• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What are the odds...

PerryLogan said:
The more anomalies, oddities, and long shots you find in the cover story, the less likely there's a conspiracy--not more.
Click to expand...

Yes, but again here's the primary (as in first in order) reason this whole CT is bunk:

Repost said:
Even if they had these motivations and goals, here's the trick....

No one would ever have thought to propose such a complex, resource-intensive, high-risk plan as what the CTers are proposing, when there are any number of cheap, quick, low-risk, low-cost alternatives that could be devised.

And even if anyone had proposed such an ambitious, expensive, and likely-to-fail plan which required involving so many contractors in an ultra-sensitive scheme, no one with the power to give a green light would have approved it.

And even if someone had approved it, it would never have passed muster and made it to the planning stage, much less gone through to execution. (Note that the Kennedy-era military plans -- which were simple and low-resource -- were squelched and never made it past the drawing board.)

Hell, even Liddy's Watergate plan -- which cost a couple hundred K, posed very low risk, and involved a mere half dozen outsiders -- was only approved after at least 2 previous plans, which were more costly, complex, and ambitious (but still nothing near what the CTers are describing) were flat-out rejected. And Nixon had no scruples at all.

So you see, all this back-and-forth over details (which the CTers have never been able to push beyond "coulda been" in any case, and which they are demonstrably wrong about in all other cases) is a bunch of sound and fury over nothing.

Their very premise reveals them to be utterly ignorant of how such decisions are made, or else willing to ignore that reality for the sake of a good story. And of course, the elaboration of the theory reveals them to be utterly ignorant of just about every other issue relevant to the event, or else willing to lie.
Click to expand...
 
Dog:

You are mocking me aren't you.

Perry:

(putting the welcome sign around my neck)

Welcome to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy theories. Your opinions will always be allowed, if not accepted.

(takes off sign and proceeds to beat it over Dog towns head).

TAM
 
(takes off sign and proceeds to beat it over Dog towns head).
Click to expand...

Wow there big fella, that was nothing but respect.



ETA: It was funny though.
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
He's parroting this old myth
http://www.911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html
Click to expand...

It's actually simpler than that. The FOIA letters sent to Thomas R. Olmsted, which can be found all over the internet, clearly state that the names are of "victims who were identified." That's two criteria each passenger has to meet to be listed. Hijackers are not victims.

In addition to the hijackers, one of the flight lists is also missing the name of an infant, but the conspiracists are oddly disinterested in that discrepancy. It betrays the fact that the omission of passenger names from the FOIA victim lists is not meaningful.

Furthermore, the FOIA law has built-in exemptions as to what can be released. One of them is #7A, "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." Refusing to release hijacker names for this reason might be a stretch, but if the government didn't want to release the names, they could probably find an FOIA exemption for it.
 
DHR said:
I've worked as building maint. We always knew who was who.

Must be a big guy with a big wrench. Or was he frantically unbolting the poles as the missle, plane or whatever hit?
Click to expand...

Oh, man, you just don't understand. If they can project a hologram to cover a missile to make it look like an airliner, projecting a hologram to make a guy unscrewing lamp post bases look like a lamp post with no one around it should be a piece of cake!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
[/
50,000 people in and out of each twin tower per day. 100 extra security or maintenence workers could blend in easily. Most of the work was done in elevator shafts. Many people did notice odd things like evacuations, and power downs, and loud construction noises coming from empty offices, of which there were many.
Click to expand...


I love it when 9/11 conspiracy idiocy intersects with my line of work. I've worked as a mechanical engineer in several A/E firms going on 14 years. Past clients that I've worked with included various large hospitals in and around the Chicago area, over 50 telecommunications facilities of various sizes, large manufacturing facilities, universities, courthouses, jails, transportation facilities, airports (O'Hare and Indy), oil companies (both research and refinery) city of Chicago (primarily department of water), as well as many projects located in high rise buildings throughout Chicago. I also work in a 47 story building.

Part of my job requires that myself and the design team make extensive field visits to the projects. In some cases I am issued a building security photo ID. Field visits require that I always check in with building security. Most times, I also check in with building engineering. The size of the security staff depends on the building function and client. Hands down, courthouses are the most secure, followed by jails (you'd be surprised at how unsafe I felt with the yahoos in charge of security) then hospitals, then oil refineries. Commercial real estate, where I include urban high rises, have medium security. Pre 9/11, I would classify high rise security as medium light. Security is based on the ground floor. CCTV does the bulk of the surveilance. You'll have a few Barney Fifes doing walking duty.

Engineering staffs are mainly in house, although some companies outsource building engineering. Also, engineering staffs are also almost always short staffed and prone to budget cuts. There ain't as many working in a building as you you think. As someone wrote before, not only do these guys know every nook and cranny of their building, but they know when any type of out of house work is scheduled. For any building over 10 years old there is always something that needs to be fixed. From leaky faucets, to broken pumps, to misaligned fan shaft, to screwed up digital controls. I'm involved in larger projects. First on the design side, then on the construction side to do construction administration (CA). Construction projects are run by a general contractor (GC) with a forman in the lead, who oversees the various subcontractors (electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, etc.) Number of construction workers and hours spent on site are kept track of.

Typical building upkeep includes things such as fixing the elevator, escalator (two things that seem to be in perpetual repair no matter where I'm employed), security card reader system, lighting systems, architectural (interior design) renovations, etc. It is not uncommon for me to see workers in the building lobby. When the work affects the floor that I am on, building management always sends out an email to let my firm know the work scope and duration.

If I or anyone else would try alone to engage in some type of unauthorized work inside my high rise, I'd bet a Benjamin that I'd be approached within 20 minutes. If a group of workers would try to do some unauthorized work, I doubt that they'd last 10 minutes before being approached. Also, any thought as how they would gain access to the mostly locked areas and rooms?

Now, here's what elicited howls of laughter in my office today.

"100 extra security or maintenence workers could blend in easily."
Click to expand...
writes TruthSpanky

100?! If WTC tower operates in the manner of other high rises, I doubt that any more then 50 maintenance/security are on one shift. Ok, the WTC had the 93 bombing, so throw in an extra 10 security workers. I've got over a dozen years of experience (guessing over a 1000 hours) of field surveying various buildings, and have been stopped and asked 100s of times for my credentials and TruthSpanky nonchalantly, claims that it would be easy for a team, likely consisting of twice the head count of the actual staff, to blend in with them?!

****ing absolute rubbish! Let this Bears season ticket holder make this analogy. Try imagining two dozen men dressing up in authentic football attire, getting inside the stadium, sneaking onto the sidelines and then inserting themselves into the play action on the field. Yeah, it'd be easy for them to blend in my ass! :p
 
TjW said:
Oh, man, you just don't understand. If they can project a hologram to cover a missile to make it look like an airliner, projecting a hologram to make a guy unscrewing lamp post bases look like a lamp post with no one around it should be a piece of cake!
Click to expand...
It's got a cloaking device that disguises it as two homeless guys fighting over a wedge of cheese.

before.JPG

after.JPG
 
Crungy said:
If WTC tower operates in the manner of other high rises, I doubt that any more then 50 maintenance/security are on one shift. Ok, the WTC had the 93 bombing, so throw in an extra 10 security workers. I've got over a dozen years of experience (guessing over a 1000 hours) of field surveying various buildings, and have been stopped and asked 100s of times for my credentials and TruthSpanky nonchalantly, claims that it would be easy for a team, likely consisting of twice the head count of the actual staff, to blend in with them?!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. We sometimes get so caught up in discussions of things like the physics of building collapse, and chemical residue of explosives and what not, that a practical minded guy like you is a breath of fresh air.

Some of the smartest and most no-nonsense guys I've known were tradesmen, who'd cut through a load of BS with a few keen observations based on their practical experience. Nice to see it again!
 
Anyway,

Speaking of DEA, I always believe al-qaeda was more of a drug trafficking network under control of the pakistan ISI, rather than simply a terrorist network. The pakistan ISI reportedly collects up to 1+ billions a year from drug trade.

Atta was heavily involved in drug trafficking as well as smuggling them in various destinations. He had already been charged for several petty drug crimes while residing in belgium, which is why I found it to be suspicious how he could've bypassed the INS with a criminal record while entering the US, and it was already known to the FBI that he was connected to al-Qaeda. Also he took up pilot training at huffington aviation in Florida, where moussaoui had been arrested by the FBI. Huffington is also known to have connections to mafia (espcially abramoff), drug-lords and involved with drug smuggling, especially directly from saudi arabia. They had strong ties to Jeb bush, the governer of Florida and HW Bush, a former head of DEA, as well. I had a feeling Atta was being set up as a patsy while performing drug trades inside the US.

It was widely reported that ahmed had ordered the wiring of 100,000 to atta few days before 9/11. Was it drug money? Why would the money go to atta few days prior to suicide mission? Where the money go after the mission? None of it makes sense to me, unless the report of the 100,000 dollars wire transfer was a fabrication created by India or Israel*, who both despise the muslim pakistanis.

Daniel Peral a wall street journalist, went to pakistan to investigate ISI's connection to 9/11 after hearing about the wire transfer. Too bad he had been captured and executed before he could further investigate the matter to find some answers.

*it was reported after the attacks that the israeli spies from the mossad agency gave list of potentinal hijackers' names prior to 9/11 and Atta was one of them. The US govt denied they've ever received warnings from the mossad. So either the US govt was lying or the mossad was behind the 9/11 attack and attempted to cover their tracks.
 
HERRING! GET YOUR HERRING!

Nice an' red!

Big, fat, juicy, RED HERRING!
 
What about your controlled-demolition-made-to-look-like-a-fake-collapse-from-the-top theory geggy?

Whenever you're shown wrong you keep changing the subject. Now you're on to Atta and his alledged drug connections. You wouldn't have any proof to that either would you?

Douche bag.
 
geggy said:
Excellent counter-argument...
Click to expand...
Counter argument to what?

You're saying that Abramoff is mafia. That there are "ties" to Jeb Bush. That your speculations are "widely reported". This is grade-school stuff. Why should anyone take it seriously?
 
what exactly prevents a group of 4 or 5 men from hijacking an aircraft? especially if they are willing to kill someone? espcially if they are willing to die themselves?

Pre 9/11 I got knife through security in Orlando. I did in January of 2001. I had it in my pants pocket and it never set off any security. Of course, I had no intentions of hurting people.
 
Geggy,

in your post you mentioned Israel and Pakistan.

Do you think Israel and Pakistan were involved yes/no?

By the way I have also seen reports that Saudi Arabia may have been involved, have you?

So Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia all or none, what do you think?

Now don't scuttle off to conspiracy web sites to check it all out, have a little think and post what pops into your head.
 
Pardalis said:
Whenever you're shown wrong you keep changing the subject.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You're like some graduate from the Barney Fife boxing school. Whenever someone demonstrates why you're full of it, you move to another topic, like a game of whack-a-mole.

Let's stick to the odds claim, shall we?

Anyone can play the game of look-here/look-there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom