Robert Steele on 9/11

[Nordic]

slimmouse, why are you spamming up the thread with these repetitious rhetorical questions?

[8bitagent]

I do find it highly dubious and sad when "truthers" pushing a pet theory have to be so antagonistic and nasty toward any naysayers.

I absolutely agree with that. And you're not going to find anybody in the movement who's more antagonistic and nasty toward any naysayers than CIT. Everybody who criticizes them is immediately labeled as a "detractor" and sooner or later as an "operative", not to mention the foul language they use. Madlene Zakhem, a witness who happens to (possibly) be Jewish and who doesn't confirm the north path, is called a potential Mossad agent and her testimony is dismissed as not credible. Why? Because she's wearing a crucifix, although she's (possibly!) Jewish. Therefore she cannot be trusted. This is a perfect example for how bizarre and atrocious their conduct is. That's how they come to their claim that there are no south side witnesses: they've dismissed all of the numerous south side witnesses for bogus reasons like the one they've used against Madlene Zakhem. They could also dismiss their witnesses for similar reasons, but of course they don't. All of their witnesses are 100 percent credible, even if they contradict each other and sometimes even themselves.

However, how can all the witnesses in the newest CIT video be wrong about the left side path?

First of all, we only have what CIT shows us. And since they are clearly not trustworthy, we should be very careful with these selected edited statements. We don't know if they've found contradicting witnesses that they simply left out. We don't know what they said to the witnesses and what they left out from their statements. I would bet a relatively high sum of money that Craig started the interviews like this: "EVERYBODY we talked to placed the plane north of the citgo. Now, where did you see it?" It's well known that eyewitnesses are susceptible to suggestion, so this would make it more likely for them to adjust their memory of the flight path to the north. After all, we're only talking about a slight deviation of some degrees. And these witnesses saw the plane that came out of nowhere for them for only one or two seconds. They were interviewed years after the fact and so their memory of the event has probably diminished very much. And, suprisingly, studies have shown that the confidence of a witness doesn't make it more likely that he or she is correct. It's not so rare that eyewitnesses say they're absolutely certain about something and it later turns out that they were wrong. So much for CIT's favourite word "EMPHATICALLY" - some of the witnesses "emphatically" support the north path, they say. Well, they could also emphatically be wrong.

According to an interesting paper by Jennifer Overbeck, it's a big problem that juries tend to overestimate eyewitnesses. Many, many false convictions apparently result from that. Here are some excerpts from this paper about the general reliability of eyewitnesses:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 3070#33070

I understand why people like Peter Dale Scott are impressed by the eyewitness accounts that CIT has collected. But it is entirely possible that the witnesses could really just be mistaken about the exact flight path (again, we're only talking about a slight deviation of a few degrees). Somebody who's more credible than Craig and Aldo should interview 500 people who were north and south of the official path (CIT only interviewed people north of the official path - all others are, according to them, irrelevant). Only then could we draw any meaningful conclusions.

Ok, yeah that makes sense. I've talked to Aldo, he's a nice guy. But then(Im not sure if its Craig or aldo) when I see them post online...its absolutely inflamatory, bizarre and seemingly wreckless.

It is unfortunate to see the "everyone is a plant/shill who doesnt agree with me" sentiment in trutherdom, or the unfortunate "so in so is a crypto jew/mossad agent!"

I myself do NOT subscribe to the theory, nor ever have, that the AA77 plane parts were "planted", that the passenger/hijacker remains were faked, or that the personal effects were somehow also planted.

People can check out the exhaustive wealth of photos from the Moussaoui trial exhibit to see grizzly photos of dead AA77 passengers.
And I'll take John Judge's word over lazy "research" anyday.

Again, that is sadly the head-against-the-wall schtick that further weighs "Truth" research in the padded room: This notion that everyone who disagrees is somehow a shill/plant/mole/agent.

Now I dont know if Hani Hanjour or even someone of an Arab background had their hands on the controls, but I have always been 100% convinced that Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon.

9/11 was full of weird one in a million shots, but I mean...come on!

[Nordic]

Now I dont know if Hani Hanjour or even someone of an Arab background had their hands on the controls, but I have always been 100% convinced that Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon.

I've become convinced the only way those planes could have hit their targets with such pinpoint accuracy at full speed was because they were turned into GPS-guided smart bombs.

I don't think anybody controlled them, except a freaking computer somewhere.

They were able to do this long before 9/11, with passenger planes, or anything else they could rig up.

There's no fucking way even a really good pilot could have hit those targets with such perfect accuracy. And an amateur pilot who'd never flown a jet before? Forget about it.

That doesn't mean there weren't patsies on the flights, not at all. Of course there were patsies. There are always patsies.

[8bitagent]

Now I dont know if Hani Hanjour or even someone of an Arab background had their hands on the controls, but I have always been 100% convinced that Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon.

I've become convinced the only way those planes could have hit their targets with such pinpoint accuracy at full speed was because they were turned into GPS-guided smart bombs.

I don't think anybody controlled them, except a freaking computer somewhere.

They were able to do this long before 9/11, with passenger planes, or anything else they could rig up.

There's no fucking way even a really good pilot could have hit those targets with such perfect accuracy. And an amateur pilot who'd never flown a jet before? Forget about it.

That doesn't mean there weren't patsies on the flights, not at all. Of course there were patsies. There are always patsies.

Well there's a lot of news footage from 9/11/2001 on youtube and documentaries with the usual talking head pundits and analysts...however some of them were saying how hard it is to imagine terrorists were able to guide these planes in with such laser like accuracy.

I mean look at Flight 175, fucker *corrects* itself at the last moment.
If you're some brainwashed jihadist, youre just going to be holding that yolk with everything you got reciting Muslim prayer.

And according to several tv documentaries about the ATC crews that day,
they make a note of how Flight 77 went right over the White House then across the potamac into Arlington and was gunning right for the Pentagon...only to do some wild manuevering to the other side...as if it needed to hit a *very* specific wedge. As if the program said "oops, thats where the top brass is, time to turn around"

While I never really bought the idea of the "inside job"(in the Alex Jones/Loose Change sense) or neocon involvement per se, I absolutely do not believe human hands were at the controls of those planes in the final interval.

Perhaps the automatic flight control on Flight 93 had not turned on yet, and hence why the passengers were able to revolt, or something.

Something else...in his "confession" video, bin Laden not only laments the shock that the towers collapsed...but he also seems surprised at how there was no air defense.

To those that believe 9/11 was not just/more than the hijackers,
one has to wonder: how does one guarantee that the planes will strike?
Youd need an insurance.

[Nordic]

Perhaps the automatic flight control on Flight 93 had not turned on yet, and hence why the passengers were able to revolt, or something.

Well, that whole thing was a really good "story". The Bush administration was very good at "story". Over and over again.

To those that believe 9/11 was not just/more than the hijackers,
one has to wonder: how does one guarantee that the planes will strike?
Youd need an insurance.

[/quote]

Yeah, but most people don't think beyond the "shock and awe" aspect of it. The operation itself rendered them culpable to whatever the government told them, and they've never questioned it sense. That's how it's supposed to work.

I mean, if you step back from the emotional aspect, yes, you're absolutely right, common sense would dictate that you wouldn't let a bunch of half-baked nutjob hijackers, with absolutely no flight experience and no indication they could even fly a plane at all successfully, fulfill your lifelong-dream operation.

If you look at it with objectivity and common sense, it's pretty damn obvious that those planes were programmed to hit where they did. It's really the only explanation that makes sense. Occam's razor and all that shit.

[8bitagent]

Well, that whole thing was a really good "story". The Bush administration was very good at "story". Over and over again.
.

Considering Mark Wahlberg claims he was suppose to be on Flight 93, one can *only* imagine how that story would have turned out
"Action movie star leads passengers on heroic revolt in the first salvo against al Qaeda"

Yeah, but most people don't think beyond the "shock and awe" aspect of it. The operation itself rendered them culpable to whatever the government told them, and they've never questioned it sense. That's how it's supposed to work..

Well granted, it takes a lot of patience to sift through the NORAD tapes, or check out the testimony of some of the FAA ATC. But what they say is startling. That the hijackers knew precisely when to turn the transponders on and off. And that the transponders turned back on right before each plane impact. Then the "phantom 11" and "phantom 93" stuff, or the false inject blips...shoot the whole suspicious web around Ptech alone is pretty fishy.
It's just staggering how many "anti war/anti Bush/anti authority" anarchists, liberals, progressives, etc get so angry at people who question the official story of sept 11th. Ive been called an "anti semitic nutjob" by some.

I mean, if you step back from the emotional aspect, yes, you're absolutely right, common sense would dictate that you wouldn't let a bunch of half-baked nutjob hijackers, with absolutely no flight experience and no indication they could even fly a plane at all successfully, fulfill your lifelong-dream operation.

Precisely. We're talking about eight burly ex military vet pilots who would just as soon take a ride to hell than give up control to their planes. Yet 9/11 was left in the hands of skinny young jihadists with merely boxcutters? That means they had to quickly do away with 8 big burly pilots with absolutely no struggle, turn those big planes around(some of them several states away) and then with laser like precision strike WTC1, 2 and the Pentagon. No room for error. Flight 175 could have *easily* accidentally struck WTC1 again, or completely missed. Or been shot down.
Wayyyy too much time and effort was put into "Holy Tuesday" to leave anything to chance. Whoever was ultimately behind it needed some insurances.

And this is why I do agree with the controlled demolition theorists in that
the towers had to fall no matter what. THAT was the big finale. Anything short of that would not do. Flight 93? Eh, whatever. Its the WTC and Pentagon that was the show. Anything else was bonus.

If bin Laden was behind it, why did he say he was shocked the towers fell? Why did he leave so much to chance, like Atta and alOmari almost missing their damn flight? How did they know all 19 would make it on board without being detained?

If you look at it with objectivity and common sense, it's pretty damn obvious that those planes were programmed to hit where they did. It's really the only explanation that makes sense. Occam's razor and all that shit.

Absolutely. Now I can't explain how they were guided in. Homing beacons placed in Fuji Bank or Marsh and Mclennan? No clue.

I do often wonder, if its not so much "the government" or "the neocons" behind 9/11...but something that supercedes the government...perhaps something that scares even the government, or without the government even knowing. Remember "Angel is Next"?

[Nordic]

That means they had to quickly do away with 8 big burly pilots with absolutely no struggle, turn those big planes around(some of them several states away) and then with laser like precision strike WTC1, 2 and the Pentagon.

Yeah, I can't even do that on Google Earth. I get lost pretty quickly. And that's just me sitting in an office chair, not some terrified dude piloting an aircraft going 600 miles per hour, an aircraft I've never actually flown, after killing a bunch of people and worried about those that I haven't killed coming in to break my neck.

The more you think about the official story, the more absurdly stupid it is.

[barracuda]

I mean look at Flight 175, fucker *corrects* itself at the last moment.
If you're some brainwashed jihadist, youre just going to be holding that yolk with everything you got reciting Muslim prayer.

Have you ever flown a plane? That "correction" which you ascribe to some homing mechanism looks quite a bit like a human pilot's response at the yolk. The idea that the Muslim prayer reciting "brainwashed jihadist" would be too frozen at the controls to execute sounds just like the old "cave-dwelling Arab fanatics" talk.

We're talking about eight burly ex military vet pilots who would just as soon take a ride to hell than give up control to their planes. Yet 9/11 was left in the hands of skinny young jihadists with merely boxcutters? That means they had to quickly do away with 8 big burly pilots with absolutely no struggle...

We don't really know any of that though. Oh, I know, there's no way some skinny arab could make our burly flyboys give up those planes. No fuckin' way.

Wayyyy too much time and effort was put into "Holy Tuesday" to leave anything to chance.

Well, yeah, nothing was left to chance, but yet a full quarter of the mission failed over Shanksville.

[8bitagent]

That means they had to quickly do away with 8 big burly pilots with absolutely no struggle, turn those big planes around(some of them several states away) and then with laser like precision strike WTC1, 2 and the Pentagon.

Yeah, I can't even do that on Google Earth. I get lost pretty quickly. And that's just me sitting in an office chair, not some terrified dude piloting an aircraft going 600 miles per hour, an aircraft I've never actually flown, after killing a bunch of people and worried about those that I haven't killed coming in to break my neck.

The more you think about the official story, the more absurdly stupid it is.

Yeah its pretty blunt, but I couldn't agree more.

Didnt one of the ticket booth gals say Alaziz al-Omari looked visibly shaken and nervous?

That must be some SERIOUS mind control, like beyond Sirhan Sirhan manchurian. Being cool as ice to sneak on weapons, then do away with people with a knife, then take out the pilots. Then take the bloodied controls and swing that big boy around and have the wherewithall
to know where youre going

Now the official story supporters will say they practiced on passenger jet simulators, though even according to the 9/11 commission only a couple actually got any time on an actual cockpit simulator for a jumbo jet.
You got two skinny guys keeping people at bay after you just slaughtered several of them, while trying to turn the damn plane around and perfectly strike your target, knowing you could be blown out of the sky by fighter jets? Yeahhhh...

Im with you. I aint buying it at all.

[8bitagent]

Have you ever flown a plane? That "correction" which you ascribe to some homing mechanism looks quite a bit like a human pilot's response at the yolk. The idea that the Muslim prayer reciting "brainwashed jihadist" would be too frozen at the controls to execute sounds just like the old "cave-dwelling Arab fanatics" talk.

Yeah well guess how many Arabs have been murdered in Iraq over the 9/11 justification? You imply Im being racist? 9/11 has been used to conduct a racist imperialist war thats killed countless civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

Ive chatted with people typing from FOB in Afghanistan and bases in Iraq, they are so convinced of their righteousness and task, I see no difference between them and the brainwashed jihadists.
Yet that doesnt mean they have the super human ability to defy statistical odds.

I'll give you this bone, Barracuda. Youve seen "Man On Wire". There is an almost mystical power of will people DO possess. And can accomplish.
I just have my doubts when statistical odds equal rolling snakes eyes 20 times in a row.

We don't really know any of that though. Oh, I know, there's no way some skinny arab could make our burly flyboys give up those planes. No fuckin' way.

Is there any way 19 very loud and brash terrorists could go under the radar for two years inside of America without being noticed?

Well, yeah, nothing was left to chance, but yet a full quarter of the mission failed over Shanksville.

Yeah, what was it...three hijackers? AND this had been way after
people already knew what was up with hijacked planes?
And Flight 93's mission, IF it truly was meant for the Capitol, wasnt
the main show.

The main show was 11 and 175 seering into the towers, with 175 meant to be seen by the world over live. The strike on the pentagon, and MOST importantly the total collapse of the WTC.
As Will Graham says in Manhunter/Red Dragon, "its all about seeing with this guy".

[barracuda]

We don't really know any of that though. Oh, I know, there's no way some skinny arab could make our burly flyboys give up those planes. No fuckin' way.

Is there any way 19 very loud and brash terrorists could go under the radar for two years inside of America without being noticed?

You're changing the subject. What you said was, "our burly guys can beat up their skinny guys any day of the week".

And Flight 93's mission, IF it truly was meant for the Capitol, wasnt
the main show.

The main show was 11 and 175 seering into the towers, with 175 meant to be seen by the world over live. The strike on the pentagon, and MOST importantly the total collapse of the WTC.

Disagree. Even within a ritual analysis such as you seem to prefer, the D.C. Omphalos is the centerpoint.

[8bitagent]

You're changing the subject. What you said was, "our burly guys can beat up their skinny guys any day of the week".

Yes, but you implied I was being racist. Im well aware of the capability of all races. I routinely talk about the evil being done by China, Saudi Arabia, etc. I was saying I personally find it hard all 8 pilots wouldnt put up a fight. Remember the Hudson "miracle"? This is typical of most pilots mentality. They will do anything to save their passengers.

Disagree. Even within a ritual analysis such as you seem to prefer, the D.C. Omphalos is the centerpoint.

Aw, that does seem pretty esoteric. Good point.

Well nothing ever goes according to plan. I genuinely do believe there was a passenger revolt, but that the Bush guys just spun it their way.

A:.A 11 struck the 11 shaped towers. A:.A 77 struck the 77 foot tall Pentagon

And Current 93 for all intensive purposes may have really been meant to strike the capitol building.

[barracuda]

Remember the Hudson "miracle"? This is typical of most pilots mentality. They will do anything to save their passengers.

Right. Including ceding control of their aircraft to hijackers many, many times over the years.

[8bitagent]

Remember the Hudson "miracle"? This is typical of most pilots mentality. They will do anything to save their passengers.

Right. Including ceding control of their aircraft to hijackers many, many times over the years.

Even after they get in-cockpit and cell/blackberry texts saying "major hijackings in progress, lock your cockpit doors!" (referring to flight 77 and 93, as obviously 11 and 175 were alredy under progress)

Trust me, I don't agree with most of the David Ray Griffin/Loose Change stuff. I dont believe the US government, or "Israel" or Saudi Arabia or any country was "behind" 9/11.

Everyone got false flagged and punked, including the US...and the ego of the terrorist just accepted it to get more "spotlight" and power.
Ive no doubt the "leaders" in the US who allegedly were spose to have "orchestrated 9/11" according to truthers, were scarred shitless.
I remember the story of "angel is next".

Im just saying, if Im say Osama bin Laden...if he is really behind it, Im going to need some damn good insurances that 9/11 is going to go off without a hitch.

[slimmouse]

slimmouse, why are you spamming up the thread with these repetitious rhetorical questions?

Oh thats really quite simple.

Im sick to death of being told that I shouldnt believe my own fucking eyes vis a vis the way those towers came down, or the way that a 747 dissapeared practically without trace into the Pentagon.

Im sick of the quibbles between the follow the money crowd/ follow the Hijackers/follow the CIA actions/ and the physical evidence crowd.

Perhaps a new group needs to spring up, called "parapolitical historians for 9/11 truth". That should go down well - I bet they'll get the investigation moving, right ?

Right !

9/11 is a lie. We need to shout it from the rooftops forever amen regardless of what good it does. And especially since it doesnt seem to matter what evidence there is for the above fact then what difference does it make how you arrive at that inescapably obvious conclusion ?

Those caught in the headlights of this absurd lie, with all of the fallout this has resulted in throughout the planet need all the help they can get to escape their fucking myopia. It really is time to wake up and smell the coffee, if its not already too late that is.