"9/11 Hijackers" R based on "cellphone" claims. Debunked.

[AlicetheKurious]

Whether the patsies were even on the flights is sorta beside the point.

I couldn't disagree more. If there were no 'hijackers' on the planes, then this means that on 9/11, at least four distinct but interlinked categories of crime were committed:

1) Treason against the United States from very high levels;

2) Mass murder of American citizens to induce trauma and make the public easier to manipulate;

3) Large-scale financial fraud and theft; and

4) A deliberate frame-up of Muslims to incite hatred against Muslim people and justify additional war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Who benefited the most?

Who had the motive, means and opportunity?

[Nordic]

Whether the patsies were even on the flights is sorta beside the point.

I couldn't disagree more. If there were no 'hijackers' on the planes, then this means that on 9/11, at least four distinct but interlinked categories of crime were committed:

1) Treason against the United States from very high levels;

2) Mass murder of American citizens to induce trauma and make the public easier to manipulate;

3) Large-scale financial fraud and theft; and

4) A deliberate frame-up of Muslims to incite hatred against Muslim people and justify additional war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Who benefited the most?

Who had the motive, means and opportunity?

Well yeah, but we already know all that!

I mean, this is RI you're on here.

I'm just saying that that goes without saying. At least within the community of people who are already aware of all of this.

If I was talking to anybody else, yeah, it would be yet another thing to freak people out with.

I guess what I'm saying is that as far as WE go, it's irrelevant. The planes were definitely flown by pre-programmed guidance systems, the "hijackers" had no control over them, quite obviously, Flight 93 blew to a gazillion pieces in mid-air -- these are all "knowns" at this point to people who have researched this stuff.

The patsies hardly did anything except posthumously fill the role of patsies. If they even existed in the first place. If they really existed, they had almost nothing to do with 9/11.

[Uncle $cam]

Sorry Nordic, I couldn't help myself...lol

and the much more ominous...

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

[smiths]

israel had the motive alice, but to wrap it up so simplistically and leave them as the only ones who had motive and opportunity is missing a large part of the picture

dick cheney ran the wargames and the continuity of goverment programme,

i for one dont believe he 'works for israel' and thats that

[BOOGIE66]

By the time the FBI got to the Moussaoui trial and had to present evidence in open court, they dropped most of their claims about the phone calls, including the Barbara Olsen calls. According to the FBI, Olson only made one unconnected call. Big difference between that and the 2 or 3 (depending on which version you read) calls that Ted claims she made to him from the plane. Of these 2 or 3 calls, which could not have been made from a hijacked plane in flight, Barbara supposedly told him that hijackers (she never said anything about them being Muslim or Arab) had taken over the plane using box cutters for weapons. She is the sole source for the 'boxcutter' story and that the hijackers were Muslims, even though Barbara never mentioned it.

But don't let any of these 'facts' get in the way of 8bits and most Americans fantasies about al CIAda.

Don't forget the Barbara Olsen calls were allegedly collect calls, made from a airplane seat back phone. !!!!!!!! You can't even get one of those phones out of the seat back without a credit card, let alone make a collect call on one. Those phones work only with a credit card, there are no operator assisted, or collect calls on or from those phones. Ever.

No credit card used to make a call (because one had to have been used to call from one of those phones) = no record of the call actually having been made (no paper trail or evidence other than heresay) = no call was made = the reports of the calls are B.S. Which raises the question, if that portion of the governments story is a flat out lie, what else about their version of 9/11 is BS?

[AlicetheKurious]

I hope nobody missed that article I posted on the previous page -- it's excellent.

[stefano]

Thanks all. The reason I started out skeptical of the official story (this was before I had regular access to the internet) was actually the fact that the clues and leads and such appeared the way they do in a movie, not the way they do in an investigation. The whole thing came across as - almost felt like - a piece of theatre. It was only a few years later that I got my head around enough facts to realise that that's exactly what it was.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Thanks all. The reason I started out skeptical of the official story (this was before I had regular access to the internet) was actually the fact that the clues and leads and such appeared the way they do in a movie, not the way they do in an investigation. The whole thing came across as - almost felt like - a piece of theatre. It was only a few years later that I got my head around enough facts to realise that that's exactly what it was.

Yep, 9/11 was a made for TV psycho-drama.

[AlicetheKurious]

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

That's poetry. I love it.

[Searcher08]

I am not convinced by this and think whenever HMW claims "X. Debunked." it usually is not. At all. Certainly not in this case.

Impossible to make cell calls from jets in 2001? Not as clear cut as yes or no. I asked an IT forum I was on (the late not lamented fuckedcompany.com) back in September 2001 if any people had ever made successful cell calls from jet aircraft and quite a few had, with a consensus that it was easier to do this on the East Coast than on the West. Certainly there are factors of closeness of base station, altitude, velocity, but to baldly state it was impossible to do is not true. People were able to do it, quite often the quality was poor and it was only possible for short calls.

Whenever I see absolute righteous certainty replacing exploration, whenever I see someone with a different point of view or approach personally attacked as has happened here, my BS meter goes off and sure enough, it's the same old duo beating up on ol' 8bit.

Again.

I find the idea of looking at 9/11 via the metaphor of it being a crime is certainly useful and interesting, but the ONLY way?

Pass.

It also ignores filters that can be very err... 'illuminating'. Just as looking at a field of tomatoes in visible light may reveal monoculture, yet viewed in infrared light, a single hemp plant in the middle of it leaps out of the picture, different filters reveal different information.

If 9/11 is purely a crime, then what specifically was 'stolen' by 'whom' and 'where' is it? Who did the 'heist' and where is the 'loot'?

As for there being no evidence of 'hijackers' being on the flights, there were airport videos of them getting as far as the baggage search and check-in staff recognised them. If you believe they did not get on the planes, what happened to them? Where did they go? The story about them not being on the passenger manifests is not true - the passenger manifests were shown at the Moussaoui trials.

I think the 'hijackers' were meant to be on those planes and were. Does that mean they intended to fly them into buildings in a suicide mission - nope. Does it even mean they knew what was going on? Not necessarily. I think saying no 'hijackers' were on the planes also means that one area worth investigating - the role of Israeli owned airport security services get neglected.

As for the American political system being broken, however, I think that is nonsense.
THE PURPOSE OF A SYSTEM IS WHAT IT DOES.

[17breezes]

"the role of Israeli owned airport security services get neglected."

Do you think that this service company owned by independent Israeli citizens played some role in 9/11? Is there any evidence that they did something wrong or failed to do what SOP's at the time required of them?

[DoYouEverWonder]

"the role of Israeli owned airport security services get neglected."

Do you think that this service company owned by independent Israeli citizens played some role in 9/11? Is there any evidence that they did something wrong or failed to do what SOP's at the time required of them?

9/11 was one of those 'coalitions of the willing', that Poppy Bush loved to use. They pulled together a lot of different groups and assets and outsourced most of the real dirty work. But the command and control was all run from by Bush Administration. This gives most of the players 'plausible denyability', another Poppy Bush trick.

Israel and Mossad definitely had starring roles, but the people who ran the operation used mostly fundie xians to carry it out. When you dig into 9/11 they are everywhere. Look at Flight 93, almost every member of the Let's Roll Team, who were also the one who made most of the phone calls, were all fundies, including Cee Cee and Ed Felt. From there it gets even better.

[Elvis]

Alice, your subsequent post pretty much answers my questions about the airport video footage:

The video recording that has been shown widely purports to show the alleged hijackers of flight AA77 pass through the security checkpoint at Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C. This recording was not voluntarily released by the US government, but was forced out in 2004 under the Freedom Of Information Act.49 This video recording can be found on various sites on the Internet.50

Jay Kolar, who published a critical analysis of this recording,51 pointed out that it does not show the date and time of recording or the camera number. Security videos typically record such identifying information automatically. He also pointed out further anomalies, such as the unusually bright lighting (which suggest that the recording was not made in the morning) and the fact that a human operator had manipulated the camera in order to zoom on particular subjects (indicating foreknowledge of those subjects). His conclusion is that someone deliberately decided to film certain persons passing a security checkpoint at a certain time in order to produce “evidence”. The released recording does not show any passengers pass through the security checkpoint. Aside from the dubious source of this recording, it does not show who boarded the aircraft but only a few individuals who passed some security checkpoint at an unknown time.

...as evidence, it doesn't stand up. Still, instead of saying 'no video exists' we might say 'the airport video offered doesn't prove anything and doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

I've had countless discussions with people about 9/11, trying to point out various anomolies, raise awareness, etc., and they're often ready to dismiss the whole thing if one part of it is flawed or mis-stated.

It's like the phone calls---it sure seems like some of the calls were faked (brilliant planning!), but if just one phone call describing hijackers is genuine, it's harder to be certain there were no hijackers aboard.

To me, hijackers or no, remote control makes a hell of a lot of sense...a hell of a lot of sense. There was certainly the means to do it.

Searcher08 wrote,

If 9/11 is purely a crime, then what specifically was 'stolen' by 'whom' and 'where' is it? Who did the 'heist' and where is the 'loot'?

Searcher, a crime isn't only theft; e.g. assault--there's nothing stolen, no loot, but it's a crime. Personally I've always subscribed to the "means, motive & opportunity" approach to 9/11.

I might as well go on to say I think it was the work overlapping groups---the intersection of interested parties who together had the means, motive & opportunity---elements of USG, Mossad hardcores, PNAC psychos, the Turkish milieu identified by Sibel Edmonds, and apparently Pakistani ISI, etc. In precisely what combination, who knows.

[tazmic]

israel had the motive alice, but to wrap it up so simplistically and leave them as the only ones who had motive and opportunity is missing a large part of the picture

dick cheney ran the wargames and the continuity of goverment programme,

i for one dont believe he 'works for israel' and thats that

He doesn't have to work for israel. All he needed (past tense) was a willingness to work with Israel.

Does that notion have any traction with you? (Oh crap, I used the word traction... )

I find the idea of looking at 9/11 via the metaphor of it being a crime is certainly useful and interesting, but the ONLY way?

Er.. via the metaphor of a situationist aesthetic? A spiritual detournement perhaps?

I'm feeling thick on this one, could you suggests some other useful metaphors? It was murder after all, if you are not going to treat it as a crime then what are you making your filter from? Perhaps you're looking systemically: 911 as an inevitable part the the trajectory of totalitarianism, to point out our fatal locus regardless of the players, or indeed their motives, hinting at a truth more horrible than 'an evil elite'...

Even considering the event from the aspect of 'cultural change' is useless as all the change has been pretty much given to us anyway. (But when the IRA made all the British legitimate targets, the attitude given to us from the government was that we wouldn't allow it to change us. The contrast with post 911 attitudes has always stood out screamingly for me.)

If 9/11 is purely a crime, then what specifically was 'stolen' by 'whom' and 'where' is it? Who did the 'heist' and where is the 'loot'?

But these are excellent questions! However, how can it not be seen as an act of terrorism?

THE PURPOSE OF A SYSTEM IS WHAT IT DOES.

Word.

[AlicetheKurious]

If 9/11 is purely a crime, then what specifically was 'stolen' by 'whom' and 'where' is it? Who did the 'heist' and where is the 'loot'?

As Elvis and tazmic have already pointed out, "crime" is not synonymous with "theft" (although massive theft was certainly one element in the 9/11 attacks). Murder is a crime; treason is a crime; terrorism is a crime; interfering with an investigation is a crime; incitement to violence is a crime; recklessly endangering public health is a crime; fraud, including insurance fraud, is a crime; destruction of evidence is a crime; and that's just what I can think of in 15 seconds, off the top of my head.

As for there being no evidence of 'hijackers' being on the flights, there were airport videos of them getting as far as the baggage search and check-in staff recognised them. If you believe they did not get on the planes, what happened to them? Where did they go? The story about them not being on the passenger manifests is not true - the passenger manifests were shown at the Moussaoui trials.

I suggest you read the article I posted on the previous page, since you clearly have not.

I think the 'hijackers' were meant to be on those planes and were. Does that mean they intended to fly them into buildings in a suicide mission - nope. Does it even mean they knew what was going on? Not necessarily. I think saying no 'hijackers' were on the planes also means that one area worth investigating - the role of Israeli owned airport security services get neglected.

Why would the role of Israeli-owned airport security services get neglected? The fact that one particular Israeli firm, ICTS, headed by a convicted crook, was deemed so superior to American firms that it was granted all these contracts to protect U.S. airports and the WTC, yet it couldn't even be bothered to install the kind of CCTV cameras that have been standard equipment at gas stations for decades, is certainly worth investigating. That it just happened to be the same company that allowed Richard Reid (the "shoebomber") and Farouk Abdulmutalib (the "crotchbomber") onto airplanes despite numerous red flags, and that was responsible for security for the London underground at the time of the mysterious 7/7 bombings should make everyone wonder just what it would take for governments to shop elsewhere for their "security" needs. That this same company was hastily given total immunity by the U.S. government, from prosecution or civil suits by the victims' families for its many "failures" on and leading up to 9/11, also warrants further investigation. No?

As for the American political system being broken, however, I think that is nonsense.
THE PURPOSE OF A SYSTEM IS WHAT IT DOES.

In that case, "American" system is a misnomer.