different sources. Look how many times the story chanced about the killing of Bin Laden. It is the nature of the beast. First, second, third, forth....reports are always going to vary from each other. Everyone wants to get their news out. Now multiply that by a few thousand for everything that happened on 9/11, are the reasons why there are so many different stories. It does not mean that the US government flew those planes into the buildings, and when the buildings didn't come down on their own, they were brought down with explosives after the planes struck the buildings. It might make a nice reading as a Fictional story, but it cannot be the reality.

As far as Bush and Blair goes, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. And it is true, that going into Iraq was all about the oil. What has that got to with 9/11 and the conspiracy theories..? I have argued against Bush for the whole 8 years he was in office, but I cannot in good conscious accuse him of flying planes into building by killing thousands, costing Billions at home downtown New York in broad daylight. Do I believe the government knew there was going to be hijackings of planes at some point, the answer is a "YES". Do they know what was going to happened with those hijacked planes, and the answer is a "NO". Do I believe that United Flight 93 "crash" in Pennsylvania was shot down by the US rather crashed due to take-over attempt by the passengers with their "let roll" call, and the answer is, I believe it was shot down, because common sense dictates that it was shot down, and the truth is, it had to be shot down, but the US is never going to tell us that.


I also believe Flight 93 was shot down! I do not believe that the passengers bought the plane down during a struggle with the hijackers.

It is not an easy thing to convince some sections of the public that the US had to shoot Flight 93 down and kill US citizens in the process. It would have been a headache, and those that are anti US and Bush would have had a feast day.

Since September 11, more Governments have introduced the option of shooting down intercepted hijacked aircraft. I bet they will do their utmost to cover it up as well.


I think any reasonable thinking people would reach the same conclusion within themselves, if not publicly, that flight 93 was shot down, because they understand that these passengers were going to die sooner or later anyway and that they cannot be saved, so in order to prevent further deaths and destruction on the ground where the plane was heading to, it had to be shot down. This also indicates to me, that if the US government was involved in flying the planes into the buildings and then blowing them up with explosives, then the most logical thing for them to do, was to allow flight 93 to reach it's intended target to cause further deaths and destruction to give them further reasons to go to war. Instead I believe the plane was shot down to prevent further deaths and destruction. This would of course defuse the "inside job" theorist's claim that the US was on the "inside job". When commons sense is applied, the picture becomes much clearer. This is what is lacking with Robin Hood and the "inside job" theorists.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17477
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Kikapu » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:45 am

This article somewhat relates to what we are talking about. For full article, use the link.

DSK and Conspiracy Theory

By ROGER COHEN
Published: May 30, 2011


LONDON — After Osama bin Laden was killed, a prominent French radio station called me for an interview. It turned into a mildly hallucinogenic experience. Everybody from the president of the United States to Al Qaeda itself was saying Bin Laden was dead, but my interviewer kept pressing me for “the proof.”

I talked about DNA samples, the word of the American president, the accumulated intelligence, but it was clear that a Gallic conspiracy reflex — especially active with regard to France’s sometime American savior — had kicked in. The view that this might all be some U.S. plot or hoax had taken mysterious hold.

I was put in mind of an unpleasant Paris dinner when a France Télécom manager with international experience began to expound on the theory — more than plausible to his mind — that Jews had not turned up to work at the twin towers on 9/11 because Israel and the Mossad were behind the planes-turned-missiles that turned lower Manhattan into an inferno.

And now we have the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, viewed, it seems, by close to 60 percent of French society as a conspiracy against the putative Socialist presidential candidate — a sting operation that somehow placed a West African immigrant maid in a $3,000 a night Sofitel suite whose number, 2806, corresponds to the date of the opening of the Socialist party primaries in France (06-28 ).

Oh, s’il vous please!

A rough rule goes like this: The freer a society the less inclined it is to conspiracy theories, while the greater its culture of dependency the more it will tend to see hidden hands at work everywhere.

Bin Laden is dead. The Jews went to work. Suite 2806 is just a number. Facts count. Conspiracy theories are the refuge of the disempowered.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opini ... ory&st=cse
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17477
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

9-11

Postby Robin Hood » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:30 pm

This is what is lacking with Robin Hood and the "inside job" theorists.


Kikapu,

I am not an ‘inside-job’ theorist and never have been but, do exactly as you claim you do .... I apply a bit of common sense to the argument but, I also dig out facts that have been acquired from documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act (US) and investigations by professionals since that day.

In addition to ‘Inside-job/conspiracy’ theorists, there are also those that are called (I believe?) ‘Truthers’ and I think my attitude is far more in line with those than the Barmy Army. They include many professionals and also families of those that died as a result of 9-11 and a whole lot of people that do not believe that an ‘inside-job’ means that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld personally planned the events or were directly implicated in them, but do believe that there is now sufficient evidence in the form of hard facts to suggest that the truth has never been told and that the facts do not support the ‘Official Line’. They want to know WHY.

But maybe all hope for you (and Paphitis) is not lost! You both say that you believe that Flt.#93 was shot out of the sky and I would agree with you but, would phrase it as a high probability rather than a fact. Believe it or not, there is NO evidence that supports that argument, even though common sense would say it would be a realistic assumption. I do not agree that your hypothesis was the reason though i.e. ‘....they were going to die anyway.’

Now just keep an open mind and start to ask some questions?

You say that you both consider the likelihood that #93 was shot down to prevent it reaching its assigned target and killing even more people. A reasonable assumption but, what was its designated target?

According to the official guess, because a guess is all it can be, the aircraft was destined for either The White House or The Senate building. Again a reasonable assumption as they would seem ideal targets given that The WTC and The Pentagon had also been attacked and either of these buildings would be high profile targets of National significance. So, why did #93 fly due west, almost in a straight line for a considerable period, when to get back to the target area it would have to fly through some of the most secure and heavily defended airspace in the world and the ‘enemy’ were already alerted? It does not make common sense. Either ObL was a terribly bad planner, or something went badly wrong. Personally, I would go for the latter.

Think about it a bit more and apply a bit of common sense and an analytical imagination. I have explained my hypothesis that the aircraft (all four of them) were remotely controlled and something went wrong with the communications with #93. Now that IS a conspiracy theory (my theory) and is purely my guess based on my own experiences, because I know that this is not that far fetched. All aircraft computers and the software, that runs an aeroplane, work in a very similar fashion to the computer control systems on refineries and chemical plants .... these are what I spent many thousands of hours working on at the software level, as well as the hardware and I could, with an ‘engineers key’ and with my detailed knowledge of how they worked, put the control system into a mode whereby I could override the operators input to the system and write in parameters that they could neither override or defeat. It is not difficult and I suspect that this is often the method used by aircraft engineers to run tests on control surfaces and engine controls (I don’t know this for a fact but it would seen a perfectly legitimate assumption) they ‘force’ changes to the set parameters of the control system to make the bits and pieces work abnormally in a way they could not work under normal control conditions.

Again, think outside the box! The target could well have been as the official guess but, it could also have been WTC7? The US spokesperson could hardly face the media and suggest that #93’s target could have been WTC7 because that would immediately raise suspicions as the building had already collapsed without the assistance of an aircraft impact. As ‘conspiracy theories’ were already flying around this would have been leapt upon as ‘proof’ that the twin towers had been deliberately blown up. Thus the media tended to steer away from any mention of WTC7 . I was not aware that three buildings collapsed in New York on Sept. 11th 2011 until a couple of years ago, and I don’t think I am in a minority that didn’t know. I know that when I found out and asked others, they had never heard of the third collapse and had no idea what WTC7 actually was. Even the infamous announcement by the BBC of the collapse of WTC7 some twenty minutes before it actually occurred, was only ever shown once (live) and after that it was only ‘conspiracy’ sites that showed it via YouTube.

The AA Flt.#93 Flight Data Recorder information, issued under the Freedom of Info Act, presented just a few further anomalies that could do with some explanation.

• Why was it that when the FDR data from #93 was run on an American Airlines FDR analysis computer, the software was in many instances, incompatible and data could not be read? An AA computer that couldn’t read the software it was designed specifically to read?
• The track of AA#93 was heading straight for The Great Lakes and common sense says that this would be an ideal place to ‘hide’ the fragmented remains of an unwanted aeroplane, with no questions asked and no witnesses but of course it would be handy to have a FDR to present as evidence to support the crash scenario.
• According to the information from the 9-11 Commission Report and the NTSB report, #93 ploughed into the field in Pennsylvania at high speed, inverted and virtually perpendicular to the ground. The FDR confirmed the speed and the inversion but the approach angle was in fact recorded as 40 degrees.
• According to the official story, #93 ploughed into the ground but, although it had several hours fuel still on board, there was no burning of the surrounding ground (still dry grass growing on the rim of the impact crater, a couple of hours after impact). Some how that seems to clash with the story that a loaded 757/767 held enough fuel to melt steel in a building, sufficient to collapse it (them) but with #93 it didn’t even scorch the grass or set fire to the surrounding woodland!
• Investigators on the scene said in their report, which later disappeared I believe, that there was no smell of aviation jet fuel, very little aircraft debris and a total lack of body parts/remains.
• The ‘recovered’ FDR also showed that the flight deck door had been closed before departure from the gate and was not opened during the flight. So, how did the hi-jackers manage to get onto the flt. deck or.......... was it the AA Captain and FO flying the plane .................. or was it stuck in a control mode whereby it was responding to the last set of instructions inputted from where ever, which then remained frozen until #93 was maybe shot down over the Great Lakes?

So, I agree with both of you that it is a very real possibility the AA Flt.#93 was shot down, most likely with a missile, and it was not to protect others but to put any evidence beyond reach and create a patriotic story line that would show the true grit of the American Hero and silence any ‘conspiracy’ stories. The story of the actions of the passengers was most likely all fabrication and the ‘crash’ was a very rapidly formulated solution as a damage recovery exercise. A second missile could have been used, fired into the ground to replicate an aircraft crash.

These missiles, carry one hell of a punch as you can see when they are fired into Bagdad, Afghanistan or Tripoli and would shift a lot of earth, make a big bang and, provided you didn’t look too closely it would support the official story. Then clean it up quickly so that there could be no further facts bought to light.

To me, all very feasible and given the facts that are available very plausible but, one thing is very clear, if THEY will lie to the public on one aspect of 9-11, do you honestly believe the US Administration is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, when it comes to the other events? That takes some believing.
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:54 am

Robin Hood,

I'm glad you are not one of the "inside job" people, although, you could have fooled me with your previous posts. Perhaps I missed something that gave me the idea that you were also one of the "inside job" theorists.

I will try to address some of the points you made in your post.........again, (lost my first reply during the forums' new make over :evil: ). I know you have put a lot of effort into writing it, therefore it deserves a response.

This is what you posted.

• Why was it that when the FDR data from #93 was run on an American Airlines FDR analysis computer, the software was in many instances, incompatible and data could not be read? An AA computer that couldn’t read the software it was designed specifically to read?

• The ‘recovered’ FDR also showed that the flight deck door had been closed before departure from the gate and was not opened during the flight. So, how did the hi-jackers manage to get onto the flt. deck or.......... was it the AA Captain and FO flying the plane .................. or was it stuck in a control mode whereby it was responding to the last set of instructions inputted from where ever, which then remained frozen until #93 was maybe shot down over the Great Lakes?


The above contradicts each other, don't you think? If the AA computers could not read the data from Flt. 93's FDR, then how did you get the information that the cockpit door did not open during the flight before it "crashed". Secondly, why would the opening/closing the cockpit door would be in the FDR? How does the cockpit door have any importance to AA or any other airline company when the cockpit door is opened/closed during a flight? Surely the voice recorder would make that obvious without having the FDR doing it, especially before 9/11. Perhaps Paphitis can shed some light on this. So, who provided this information about the cockpit door if AA's computers could not get it from Flt.93's FDR.??

Personally, Flt. 93's intended target being WTC7 is a non-starter for many reasons. First of all, the WTC7 has very little importance to be a target. Most people never heard of WTC7, unlike the Twin Towers. Targets for the terrorist needed to be known landmarks of importance. WTC7 was not one of those buildings, so why go after it.? Secondly, it would have been virtually impossible to hit the WTC7 with an airliner flying at a 400+ mph. It would have been virtually impossible to even spot WTC7 from the air on a good day, let alone after the twin towers were hit with smoke in the air, given the fact that WTC7 was ONLY 47 floors tall (610ft). In comparison, the twin towers were more than twice as tall and were struck above the 70th floors when the planes were at somewhat level flying into the twin towers. In order to hit the twin towers at much lower floors, the planes would have needed to do a "dive" to achieve their objectives. To hit the WTC7, the plane would have needed to do a "dive bomb" at almost 70°-80° straight down to hit the building. Not easy to do with jet fighter, let alone with a jetliner in a built-up downtown Manhattan. Perhaps with a laser guided missile dropped from a fighter jet would do the job, but not a jetliner.

As to why Flt. 93 took so long to make a turn around after it had gone 45 minutes or so in one direction towards the Great Lakes after taking off, is any one's guess. You would need to get into the heads of the terrorist as to why they waited so long. It could be the hijackers needed the right opportune time to enter the cockpit, since there were only 4 of them. It could be that their target was going to be Chicago's Sears Tower or John Hancock's Tower/building and wanted to sit and wait for a while as the plane’s natural flight path to San Francisco would have been in the general direction. Both the building in Chicago would have been easy to spot from the air and have a clean approach to hit it, flying obstacle free over Lake Michigan. It could be that the terrorists had to abandon Chicago as a target after the crew informed the passengers to take their seats because they were going to make an "emergency landing, ASAP, after the FAA ordered ALL planes to land immediately. At that point, the hijackers took over the plane and headed towards East coast, call it Plan "B" if you like, to hit the Capitol Building or the White House as a possible target. Thankfully, they didn't make it.

I can also buy into your version of events as to where Flt. 93 might have been shot down, over the Great Lakes and then set up a decoy "crash" site with a missile. That certainly would make common sense to hide the evidence of US shooting down one of it's own passenger airliner, but we will not get the facts from the US government, and perhaps we don't need to, for the sake of the families of those who died on Flt. 93. That would then suggest, that the hijackers were already in the cockpit and were on their way to Chicago as a possible target and were shot down over the lakes, then the decoy "crash" site was set right afterwards. As for the planes being controlled electronically, “fly by wire”, is a very far-fetched imagination on your part. People died on those planes, including right-winger, Barbara Olson (despite "inside job" theorists saying otherwise). We must not overlook this fact, or else it would be an insult to ALL the victims who died on 9/11 and to their loved ones left behind.

Let me say it one more time. The US government has many reasons to keep most of the 9/11 evidence as a secret. It does not mean that they were behind the events of 9/11. It is easy to set one's imagination to run wild with all sorts of conspiracy theories. It really isn't that difficult. I can give you many myself if you like. All it needs is a creative mind and a lot of questions that cannot be answered, because the government is keeping the lid on the evidence.

Anyway, I'm sure we will talk more on this another time.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17477
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests