Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication
by Elias Davidsson | 29 April 2005 | Global ResearchThe term "official 9/11 account" refers to the account of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of 9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.
The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.
Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:
Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false
The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.
Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:
- No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implementedwho prevented their implementation).
- The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
- All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
- The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
- Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
- Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
- Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
- Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
- The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
- President George W. Bush did not know that "America was under attack" before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
- The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
- Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).
If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.
Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
It is also possible to "disprove" the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.
The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.
- Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.
- Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.
- Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.
- Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.
- A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.
- Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Koran on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.
- Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.
- US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.
- Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.
- Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.
- The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.
- No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.
- Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.
- A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.
- A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.
- Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.
- Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.
- Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.
- A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.
- A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.
- A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.
- Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.
The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.
If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.
While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.
Links:
Compelling Evidence for Complicity
Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson/CR
G. Holmgren 9/11 Documents
FEMA report on WTC collapse is a joke
posted by yusuf chun @ Saturday, March 18, 2006
39 Comments:
thanks, jc!
Fabulous outline of all the mental processes I went through in concluding the 'official' account was a lie.
Excellent JC. Coincidentally, I have a friend that teaches this math with computer applications. To me it is so black/white, it suprises me to have some question the logic of it.
Take a look at the only known photo of the "plane???" that hit the pentagon. Do you see one of these shiny airplanes like this one:
http://www.seaspotter.com/SEA/AirlinesA-C/American/N719TW.jpg
in this photograph?
(Click on any of the first frame photos)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/SBD/tw_pent1_big.jpg
The "plane????" is in frame 1
of the 5 released cctv photo frames of the "attack" released by the Pentagon.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/SBD/tw_pent1_big.jpg
Notice the white exhaust trail parallel to the ground in frames 2 thru 5. You can see it dissipates progressively from one frame to the next
and at the same time the ball of fire increases in size from
one frame to the next frame.
Now, take a closer look at frame # 1.
(save to my photos and enlarge the frame)
In the frame one photo we see 3 orange cones.
Look above the cone at the right side of the photo and just above the rectangular parking lot ticket dispenser next to the orange cone.
Just above the cone the jet exhaust is much denser, and appears to have a squiggly zigzag pattern. This exhaust has not traveled to the building, and the exhaust is just behind the source/jet engine that is creating it.
Now look at the source that is creating it.
Look to the left of this exhaust and just above the rectangular parking lot ticket dispenser.
LOOK CLOSE! (save to my photos and enlarge the frame)
You will see a dark colored aircraft tail.
A closer look shows that there are 2 parts of the tail that form a V.
To the left of the tail, and at the top of the parking lot ticket dispenser, a white section of the aircraft is visible. This appears to be the bottom of the object. Above the white section you can follow the outline of the top part of this object. The top section is painted a dark color.
This object is in the sunlight, it has not reached the shadow cast by the Pentagon.
Does this object that is aimed to strike the Pentagon in a heartbeat, look like a shiny silver American Airliner diving into the Pentagon?
http://aircrafts.ibelgique.com/aa757mar99sxm.jpg
http://www.seaspotter.com/SEA/AirlinesA-C/American/N719TW.jpg
This is not a commercial airliner!
An American Airliner has 2 engines mounted on the wings and about center of the plane.
http://www.seaspotter.com/SEA/AirlinesA-C/American/N719TW.jpg
(Checkout the Looniest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory ever told.)
http://proliberty.com/observer/20030811.htm
Excellent article. I have long contended that arguments must center around what the "official story" is. You have done that.
However, no amount of logic or steeltrap argument will convince those who are in denial. The false mental world many people choose to live in depends on each of its parts to be true. People subconsciously recognize Boolean logic when they desperately deny such arguments as they know their entire mental paradigm falls apart if the arguments are true. It is a vicious hateful tenacity that motivates false but comfortable world views.
Your article did not even mention the collapse of WTC Building 7, which I have always considered from my layman's perspective to be the strongest proof that the offical story is not true. But actually "the official story", that is, the 9/11 Commission Report, chose not to mention the collapse of Building 7 at all, so mention of it by you would not have been consistent with your article.
And just as those deniers must give up their denial and start objectively pursuing the truth, those of us who are frustrated by the deniers and keep trying to convince them of reality, we must give up on this futile activity and simply move foreward proactively discovering and proclaiming truth. (DachsieLady archiek1@prodigy.net)
A very famous man once said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. The most evil of these is statistics. While I am critical of the use of statistics, do not write me off as being ignorant to their use or validity as I am a Quality Control specialist. Like a hammer, statistics are a wonderful tool. However, when used inappropriately, both can be quite destructive. Many times I have looked at something that has happened in my life and thought about how unlikely it was to have occurred. If I analyze each events precursor events and combine their likeliness of occurrence the likelihood of the event becomes less likely. Statistics are only useful as a tool to look into the future, not to look into the past (with very few exceptions such as cryptography). Also, I have a great deal of experience with Boolean algebra (I have studied it for 11 years). Once again, it is a great tool, but is being used in an inappropriate manner. Every large document produced contains errors and omissions. To use the logic presented here is to ignore this basic fact. To use the author's own logic against him... what is the probability that a document this size could be produced with zero errors? This is not a question that I have the answer to. However, if I were irresponsible I could assign an arbitrary value of 0.01% chance of error per page and easily conclude that obviously there is no reasonable expectation of an error free document. However, I am not irresponsible with numbers and will not waste my time with this exercise.
My last point is simple... not everyone is evil. I believe that everyone here wants what is best for our country, despite my strong feeling that they are erring in their judgment. Don't forget that even those who strongly oppose you politically probably want continued and improved lives for everyone, including you.
- Charles H. Mathews IV
Are you really so stupid that this convoluted pile of excrement should make sense to you. if any of you knew anything about logic (which these arguments can theoretically be reduced to), you cannot have a system of logic that depends on all tenents being true, because no such system can ever exist. the truth of a whole lies in more than just requiring blindly that it be all or nothing. in fact, the boolean logic system does not appy here, as the thought that an air attack on the WTC has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not cell phone calls were made from the planes, to name one among many fallacies in this aerated piece of crap. Let alone that an arbitrary assignment of probabilities to cover unknown probabilities leads only to arbitrary analysis, you may as well have assigned a 99 percent probability as 10 percent, but you would have gotten an entirely different result. this is, of course, not even taking into consideration that even within the probability "example," you are makign the fallacious assumption that all the probabilities must build on one another like in your boolean logic "example." ultimately, if we are to take your idea and apply it to your examples, we must throw out your entire argument if there is a single problem therein.
this is simply not the case, however. even if some of the facts are false, it does not have any bearing on the rest of the report, only those parts that may be incorrect. if we are to accept your system of thought, we must reject that highjackers were on the planes, and thus that the planes either were voluntarily flown into the buildings of the pilot's free will, or that the planes did not indeed hit the WTC buildings.
Nice try, but no cigar
To the "Nice try, no cigar" anonymous": Its nice to see a lot of big words being used but did you even read what you wrote? You, in fact, did not say anything... and used poor grammar to boot. I can't even say nice try to you, go back to school and get an edumacation.
Are you the sort of delusional imbecile who would assume that the holocaust did not happen because some witnesses described the Zyklon B crystals as pale blue, and some described them as mauve? Or because some survivors at Auschitz said those sent to the gas chambers were sent to the left by the selection officer, and some stated they were sent to the right? Never mind the vast number of agreeing witness statements, the piles of bodies and ash, the admissions by those involved, the 1,300 documentary exhibits produced at Nuremberg, the mass graves in Eastern Europe?
As far as some of the specific details you refer to, let's see:
1) kamikaze pilots were quite happy to live the high life prior to their flights.
2) What is suspicious about 4 Muslim men boarding an aircraft? In an ethnically diverse country like the USA, this is nothing remotely unusual
3) The last time I checked, being Muslim and having been in Afghanistan was not in itself evidence of terrorist involvement, and thus not grounds to refuse a visa.
4) Given the fact that they were relatively modern airliners, and referring to the fact that America is a multi-ethnic country, again 4 is not suspicious.
5) Religious Zealots are often so full of their own self-importance that they can't resist telling people about it, again nothing unusual.
6) Fair enough about the Koran, a little bit odd I grant you, but why not leave a flight manual behind you are never going to need again?
7) Why not? 2 hours is more than enough time to transfer planes.
8) The military are always running some kind of exercise or other, nothing unusual, an odd coincidence, nothing more.
9) I don't know about cell phone details from the technical side, but I assume if they didn't work at all, airlines would not have to warn people not to use them, as people wouldn't have any motivation to keep trying if they didn't work in such conditions.
10) Leather and other documents are well known for surviving high temperatures and bad conditions in the short term, ask any forensic examiner or crime scene investigator. Or are they all involved in your paranoid conspiracies as well?
11) Are you seriously trying to suggest the US air force does not make mistakes? Duh! What about the shooting down of two of their own Blackhawk helicopters in 1991, or strafing British armoured vehicles in the same war?
12) What difference does it make whether the plans existed or not?
13) Just because the CIA/FBI had some details that with hindsight may have given some hints as to what would happen, does not by any means mean they had the full picture!
14) The amount of effort put into this horrible event by the FBI could hardly be described as litle interest
15) See above
16) There are numerous attacks by terrorists where no demands are made, you are obviously picking and choosing your events to suit your argument.
17) Easy. The one flight that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that they could not always maintain control over an airplane.
18) Who said they didn't raise the alarm? Alarm or not, they still got in, just because the flight crew realised something was going on does not mean they would be able to do anything about it.
19) Simulators are amazing things, the most tricky part of any flight is taking off and landing. If all you have to do is fly straight and level for a bit and then pick out one of the tallest buildings in the city, with months of prior planning and preparation, it wouldn't be too hard.
20) Crashed planes do leave debris, several hundred tons of metal and flesh will not just disappear, no matter what.
21) Yes it can! Steel will weaken if hot enough.
22) Again, if a large amount of aviation fuel explodes, chances are it may just throw some bits of metal quite far.
If I follow your logic, all it takes is for one of my points to be correct for your entire argument to be wrong, isn't it? But most of facts are either wrong or just plain irrelevant.
Your maths is farcical, as is your logic. Get a life.
These atrocities were perpetrated by agents of the State of Israel to create a pretext that would be used to enable the USA to destroy Israel's enemies.
It's staring you in the face.
first of all i'd like to say that i did not write the article above. the author's name is giveen and the original posting is linked.
as for the reliability of the official account.
Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
in this section we're dealing with a set N of "fundamental assumptions/allegations" whcih together make up the official account. it is obsious that any conclusions drawn from a set of assumptions are dependent upon the fact that all underlying assumptions must be indenpendently assigned a truth value T (true).
if any one fundamental assumption can be given the truth value F (false) then the conclusion (here the "official" account of 9/11) must be false.
the author has chosen 12 fundamental assumptions, all of which are underlying assumptions upon which the conclusion (official account) of the 9/11 commission is based.
and if you follow the links you will see that out of these 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12 can be given none other that the truth value F (false).
there may be questions re assumptions 4-8, but given the shakiness of the facts about whether or not these planes existed i am (personally) of the opinion that they can be given the truth value F (false).
which means that any conclusions built upon these assumptions can be nothing but false (F).
this does not mean that i know what the true account is. all i know is that the official account is demonstrably false, mathematically and empirically.
Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
here the probability of compound event (9/11 according to the official account) is a product of the probability of the (22) underlying events all of which make up part of the official account.
the author also notes that the 22 underlying events are NOT dependent of each other.
at the same time they are also basic assumptions.
for instance the assigned probability of 2 is 0.1. but event 2 is in itself a false assumption as is shown here: some of the hijackers did raise suspiscion which means they could have been prevented from entering the craft. they were not.
each event has the probability of 0.1. yet each of these improbable events, according to the official account, happened.
leaving us with the compound event (the official account of 9/11) with the probability of 0.1**22.
which again only shows that the official account of 9/11 is fabricated. and again, i do not know what the true account is.
what i do know is that the official account is demonstrably false.
if the official account were a novel a decent editor would send the author back to do an extensive rewrite. in this case (the official account) it did not happen. why?
but … if you believe the official account, improbable and false as it is, it is your choice. you are free to do so.
I like how the last comment (Nick Hogarth) tries to associate the writer of this article with Holocaust deniers. Gives away his motives is attempting to debunk the facts.....
Well official 9-11 story is disproven by simplest facts: 9-11 was classic INSIDE JOB, without doubt. See David Ray Griffin, "Why Official Account Cannot Be True" (google).
Nick Hogarth then brings up "red herring" diversion, invoking RELIGION. U're supposed to "fear the Jews."
Simplest inductive logic points to Judeo-"Sadducean" conspirators (regarding 9-11), including especially Israel, Zionists, and "neo-cons" who must now prove themselves innocent--which they cannot do. To publicly suspect these conspirators then is akin to treason and irreligion according to holohoax mentality--and the corporate Jews-media.
Jews (and "Sadducean" accomplices) are such obvious suspects they want to use that as excuse they shouldn't be suspected.
But remember the "jury" is what and who the Jew lawyers think they can scam. But u can't fool all the people all the time (even though Jews are well capable of keeping themselves deluded as they've proven).
So far heretical American "Judeo-Christian" (JC) imperialist enforcers have been willing to go breath uranium dust and enforce the Jew-empire. The elders have been willing to vote for and pay for it--so far--and this is the conspiracy we must diagnose and de-fuse. (See more "Apollonian" essays at NewNation.org under "commentary" heading.)
But New Testament (NT) conspiracy theory-analytic-template is powerful stuff requiring only simple and honest rhetoric courageously applied. Thus great blogging and journalism efforts need merely be maintained--as we see for WakeUpFromYourSlumber.blogspot.com. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Thor
Number of people supporting the "911 was an inside job" theory = lots.
Number of people supporting the "911 was a terrorist attack by fanatical Muslems" theory = not many.
Wonderful thing common sense, isn´t it? Shame (for humanity) not everybody has it.
Nick Hogarth said...
Are you the sort of delusional imbecile who would assume that the holocaust did not happen because some witnesses described the Zyklon B crystals as pale blue, and some described them as mauve? Or because some survivors at Auschitz said those sent to the gas chambers were sent to the left by the selection officer, and some stated they were sent to the right? Never mind the vast number of agreeing witness statements, the piles of bodies and ash, the admissions by those involved, the 1,300 documentary exhibits produced at Nuremberg, the mass graves in Eastern Europe?
very confused opening. this is supposed to establish what exactly? that questioning the events of 9/11 is equal to denying the holocaust?
we're questioning fundamental assumptions. if you were to make the comparison it would have to be about whether there were witness accounts saying there were no gaschambers and so on. fundamentals. not the color of ash or ZB crystals.
As far as some of the specific details you refer to, let's see:
1) kamikaze pilots were quite happy to live the high life prior to their flights.
these pilots were (1) fundamentalist muslims, the behavior attributed to them does not makes sense religiously, (2) why risk drawing such attention to themselves if they were planning what is claimed? any mistake made would blow the whole thing wide open. tactically a very bad choice.
2) What is suspicious about 4 Muslim men boarding an aircraft? In an ethnically diverse country like the USA, this is nothing remotely unusual
it is if up to three different intelligence agencies, FBI, CIA, DIA, were keeping track of them. ck the links.
3) The last time I checked, being Muslim and having been in Afghanistan was not in itself evidence of terrorist involvement, and thus not grounds to refuse a visa.
see above, and there's the fact that the US embassy in SA refused them visas on the grounds of suspiscion of terrorsit activities but were overridden by the CIA
4) Given the fact that they were relatively modern airliners, and referring to the fact that America is a multi-ethnic country, again 4 is not suspicious.
how do the modernityt of the airliners factor into this? also, see 3
5) Religious Zealots are often so full of their own self-importance that they can't resist telling people about it, again nothing unusual.
religious zealots, maybe, but covert operators planning the biggest attack ever? i doubt it. especially not the part about telling an identified government official of the country to whom you wish harm.
6) Fair enough about the Koran, a little bit odd I grant you, but why not leave a flight manual behind you are never going to need again?
why carry one around to begin with? you never know when you might be stopped by the police, what might occur etc
7) Why not? 2 hours is more than enough time to transfer planes.
flying around on the day you plan to hijack plans, knowing you are under suspiscion and watched is a decidedly stupid act, especially if you are otherwise considered so genius you managed to fool NORAD, NEAD, FAA, CIA, FBI, DIA, local police and security forces. you name it.
8) The military are always running some kind of exercise or other, nothing unusual, an odd coincidence, nothing more.
five excercises all of which involved protection of airspace, two of which had scenarios resembling if not exactly like the attack in question. coincidence?
9) I don't know about cell phone details from the technical side, but I assume if they didn't work at all, airlines would not have to warn people not to use them, as people wouldn't have any motivation to keep trying if they didn't work in such conditions.
airlines are warned not to use them because the FCC had apparently requested that airlines make this rule, owing to the tendency for cell phone calls made from aircraft at lower altitudes to create "cascades" that may lead to breakdown of cellsite operations. (Fraizer 2002)
The cascade problem is more likely at altitudes of 10,000 feet or lower, where reaching a cellsite, although still a touch-and-go matter, is more easily accomplished. However, because of its superior position, the cellphone may reach several cellsites at once. This can create problems, as software that determines which site is to handle the call makes its judgment based on the relative strength of calls. If the call is made from an overhead position, it may well not be able to distinguish relative strength at different cellsites. When this happens it is designed to close off the calling channel, selecting another channel in its place. But the same problem of deciding which cellsite should handle the call also occurs on the new channel, so the new channel is closed, and so on. One by one, in a rapid cascade that would last only seconds, all the channels would be closed, leading to a network-wide breakdown.
see links
10) Leather and other documents are well known for surviving high temperatures and bad conditions in the short term, ask any forensic examiner or crime scene investigator. Or are they all involved in your paranoid conspiracies as well?
high temps, ok. up to 1700F?
11) Are you seriously trying to suggest the US air force does not make mistakes? Duh! What about the shooting down of two of their own Blackhawk helicopters in 1991, or strafing British armoured vehicles in the same war?
with a success rate of 100% in the year leading up to 9/11, yes. one mistake? maybe. four of this magnitude on the same day? i question that, yes. as do many air force pilots.
12) What difference does it make whether the plans existed or not?
if they did not exist then the planes claimed to have crashed did not. other planes were used. all of which throws doubt upon the flights, number of passengers, why were other planes used etc.
13) Just because the CIA/FBI had some details that with hindsight may have given some hints as to what would happen, does not by any means mean they had the full picture!
because they knew who these people were, had them under observation, knew they were taking lessons at known flight schools, had contact with people who were not interviewed, at least one of whom was a government official. they don't need a full picture in order to bring these guys in, get warrents, search the premises, find the korans and the flight manuals and whatever evidence they found after the fact.
14) The amount of effort put into this horrible event by the FBI could hardly be described as litle interest
John Ashcroft shut down the investigation, and prior to that gave orders that certain questions not be asked, certain leads not be followed, etc. this is what? a great effort?
15) See above
ditto
16) There are numerous attacks by terrorists where no demands are made, you are obviously picking and choosing your events to suit your argument.
attacks of this magnitude?
17) Easy. The one flight that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that they could not always maintain control over an airplane.
ah, but that was either shot down or the passenger managed to break into the cockpit, according to the explanations given. and it does not gel with the assumption that these ppl were accomplished enough to carry out the remaining attacks, something which several professional pilots, military and commercial question.
18) Who said they didn't raise the alarm? Alarm or not, they still got in, just because the flight crew realised something was going on does not mean they would be able to do anything about it.
none of the crew of the remaingin flights contacted the FAA to tell them this was being attempted. the FAA did not "know" the planes were hijacked until much later.
19) Simulators are amazing things, the most tricky part of any flight is taking off and landing. If all you have to do is fly straight and level for a bit and then pick out one of the tallest buildings in the city, with months of prior planning and preparation, it wouldn't be too hard.
look at some of the flight maneuvers that these pilots managed and square that with the fact that they, if it was them, couldn't came a Cessna level in the air.
20) Crashed planes do leave debris, several hundred tons of metal and flesh will not just disappear, no matter what.
well they did, at the pentagon, WTC 1 and 2 and in Penn, according to the official account. read it.
21) Yes it can! Steel will weaken if hot enough.
if hot enough. yes. the problem is it was not hot enough. see links.
22) Again, if a large amount of aviation fuel explodes, chances are it may just throw some bits of metal quite far.
quite far, but two, three and eight miles away from impact? cause that's were the xplosion occured acc to the official account.
but if it was shot down and therefor exploded before impact, maybe. but it wasn't shot down was it? or was it?
If I follow your logic, all it takes is for one of my points to be correct for your entire argument to be wrong, isn't it? But most of facts are either wrong or just plain irrelevant.
Your maths is farcical, as is your logic. Get a life.
so, far, your objections are immaterial. they are of no consequence. none of your points are correct.
your ad hominem attacks are meaningless.
re whether or not you should get a life, i'll leave that up to you
one more thing: given a set of false assumptions one can "prove" that the owrld is flat, the conclusion being drawn on the basis of those false assumptions.
this does NOT however, make the world any less round.
WOW! When will people stop whining and complaining about this!? If you are all so into logic....try reading the boolean and probability parts again. They A. don't have any real thesis statement. B. Where points are trying to be claimed, they are not complete sentences. Rather, sentence fragments which are meant to steer the reader in favor of the argument of the author. C. Isn't anyone really sick of whining and complaining about this. Every where I go, it's conspiracy theory this, or something about that, or lets talk about how Michael Moore speaks truth. We all slant statistics and logic in order to show the side we want to be shown. I have yet to see one person actually sit back, unbiasedly analyze the facts. No offense intended to anyone. Later, everyone.
Muddying The Waters
There will be a LOT of attempts in ANY 9/11 investigation piece to throw in loony theories by agents pretending to be 9/11 skeptics themselves.
Please stay clear of them
The most obvious are:
1. No Plane at Pentagon
2. Military Planes/Holograms Nonsense
3. Blaming Bush/Cheney and the administration ONLY
4. Blaming the CIA Only
5. Anything and Everything that keeps attention away from Israel
Anon 3:52pm said: "If I follow your logic, all it takes is for one of my points to be correct for your entire argument to be wrong, isn't it?"
That's nonsense. The author of this piece (and jc) present no theory to refute. The logic presented is sound and its application is relevant.
If the official story relies on all of these facts to be true (all of which are pivotal), then if one is false the official story must be false.
As it stands, many of the 12 points outlined are demonstrably false. It doesn't matter if some turn out to be true or close to true. The account as a whole would still be false.
The government has no legitimate reason to lie, even a little bit. Once it's demonstrated that they lied about one thing, the whole story is thrown into question.
Linking to any of the "alleged "Gerard Hlomgren's steady stream of perpetual misrepresetnations is equivalent to using Charles Spiesel to argue your Kennedy case. Perhaps you are not familiar with Charles Spiesel?
I suggest you read what Jerry Homey -- the missiles wrapped in holograms at WTC guy -- who is well know for his ad hominem abuse of anyone who dares to mention that a Boeing 757 really was involved in the Pentagon attack (which does NOT help support the official narrative, incidentally), had to say about anyone who mentioned the activities of 5 Isrealis who were detained and arrested on 911.
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
in case you missed it:
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
Your other mistake is at the very beginning of your argument, in which if only one element of the official narrative is demonstrated to be innacurate, then all other elements must be inaccurate too!
This is a logical fallacy that assumes absolute perfection and infallibility in humans. As Alan Turing pointed out, the only machine that can demonstrate intelligence is a fallible one. So your boolean maths, and your link to the missile-wrapped-in-hologram-at-WTC guy, not only doesn't help undermine the official narrative, but it actually helps, in a Spieselesque way, to make it look good in comparison.
That said, there are implicit elements of the official narrative, such as the obvious lack of defence, that completely and utterly undermine the tale of spin-laden. A boolean equation won't show that.
Finally, there were CERTAINLY TWO PLANES at the Pentagon - not one. And that is why - according to one of the actual witnesses present - the video footage was suppressed.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml
you people need to actually follow the links.
anyway the link to holmgren is to a page with documents surrounding 9/11 i.e. news reports and such. if you'd bothered to check you'd have noticed that the holmgren page also links to reports from emperors-clothes, which you link to to debunk the fact that i link to him. really.
and linking to a page where he has gathered info about the events does not mean that i buy into his theories presented elsewhere re what happened and who was behind it.
to slam me for that without considering what it is i present here is just … i can't even find a word for that. anyway, i still haven't seen valid arguments raised against Elias Davidsson's piece.
and again the piece deals WITH the official account. those assumptions are FROM the official account. what's he's debunking are the assumption IN the official account, and these only.
as for the absolute infallibility of humans: it does not play into logic. and no applying Boolean logic which is meant to deal with logical fallacies is not itself a logical fallacy. (strange argument there, but it's yours.)
and the machines you speak of were built on Boolean logic so what's your point?
also, you say " if only one element of the official narrative is demonstrated to be innacurate, then all other elements must be inaccurate too!" which is a gross and wilful misrepresentation or a total misunderstanding.
the inaccuracy one one assumption does not make the other assumptions inaccurate, it makes the conclusions drawn upon these assumptions inaccurate.
the inaccuracy of your representation of the argument on the other hand does nothing.
Just a few quick comments,
based on forensic analysis
of photographic evidence:
(1) the hit on the second WTC
tower shows most of the jet fuel
combusting OUTSIDE that building,
where it was mostly NOT in touch
with the steel frame and hence
unable to tranfer sustained
high temps into that steel;
(2) the FDNY never had enough
time to wire WTC7 with demolition
explosives; they must have been
in place PRIOR TO 9/11; Larry
Silverstein admitted on PBS
that he gave his permission
to "pull it" i.e. detonate the
explosives to effect a controlled
demolition; FDNY do not normally
respond to a multi-alarm hi-rise
fire with the quantity of
explosives required to demolish
a 47-story steel frame building
(not a good idea to place so much
explosives so close to a fire);
(3) numerous Pentagon photos do
show aircraft debris, most notably
the P&W JT8D engine that came to
rest OUTSIDE the Pentagon:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/
(4) the telltale "fingerprints"
on the diesel generator reveal
a lot, e.g. starboard engine
intake cowling and underwing rocket
pylon fit the damages quite well;
geometry of a Boeing 757 is quite
different and a "bad fit";
(5) the collision with the diesel
generator lifted the right wing,
causing the attack jet to roll
to the port, in a counter-clockwise
direction;
(6) at a 45-degree angle of
incidence, the starboard JT8D
and starboard wing tip hit the
Pentagon facade at almost
exactly the same instant;
elevated wing tip hit at
the second floor, port wing
tip hit at the first floor,
because of this slight roll;
(7) at maximum velocity exceeding
400 feet per second, the kinetic
energy of the starboard engine
was greatest, causing a clear
pattern of damage to 2 bearing
columns on the first floor, and
just missing the bearing column
immediately to the right of those
2 bearing columns; E=1/2mv**2;
also F=ma (where "a" is the rate
of instantaneous decelleration here);
(8) the 5 published frames from
the Pentagon's cctv camera were
subsequently altered with image
processing software; these
alterations are most obvious
in frame 1, e.g. the fuselage
to the left of the tail section
was "air-brushed" with a pixel
color taken from an entirely
different region of that frame;
this modification of murder
weapon evidence was a felony,
in and of itself;
(9) the collision of a modified
A-3 Skywarrior "best fits" the
pattern of damages that are
documented in detail in the
available digital photos;
(10) an air-to-ground missile
appears to have been launched
from under the port wing,
just prior to the jet hit;
(11) we have received unconfirmed
reports that a Russian satellite
photographed the launch of
the attack jet from the
deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier
stationed off the Atlantic coast;
A-3 Skywarriors are fitted with
landing gear designed for flight
deck operations.
For more background on our
investigation, see:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
to paul andrew mitchell,
sir,
thank you so much for the comment and the links and information provided.
seems we're battling the smae foes, even as far as the present "monetary system" imposed upon us by the Fed.
i'm much obliged and ever grateful.
sincerely yours,
jc
Boolean logic cannot be used as the criminals will just say, "We were wrong about that and that... but essentially correct." Probability theory can be used to prove the guilt of the perpetrators, but it is not enough to simply multiply improbabilities to obtain a very high product. An allowance must be made for events not conceived of, that could have been correlated with the truth-value of the principals' guilt. My site (article on the london bombings www.takeourworldback.com/77suicidebombershoax/) shows how the identity of the guilty party can be proven to an accuracy of tens of thousands against a false conviction. Also see section on 9/11 which analyses the mathematics of the fires in great detail. A condensed version will soon be available.
The below account of the actual events of 9/11 is not 100% accurate, but it undoubtedly fits the facts more closely than the official suicidal Arabs conspiracy theory.
On May 4, 2001, Rabbi Dov Zakheim was sworn in as Comptroller at the Pentagon, overseeing its (then) $300 billion budget. On September 10, 2001 (well aware that it would be a good time to "bury bad news"), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared at a press conference that, according to some estimates, they could not track $2.3 trillion in transactions. After the audit had uncovered a massive black hole in the Pentagon's finances, Zakheim remained at the helm for more than two years until resigning in April 2004.
Zakheim, a dual nationality Israeli-American and a rabid Zionist, had co-authored "Rebuilding America's Defenses", a position paper by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, which called for a new "Pearl Harbor" type of incident which would provide a pretext for US military moves to boost its global hegemony. Throughout much of his career he was working for the US government at the Department of Defense (DoD) or as a foreign policy adviser. However, in the run-up to 9/11, from 1997 to 2001, he left to take a post as CEO of System Planning Corporation (SPC). SPC is a manufacturer of highly sophisticated technology which enables remote operators to control up to eight planes simultaneously, from a single position either on the ground or airborne (or, say, in WTC Building 7). The technology also provides operators with the capability to take remote control of aircraft already in flight.
Zionists had tricked the Bush Administration into carrying out a relatively small scale false-flag terrorist operation. An unmanned, remote-controlled plane would be crashed into a section of the Pentagon that was under renovation; hence, casualties would range from zero to very low. The remote control technology for the Pentagon incident would be provided by Raytheon. Since it was necessary to claim that "Arabs" had hijacked a passenger plane and the US government had not signed up to deliberately murder dozens of their own civilians as part of Operation Pentagate, the claimed flight that the "suicide pilots" had taken over would be one that ran fairly regularly, but was unscheduled on the particular day of the operation. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) flight records could be falsified after the fact - unless, of course, the planners were to slip up, as they did...
The "dead passengers" were to be individuals linked to government (e.g. Barbara Olson), and the defense contractor Raytheon, who would be paid to fake their own deaths and provided with sanctuary in Israel. As confirmation of the official version of events, it would be claimed that the "passengers" had made cell phone calls to report a hijacking by men of "Arabic" appearance. (Never mind the fact that such cell phone calls were impossible with 2001 technology at cruising height and speed; the fact that it takes at least an hour and 30 kg of coke to cremate a cadaver had not stopped the indoctrination of millions of people with a physically impossible ludicrous conspiracy theory about a secret German plot to gas and cremate 11 million "undesirables".) If required, fictitious names could be concocted. In order to save on names, it would be claimed that the passenger count just happened to be unusually low that day, say, around one-third of capacity.
American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles was scheduled on most days, but was not scheduled (and did not fly) on September 11, 2001. The date had been chosen from the US "911" emergency number. Hence, the official Bush-Cheney story would claim this as the plane which hit the Pentagon. The Bush Administration would then have a pretext for invading Islamic oil-rich nations and looting their oil wealth, and for granting itself with authoritarian powers by introducing legislation such as the Patriot Act. More to the point, Rumsfeld and Cheney - along with other corrupt leaders who had been bribed or blackmailed into the scam - would have a pretext for doing the zionist mafia's bidding of supplying the servicemen of the US, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, etc, as Israel's proxy army to fight its enemy neighbours. I.e., the offering up of national armed forces as a supply of private mercenaries, or cannon fodder, or uranium-ingesting leukemia and cancer cases waiting to happen. These sacrifices were primarily for the personal profit of the avaricious zionist mafia, along with the corrupt mafia-appointed government leaders who lapped up the few scraps and morsels tossed their way by their zionist handlers.
Rumsfeld directed this part of the operation from his Pentagon office, which was well clear of the renovated section where the hit was planned. In order to ensure that the plane would get to the Pentagon without meeting any resistance from the mighty US air defenses, Cheney directed wargames exercises from his bunker, including Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Tripod II. The first three were all to do with hijacked airplanes in NE US airspace. Some of these drills were live-fly exercises with remote-controlled planes, simulating the behaviour of hijacked airliners and coinciding with the alleged start of the "Arab hijacking(s)". In addition, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), based in Chantilly, Virginia and intrinsically entangled with the CIA and the DoD, had scheduled an exercise starting at 09:00 which involved an aircraft hitting one of its buildings.
As late as the fall of 2003, the BTS website provided accurate flight records of AA Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, the four that were allegedly hijacked by incredibly lucky "suicidal Moslems". Flights are regularly cancelled when bookings are low, and if a domestic flight is still shown in computer reservation systems within seven calendar days of the scheduled departure, the law and regulations direct that it must be reported and listed as "cancelled" in the BTS database. Sometimes a dearth of passengers results in cancellation more than seven calendar days prior to the scheduled departure, in which case the non-existent flight does not need to be reported and is not listed in the records for that day.
The latter was the situation for two of the four "hijacked flights" on September 11, 2001 - AA Flight 11 and AA Flight 77. Their non-appearance in the official BTS website is evidence that both flights had been cancelled more than a week prior to 9/11. The BTS records continued to report this for more than two years, until several months after independent 9/11 researchers had discovered the anomaly in the fall of 2003. In 2004 the website's on-time delivery flight records section was shut down. By April 2005, a doctored version of the records had reappeared, with Flights 11 and 77 now included on 9/11/2001.
In the six years up to August 31, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 cancellations had been running at 4.13%, i.e. an average of about 15 days per annum. It had been unscheduled 14 times, 0.64% of days or 2.333 times per annum. AA Flight 77 had seen 1.99% of its scheduled (a week prior to schedule) flights cancelled, with 43 cancellations in 6 years. It had been unscheduled 27 times, a rate of 1.23% or an annual average of 4.5 days.
Both flights had very recent cancellations. The last time AA 11 was shown as "cancelled", i.e. it was in the database because the cancellation was not at least a week in advance, was the previous Tuesday, September 4, and prior to that it was cancelled for Monday August 27, 2001. AA Flight 77 last cancelled on Wednesday, September 5, 2001, and before that the Saturday August 18, 2001 flight was cancelled.
However, the best proof that the object which hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 was not AA Flight 77 is provided by the fact that no video evidence supporting the official story was ever made public. The FBI immediately confiscated videos from a gas station and a hotel overlooking the Pentagon. In these days of the ubiquitous security camera, it is inconceivable that the defense HQ of the world's greatest military power did not have cameras trained on its west wing on the morning of 9/11. It was not until another six months or so that five frames of a pathetic amateurishly faked video were released by officials, purporting to be of the "Flight 77 impact".
The problem with the five frames of the "Pentagon security camera" record of the Flight 77 impact is that none of them show a Boeing 757 about to strike the Pentagon facade. The authorities admit that the security camera frame rate was 100 frames per second. Let us suppose the frame rate was only 10 frames per second, and that the impact speed of Flight 77 was as high as 780 fps or 530 mph, the figure stated by Civil Engineering Magazine, Feb 2003. In 1/10 second, the plane would travel 78 feet. Thus, there should exist a frame showing the nose of a 757-200 in AA colours within 78 feet of striking the Pentagon facade, i.e. within half a length of a Boeing 757-200. Given that the actual frame rate was likely to be considerably higher, the final pre-impact frame would probably have the nose well within 25 feet of the wall. In addition, the plane was supposed to be approaching at a 45 degree angle, so the gap from nose to wall and the slightly rotated aircraft length are foreshortened by cos[(angle of impact from the perpendicular) - (angle of camera slight inclination from parallel to facade)], a factor somewhat higher than 0.7071, which makes it even easier to fit a good view of Flight 77 in the frame.
The official story of Flight 77 has been comprehensively debunked before we even start to consider the fact that the alleged hijacker who flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, was a notoriously poor pilot who had been refused permission to hire a Cessna in August 2001 because his flying skills were so poor. Hanjour would not have suddenly developed the skills of a crack fighter pilot after a few weeks' flight simulator training, managing to steer a Boeing 757 a few feet above the Pentagon lawn at over 500 mph after descending 7000 feet in 150 seconds and making a sharp 270 degree turn pulling high Gs on his jet flying debut. There are several inconsistencies with the passenger manifest and the autopsy and their lack of Arabic names. There is the unlikelihood of the hijackers being able to turn off the aircraft transponder and persuade the pilot to hand over control of the plane, the coincidental exercises, and the fact that Mossad agents lived a few houses away from the "Arab hijackers". These problems, and many others, also apply to the other planes featuring in the official Ladenist hoax.
Unfortunately for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, zionists had a much more ambitious scheme underway, to run in parallel with the Pentagon strike. For some thirty years, since its construction, the World Trade Center (WTC) complex had been owned by the Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, who had full management rights. Then, in July 2001, seven weeks before 9/11, the Port Authorities inexplicably agreed to lease the buildings to Larry Silverstein (Silverstein Properties Inc,). Reports variously place the date of the transfer of management rights as July 24 or 26, 2001. Silverstein, a real estate magnate whose portfolio included the "Runway 69" Queens dance club linked to the heroin trade, money laundering and New York police corruption, was a former president of the United Jewish Appeal in New York. Also involved in the WTC deal was Frank Lowry, an Israeli businessman from Australia, and chairman and founder of Westfield Holdings.
Silverstein agreed to pay a total of some $3.2 billion in leasing instalments over 99 years to the Port Authorities, who would remain the owners. However, Silverstein - now known as "Lucky Larry" - would take the rental income, and was the sole beneficiary of the buildings insurance policies. At the same time, he increased the insurance cover to $3.6 billion (the policy could pay out up to twice that, but only if it was judged that both Towers had been destroyed following two entirely separate incidents.) The initial payment to the Port Authorities was a tiny fraction of $3.2 billion, to be followed by smaller annual fees. Silverstein, backed by New York investor Lloyd Goldman and former entertainment industry distributor Joseph Cayre, had to put up a mere $125 million in equity for the office portion of the WTC lease in July 2001.
The probability of a transfer of management rights at the WTC and signing of a new lease, whereby the new management is the beneficiary of the insurance (which they increased!), within 7 weeks of the destruction of the WTC complex can be conservatively calculated from the ratio 7 weeks divided by the duration of the previous ownership. Both of the Twin Towers had been completed by 1972, so 7 weeks divided by 29 years equals a 1 in 215 chance.
Another stroke of fortune for "Lucky Larry" was that he had regularly been taking breakfast at the elegant Windows on the World restaurant at the top of the North Tower. On the morning of 9/11 by an amazing coincidence, his wife had reminded him that he had a "doctor's appointment"; consequently, the tycoon eluded the tragic fate of more than 2,000 WTC workers and hundreds of emergency responders.
Suppose a middle-aged lady had been happily married for 29 years, the first husband had died, and husband number two took out a massive insurance policy on her life. Seven weeks later, the lady dies in mysterious circumstances in an accident that would not be fatal unless the laws of physics, chemistry and biology were revised - e.g., a small piece of cardboard falls on her head from a height of one foot. Any detective worth their salt should be suspicious, to say the least. The relevance of the "less than lethal with invariant scientific and natural law" part of this analogy to the 9/11 destruction of the WTC will become apparent when we examine how the plane crashes and fires could not possibly have caused global collapse of a single skyscraper, let alone the three towers 1WTC, 2WTC and 7WTC, and each of them in the manner of a controlled demolition.
A day before the 9/11 attacks - the same day Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion had gone missing at the Pentagon - the Washington Post ran an article on its front page in which the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) was quoted describing Israel's intelligence service Mossad as: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian / Arab act".
Dov Zakheim had access to technology for the remote control of aircraft through his tenure at SPC; he had access to Boeings through a lease deal he arranged whilst at the Pentagon. The second plane to hit the WTC - UA Flight 175 which hit the South Tower 2WTC - had to be very close to the genuine article, as the media would then have plenty of cameras in place. Flight 175 was shown in the BTS records, and did actually hit the South Tower. In this case, SPC technology was employed to take control of the Boeing 767 after it had got into cruising mode.
For the plane which hit the North Tower, it was not necessary to take over a plane in flight. One of Zakheim's Boeings, pre-packed with explosives, was used as a dummy. The official story had to claim this as an "Arab-hijacked passenger plane", which required a fairly regular flight that happened to be unscheduled on 9/11. Ideally, this flight would also depart from Boston for LA (as did Flight 175). Hence, AA Flight 11 was selected. It was important that at least one WTC hit was successful out of the three commissioned, and a retro-fitted model complete with all necessary software patches was their best chance. With Flight 175, there was a slight risk that the operators might not have been able to take control, the fireball might have been less spectacular, and the steering could have been less precise. The slight errors apparent in the steering actually helped the effect of the fireball, although gave less credence to the "fire collapse" theory. From their command post in 7WTC, the operators noticed that the South Tower fires were going out first; thus it was necessary to initiate the demolition after only 56 minutes.
The original plan was to have both Twin Towers collapse at around 10:15, allow the operators sufficient time to exit 7WTC, and then have Flight 93 hit 7WTC at around 10:30. The third crash would provide the pretext for the planned 7WTC collapse, which was necessary in order to eliminate evidence of the remote-control transmitters for controlling Flights 11, 175, and 93, and detonating charges in each of the Twin Towers. At 9:36, Flight 93 had filed a new flight plan to arrive in Washington at 10:28. Unfortunately for the zionists, the US air defenses could not be delayed indefinitely. Moreover, UA Flight 93 was part of the zionist cabal's three-plane false-flag insurance scam, rather than Rumsfeld's Pentagate plan. The zionists' third plane, UA93, was shot down over Shanksville at 10:06. They still had to demolish 7WTC, but without a "suicide piloted passenger plane" to hand. Hence, the official story was forced to assert that the global collapse of 7WTC was solely as a result of "fires". Since this is impossible, the official conspiracy theorist is forced to postulate a new, mystical reality in which scientific and natural law is not invariant on the earth's surface but is revised at irregular intervals, presumably by the invisible, inaudible, odourless spirits of dead Jews or Arabs.
Poseidon said... "They still had to demolish 7WTC, but without a "suicide piloted passenger plane" to hand. Hence, the official story was forced to assert that the global collapse of 7WTC was solely as a result of "fires". "
I consider "the official story" to be "The 9/11 Commission Report". The 9/11 Commission DID NOT assert that the global collapse of 7WTC was solely as a result of "fires." In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report...(the following quotes are from David Ray Griffin's book "The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions" pages 28 and 29)
"The Commission avoids another embarrassing problem--explaining how WTC-7 could have collapsed, also at virtually free-fall speed--by simply not mentioning the collapse of this building." ...
"Or did the Commission not mention this collapse because it knew that there was no explanation that met the two necessary criteria: being plausible while being consistent with the official account of 9/11?"
Regarding Lucky Larry Silverstein's statement..."As the Alex Jones show asked: 'Why would they even be considering pulling the building when it only had two small pockets of fire visible?' The Commission relieved itself of answering this question, however, by not mentioning Silverstein's statement or even the mysterious fact that WTC-7 collapsed."
"One will, however, look in vain in the 9/11 Commission Report for any mention of these matters."
Now here is one other quote regarding WTC-7 that is important. In May of 2002, BPAT published their World Trade Center Building Performance Study. 1 Chapter 5 of the Report is devoted to Building 7.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study, fema.gov
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
So FEMA did write something in an official report and what FEMA basically said about the collapse of WTC 7 is that "we don't have a clue." Isn't it also amazing that the NYC Port Authority and Silverstein never communicated with FEMA about their action to "pull" building 7?
The "official story" as set out in The 9/11 Commission Report is as complete and honest and accurate as is The Warren Commission Report, and the glaring ommission of any mention of WTC-7 collapse in the official story is just about as credible as the "majic" bullet.
Ignore this twerp 'Nick Hogarth,' He's a disinformation agent.
There is no evidence for the Holocaust - no material evidence, the documentary evidence is all fake and was generated specifically for the purpose of incriminating the survivors of the Nazi regime at Nuremberg or other postwar war crimes trials, while the eyewitness testimonies are best compared to the those of people in the U.S. who believe with apparent sincerity that they have seen UFOs or been abducted by aliens.
The only reason people continue to believe in the Holocaust is because it's pushed on us by those who have the power to decide what gets shown on TV and what gets published. Try to find a book in a regular bookshop or public library that disputes the official legend. You won't find any. You can only get them online (www.vho.org/). So the Holocaust legend endures only because, because of its immense importance to many people - not just Jews, either - there is no free market in ideas on this subject.
Its interesting to see a holocaust zealot's comments. Just like the holocaust exaggerations are based on lies, so is the official 911 fairy tale based on lies.
Everybody print copies of this and tape it on the streets. RIGHT NOW.
The one that really gets me is I think it would be extremely difficult for not just one, but two beginner pilots to hit the trade towers. It is no harder for the news to create imaginary images for the news though than it is to create imaginary images for movies. The one thing that actually makes me question though is that with all the horrible things the corporate financial terrorists have done to the world, you could not blame a group of people for attempting to defend their children, against the corporate financial terrorists.
tri, I suspect the corporate terrorists are behind this.
Anonymous said (in response to my post)... [I consider "the official story" to be "The 9/11 Commission Report". The 9/11 Commission DID NOT assert that the global collapse of 7WTC was solely as a result of "fires."]
FEMA's report fema403_ch5.pdf states that the Building 7 collapse appears "due primarily to fire". The only change I might make to my description would be to omit "solely". Or revise to "the official story was limited to either a theory that the WTC 7 collapse was solely due to fire, or the impact of a few flying sheets of paper and clouds of dust made a significant contribution, or a block of rubble weighing a few tons with vertical velocity of < 202 mph and lateral velocity of < 26 mph played a major role in the collapse. (From Vterm = SQR{2*h*g}, and t = SQR{2*h/g}, where h = 1368 ft and g = 32.17 fps^2 and WTC1 to WTC7 ~ 350 ft laterally.)
The scriptwriters have probably never bothered to take a look at buildings toppled by earthquakes. There are plenty of pictures where a high rise has fallen over like a tree, ending up resting on a smaller building at a 45 degree angle. The high rise does not crumble to dust, both buildings remain essentially intact, with the smaller building taking the impact and weight of the larger building without collapsing. No nonsense about "the only way for it to fall is down".
I took another look at the 911 Commission Report. But what would anyone expect other than a whitewash and prevarication? Right at the start it mentions Abdul Aziz al Omari. This was one of Mossad's "second-quality" passports where the documents have been stolen but they do not have the real person behind it to back up the story. Omari, a Saudi Telecom employee, was found alive and well (one of about nine) by September 21, 2001. His passport had been stolen when he was studying in Denver and his apartment broken into. They did have a few real patsies; the purpose of the trips to Vegas and gambling cruises was partly to try to get videos at the airports (this failed since the nearest they could get was Portland Airport, apart from a pathetic forgery for Dulles where they faked a surveillance video in the summer of 2004, near midday when the sun was too high in the sky), and to groom the few real people who were set up as patsies (including Atta) so that around Sept 11 Jack Abramoff would have said, "We've got something very special for you favoured clients - a private cruise. Your gambling opponents are useless, you'll win big time." Atta et al would have wound up as sharkbait in the Gulf of Mexico.
The 911CR also failed to mention that Paul Kurzberg, one of the "dancing" Israeli Mossad spies arrested eight hours after the WTC attacks, refused to take a lie detector test for ten weeks, and then failed it.
It is interesting to see that the 911 Commission Report actually admits that the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds. I ran some computations treating the lower section as a "fluid" of the same mean density of the whole solid + air mix. This calculated drag resistance which derives from conservation of momentum. I got times of up to some 19.3 seconds for the full collapse. Admittedly, that doesn't allow for gravity helping to pull the lower section down, but it does assume the lower section has already been smashed apart. Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity (which is why high rises have been known to topple over like a tree).
Just because the 911 Commission Report fails to mention the building 7 collapse, that does not mean that the official story can ignore it. FEMA reports did not ignore it; if others find it too embarrassing then we must deduce what the official story logically implies from its other statements.
Apologies for omission at top of previous post; should have read "tens of thousands to one against".
many thanks, Poseidon, for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.
Even though I would have thought the corporate terrorists would have chosen to murder poor people, I would not put it beyond them to murder their own. Probaby one of the reasons that they didn't go for Citigroup headquarters.
1) So how many people do you think are involved in this intricate plot? Logically, it would have to be a very large number. Do you really believe that this same number of people could keep this plot a secret?
2) The same government that pulled off this intricate attack has been unable to stabilize Iraq? They were willing to kill thousands of innocent Americans, but yet they are doing what they can to spare Iraqi civilians?
Anon 12:57:
(1) no they would not have to be a large number of people. A small number of sufficiently powerful indviduals would be enough to pull it off while using unsuspecting patsies, of course.
(2) doing what they can to spare Iraqis??? What on earth are you talking about? The first thing the US and British did after invading Iraq was protect the oil fields.
They don't give a crap about Iraqis or anyone else for that matter. Money and power drives their conduct.
But, all this is speculation. What is clear is that the official story DOES NOT add up. It must be re-investigated for the truth to emerge.
While I don't believe the official account of what happened, that probability theory reasoning of why it is theoretically impossible seems suspect. Could not one make that argument for any story being impossible.
ie. The probability that I ate cereal for breakfast this morning = 0.3, probability that I walked this certain route to work = 0.2, the probability that I ran into this person on the street today = 0.04, etc. and then at the end one can conclude that the day as I described it couldn't possibly have existed.
This is pretty funny. What lenght people will go to spew their hate and hidden agendas. We get, you hate Jews, big deal. Nothing new here. Not even worth the space it takes on the server.
Anon, May 15 11:43,
I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say that "we get 'you' hate Jews." But, it can't be me.
I notice that you didn't comment on the substance of the post. What's the matter, not interested in who perpetrated 9/11?
Or, is it a done deal as far as you're concerned? You swallow the official account, hook, line and sinker?
passports found on crimescene can be expected to withstand temperatures higher then that of melting steel.
Post a Comment
<< Home