Purdue computer simulation of 9/11 attacks

[Regorium]

Here's some other food for thought. Stuff that can't be proved with physics or anything, just facts of what happened. I have no problem with the official report of WHAT happened, but just WHY did it happen? Was everything just a massive coincidence? Who knows.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...anomalies.html

Some highlights (all copied from the linked website):

• Pentagon officials canceled travel plans on September 10th. 3
• San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a warning not to fly on September 10th. 4
• Scotland Yard prohibited Salman Rushdie from flying on September 11th. 5
• Business executives, some of whom worked in the WTC, were in Nebraska to attend a meeting at Offutt Air Force Base hosted by billionaire Warren Buffett on the morning of September 11th. The same base would be visited later that day by George W. Bush. 7
  

• Flights
  All four flights were unusually empty.
  • Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 were only at 51%, 31%, 20%, and 16% occupancy, respectively.
• Pentagon
  125 people were killed in a building with 20,000 people.
  • The portion of the Pentagon that was attacked, the West Block, was in the process of being renovated, and so was at low occupancy.
  • No high-level Pentagon officials were killed in the attack.
• Evidence Void
  There is no hard evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the doomed flights, and substantial evidence that some weren't involved.
  • No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.
  • At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack.
  • None of the four flight crews radioed Air Traffic Control about hijackings in progress.
  • None of the four flight crews punched in the four-digit hijacking code. 9
  • No public evidence indicates that the remains of any of the hijackers was identified at any of the crash sites.
  • None of the contents of any of the black boxes have been made public.
  • The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Was everything just a massive coincidence?

Here is the thing. 911 was THE news item of the week- worldwide. So out of millions of people who fly daily, odds are there will be a handful out of the 1000's of famous or well known people who had co-incidences. The Mayor of SF being advised not to fly is a co-incidence. If the story that the mayors of 100 US cities were told not to fly, then that would be suspicious.

As for the fighter jets and their response time- keep in mind that until the 2nd tower was hit this was all being passed off as an accident. At the time the pentagon was hit, there were about 20 jets unaccounted for. And the fact that they flew at sub-sonic speed; standard proceedure says you do not fly at supersonic speeds over populated areas unless you are at war. Hindsight says we were at war; but we all know what they say about hindsight.

Empty planes- some say that was part of the plan. It isn't hard for a travel agent to see what planes are empty.

Black boxes not public- I watch a lot of the show "Mayday", and it is rare for the FAA to make those public until the investigation is over. AKAIK the investigation is not over- Bin Laden has not been caught yet.

WTC 7- if the building was as damaged as it would have to be to colapse, would you have set up your command post there? Prior to the collapse of the first building, police were already moving people a few blocks away. Would you have gone closer to the disaster area to set up commad, and go into a building that had since been evacuated?

As for phone calls, I have seen a show that played back messages left on VM from the 2nd plane to hit the WTC. All of them indicated hijack; but they had been assured they would be safe. Except for one; where a guy was talking to his dad just as the plane hit. The dad descibes his son going from calm to scared as the plane started to turn towards the WTC.

And the "2nd tower hit was the first to fall" seeming odd- to me it makes sense that the tower to sustain the most damage was the first to colapse.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that I have yet to see anything that leads me to suspect a conspiracy. (Sorry, excpet for Bin Laden's family being wisked off. That is the only oddity to me.) And I tend to believe that both Roswell and JFK are conspiracies; so it's not like I don't believe in conspiracies.

[Azure]

Speaking of the tower coming down, someone posted a video where someone was talking one the phone with a loved one just as the tower came down, and you could hear them get cut off. Was that real?

[ken0042]

One of the show I saw had a bunch of real audio on it. There was a conference on the ~104th floor and they couldn't get the door to the hallway open. (Due to the structural damage caused by the plane hitting.) There was audio of somebody jumping out the window; and of people trying to stop the guy from jumping. (The smoke was pretty bad at that point I guess.) That call to 911 ended with the building colapsing- rumble; screams; silence. Pretty chilling.

You would think that of the ~2000 people killed by the collapse of the buildings; many would have been talking to loved ones or leaving voicemails. And odds are some people may have been using their answering machines to record their loved ones' voice.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Here's some other food for thought. Stuff that can't be proved with physics or anything, just facts of what happened. I have no problem with the official report of WHAT happened, but just WHY did it happen? Was everything just a massive coincidence? Who knows.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...anomalies.html

Some highlights (all copied from the linked website):

• Pentagon officials canceled travel plans on September 10th. 3
• San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a warning not to fly on September 10th. 4
• Scotland Yard prohibited Salman Rushdie from flying on September 11th. 5
• Business executives, some of whom worked in the WTC, were in Nebraska to attend a meeting at Offutt Air Force Base hosted by billionaire Warren Buffett on the morning of September 11th. The same base would be visited later that day by George W. Bush. 7
  

• Flights
  All four flights were unusually empty.
  • Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 were only at 51%, 31%, 20%, and 16% occupancy, respectively.
• Pentagon
  125 people were killed in a building with 20,000 people.
  • The portion of the Pentagon that was attacked, the West Block, was in the process of being renovated, and so was at low occupancy.
  • No high-level Pentagon officials were killed in the attack.
• Evidence Void
  There is no hard evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the doomed flights, and substantial evidence that some weren't involved.
  • No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.
  • At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack.
  • None of the four flight crews radioed Air Traffic Control about hijackings in progress.
  • None of the four flight crews punched in the four-digit hijacking code. 9
  • No public evidence indicates that the remains of any of the hijackers was identified at any of the crash sites.
  • None of the contents of any of the black boxes have been made public.
  • The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.

See, here's the thing. Some of that stuff is awful vague or just plain meaningless. Who told the Mayor of San Francisco on September 10th? The FBI? His wife? Either way, it would be more compelling if he had been told not to fly on September 11th. Then it might mean someone had a real inside track and decided to let the mayor of San Fran in on the deal.

The fact that some "business executives" that worked in the WTC were out of town that day doesn't mean anything. "Business Executives" go on "Business Trips" and have "Business Meetings" every day of every year.

And besides, the more people that get roped into this mess, the less plausible it becomes.

As for the website you linked to, it's more of the same. They take quotes, quite possibly out of context or even just made up, from anonymous people and present it as evidence.

Gilah Goldsmith thought she smelled cordite or gunsmoke? Oh my. Gilah Goldsmith is who again?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

I remember when this guy I worked with told me that all the jews that worked in the World Trade Centre were told not to come to work. I wanted to smack him in the head with a baseball bat. Not for being offensive but for being offensively stupid.

Yeah, the Jews carrying out the attacks is the best one yet.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, the Jews carrying out the attacks is the best one yet.

All you need to know is that Bobby Fisher believes that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy... and that guy is bat**** crazy.

I think (and I'm pretty sure I've said something like it before, in another one of the million-or-so threads about this) that people who look for conspiracies fail to understand one simple fact about the world--it's an unpredictable place. Sometimes things happen that seem strange, or for which not enough evidence has been collected, because they happened in a "Fog of Crisis." That doesn't mean they didn't happen; and in these cases, a little Ockham's Razor should pretty much put any CTs to rest.

What's likelier? A sinister and diabolical attack exploiting vulnerabilities in the U.S. system resulted in massive carnage, or a vast conspiracy involving millions of accomplices who have somehow managed to keep the whole thing secret in the information age?

I know what I'll believe. I've worked in and with government--and trying to organize a bake sale is like herding cats. A massive conspiracy involving thousands of people? Not likely.

The arguments for CTs in this case are pretty similar to arguments for intelligent design. They're arguments of negation: essentially, they claim that not enough evidence exists to explain everything, or that this and that data point doesn't fit with the story. That may be true (though I kind of doubt it)--but it doesn't mean that the "official version" isn't what happened.

[halibut]

Originally Posted by peter12

Would this video be Loose Change?

No it was this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWdE8xeFHgs

This is a condensed version but it covers the main points of the presentation.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by fotze

I remember when this guy I worked with told me that all the jews that worked in the World Trade Centre were told not to come to work. I wanted to smack him in the head with a baseball bat. Not for being offensive but for being offensively stupid.

A Pew poll found only 40% of Muslim Americans believe Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks.

In the months after 9/11, a poll found that roughly 90% of Muslims across many countries, including Indonesia, believed that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and 4000 Jews who were employees in the buildings were telephoned the night before and warned not to go to the WTC the next day.

What I've noticed about polls in general, across many cultures, is that anywhere from 25% to 40% of a population appears to routinely ascribe conspiracy to any number of unconnected topics.

The "why" of people believing in a conspiracy, the pyschology of it, is often far more interesting than the actually conspiracy theory itself.

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

10-15% of WTC victims were Jewish.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...14-260933.html

[Vulcan]

I think one of the reasons that 9/11 is thought to be a conspiracy is because the man in charge is a double dealing liar who used it to further his agenda but as Iowa Flames Fan says, he probably couldn't pull it off.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think one of the reasons that 9/11 is thought to be a conspiracy is because the man in charge is a double dealing liar who used it to further his agenda but as Iowa Flames Fan says, he probably couldn't pull it off.

Once again this type of attitude towards things also helps push along the conspiracy popularity. The old 'George W Bush is an awful president and as such must have committed every act of atrocity in the world since January 2001' arguement. Just because he's hated doesn't mean he's behind everything wrong in the world. The world was plenty wrong before him, and likely be after him too.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think one of the reasons that 9/11 is thought to be a conspiracy is because the man in charge is a double dealing liar who used it to further his agenda but as Iowa Flames Fan says, he probably couldn't pull it off.

No.....just like South Park said. 1/4 of all Americans are friggin idiots (the same goes for Canadians and a higher percentage of Euros). That is why there are conspiracy theories.

Pre-9/11:
George W. Bush was an isolationist looking soully to internal problems and ignore international ones

Post-9/11:
George W. Bush took on the interventionalist view.


Ya, he was furthering an agenda.... This is no FDR looking to get the US of A into WWII.

[worth]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No.....just like South Park said. 1/4 of all Americans are friggin idiots (the same goes for Canadians and a higher percentage of Euros). That is why there are conspiracy theories.

Saw this article today and kind of chuckled:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_4...ddam_0624.html

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

10-15% of WTC victims were Jewish.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...14-260933.html

That's actually a pretty high number considereding the Jewish population is only about 2% percent of the American population. Although New York may have a high Jewish population.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Post-9/11:
George W. Bush took on the interventionalist view.


Ya, he was furthering an agenda.... This is no FDR looking to get the US of A into WWII.

I'm not saying it's exactly true but the general impression of Bush is that he couldn't find Canada on a map of North America prior to 9/11, never mind Iraq on a world map, not to mention alienating his allies with his ineptness. So yeah he concentrated on internal affairs.

If he wan't furthering an agenda why did he lie or in better circles misrepresent the facts when addressing the American public and the Senate about the involvment of Iraq in 9/11 and the threat it posed to the USA. I take it he's not a compulsive liar so yeah, he had an agenda.

[HOZ]

Why are you so sure he lied? Or misrepresented the facts, on purpose or otherwise?

As you said in the first bit of your post...he couldn't find another country on a map. Then there was an abrupt change in his policy.

That isn't an agenda. That is someone reacting(rightly or wrongly) to circumstances.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Why are you so sure he lied? Or misrepresented the facts, on purpose or otherwise?

As you said in the first bit of your post...he couldn't find another country on a map. Then there was an abrupt change in his policy.

That isn't an agenda. That is someone reacting(rightly or wrongly) to circumstances.

I look on it as, he was waiting for his opportunity, why else would he play fast and loose with the facts? Of course there are still a few out there that believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. 41% of Americans according to that poll someone linked to and you like to disparage Europeans and Canadians as being ignorant.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Why are you so sure he lied? Or misrepresented the facts, on purpose or otherwise?

What he said was true turned out not to be true. By definition he either lied or "misrepresented the facts" because he obviously didn't have facts.

If you say "X is true and I have facts" and "X" turns out to not be true then you didn't have the facts in the first place, so it's a lie or it's a misrepresentation.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What he said was true turned out not to be true. By definition he either lied or "misrepresented the facts" because he obviously didn't have facts.

If you say "X is true and I have facts" and "X" turns out to not be true then you didn't have the facts in the first place, so it's a lie or it's a misrepresentation.

But it is not your fault if you have people who are supposed to gather and check those facts for you, they do so, and you report what they told you. It certainly doesn't make your "misrepresentation" deliberate.