9-11/anomalies

From Issuepedia
< 9-11
Revision as of 12:37, 7 August 2011 by Woozle (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.
There is only one politically serious explanation of this now-indisputable fact: powerful forces within the US military/intelligence complex wanted a terrorist incident on US soil in order to create the needed shift in public opinion required to embark on a long-planned campaign of military intervention in Central Asia and the Middle East. Whether or not they knew the scale of the impending attacks and what the precise targets would be, they acted in such a way as to block the arrest of known terrorist operatives and allow them to carry out their plot.
— Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Army intelligence officer, 2005-08-15 [1]

...all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me.

Contents

Overview

A number of irregularities have been pointed out regarding the events of the 9/11 attacks, mainly along the lines of objections to the official story as determined mainly by the 9/11 Commission and NIST.

Unfortunately, although many of these objections are reasonable, a number of very unlikely scenarios have also been suggested and widely circulated, causing many people to overlook the more reasonable objections to the official story or even to believe that those unlikely scenarios are the only objections to the official story.

Conversely, there is very little in the way of legitimate criticism of these anomalies or of the 9/11 Truth movement.

A picture is slowly emerging, but the majority of puzzle-pieces are still missing; due to missing evidence, it is entirely possible that the whole truth may never be known. Investigation continues.

  • /questions: a list of unanswered questions
  • /rebuttal: cogent arguments against the anomalousness of observed evidence

Related Pages

  • There are many reports of pre-9/11 warnings which were, one way or another, not acted upon in any useful way. Whether or not this is the result of honest error, the fact that this happened does not seem to have been investigated; a reasonable expectation would be that there would be a significant amount of recrimination and political infighting over the assignment of blame for these errors, but there does not appear to have been any. This in itself is highly suspicious. Also, it has emerged that some of the warnings were very clear and high-level.
  • Loose Change: popular but flawed documentary (includes many red herrings among the valid objections)
  • /2007-04-04 new articles has links to some articles with possibly-new information.

Reasonable Objections

criteria

A clear contradiction between what someone (including official reports) says or does versus what they should have said or done given the information available is sufficient grounds for an objection, though perhaps objections meeting only that criterion should be separate from more direct or persuasive arguments involving physical evidence.

An objection does not have to offer an explanation or alternative theory in order to be valid; the point is that something doesn't add up or could not have happened in the manner described by the official account. It is up to further investigation to determine what did actually happen. ("If X is true, that would have required Y, and you can't explain how Y could have been accomplished" is a common but invalid objection to some of the more major observed anomalies; a general counter might be phrased as "This objection does not explain the observations which point to X.")

the list

  • The majority of objections center around collapse-related anomalies, as well as the fact that WTC7 collapsed at all despite apparently sustaining only minor damage
  • The inexplicable failure to intercept the aircraft within minutes
    • The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th by Jeremy Baker – Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11: "There had to be something huge to explain why those aircraft weren't shot down out of the sky. We have fighters on the ready to handle these situations twenty-four-seven. We have NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) monitors monitoring our skies twenty-four-seven. We have a lot of human beings, civilian and military, who care about doing their jobs." Hordon also confirms that procedures were changed drastically the prior summer, although it's not clear whether he is simply repeating what others have said or if he has his own sources.
    • The 'Stand-Down Order': "The shocking failure of the air defense system to protect New York City and the capital would seem to require either an incredible series of failures or an order to stop intercepts -- a stand-down order. Yet apparently there have been no cases of military officials disciplined for gross negligence surrounding 9/11/01, nor have there been publicized reports of commanders admitting to having received stand-down orders."
  • Objections relating to the seemingly unnecessary levels of secrecy and suppression of information which should by now be freely available to all:
  • Pentagon-related anomalies (see [3]):
    • Intense suppression of evidence (especially 3rd-party videos) which might have resolved many questions and allowed inquiry to focus on real issues
    • Odd patterns of activity afterwards (men in office suits moving around debris)
    • Inconsistency between the known piloting skills of the alleged pilot and the apparently difficult maneuver required to turn around and hit the far side of the building from the direction the plane was traveling
    • Why didn't the plane just hit the nearer side of the building? Perhaps this is easily explained, but haven't seen any explanations yet.
    • What was the large 4-engine plane seen flying over the White House?
      • Mystery 9/11 aircraft was military 'doomsday plane': CNN report from 2007-09-11 finds seemingly innocuous explanation for the plane, but the US Military contradicts it by insisting that the plane was not military -- while offering no alternative explanation. Whether or not the plane was military, someone is stonewalling.
  • Discrepancies regarding the identification of the hijackers [4]
    • The amazing coincidence that the passports of two hijackers somehow escaped the fireball when AA11 crashed into WTC1, and the lack of any specific information about how they were found [5] (How many other passengers' passports were found? Where may images of the passports be viewed online, so as to answer a number of questions about how they were used?)
      • Apparently, only one passport, not two, was found near the World Trade Center. A picture of hijacker Satam Al Suqami's passport can be viewed here: [6]
      • The source of the claim that Mohammad Atta's passport was found was apparently a news report by an Atlanta, Georgia television station. The report is currently a dead link and is unavailable on the Internet Archive.
  • The fact that George W. Bush remained in a widely-known and extremely vulnerable location (near the landing glidepath for the local airport) for the better part of an hour after being told that "America's under attack".
  • The substantial number of people who have come forward with evidence that there was foreknowledge of the attacks, and the apparent lack of investigation into these leads [7]
  • More questions here need follow-up work; perhaps a page listing all the questions and everything known in relation to the answers? A rather massive project...

Dismissable Theories and Points

  • The Pentagon was not hit by AA77: theories include a truck bomb, a cruise missile, a smaller aircraft, and similar variations
    • I'm wavering on this one -- recently saw a video which made a case (against the impact having been made by a commercial airliner) that seemed reasonable enough that, even if wrong, it needs to be addressed seriously and refuted in detail. -W.
  • This video claims:
    • In the first impact, the initial flash is seen before the plane's shadow is visible on the building. (Actually, it looks to me like the shadow is visible; it just gets much clearer after the impact, when it is greatly thickened by smoke from the explosion.)
    • In the first impact, the initial flash is wider than the plane's fuselage. (Is there any reason to think that an impact flash would NOT be wider than the impacting object?)
    • In the second impact, "extra equipment" is visible on the plane's underside. (It's not clear to me that this is anything more than a trick of the light, though it would be nice to find a soon-before-9/11 photo of UA175 from the right-hand side to help figure out what this might be.)
    • In the second impact, the plane fires a missile at the building milliseconds before impact. (Wouldn't this be both extraordinarily difficult to arrange AND unnecessary? Again, though, a contemporaneous photo might help; what is that bright-shiny thing near the plane's nose, just before it hits, if it's not a missile? The video shows the same thing from 4 different angles; where are the originals of those videos so we can do the same frame-by-frame slow-down of the impact? It has to be said, though, that the most plausible explanation for the emergence of this theory is that it serves as a confuser to draw conversation away from discussion of the evidence for explosives/thermite having been planted in the WTC buildings. Photos of the same model of aircraft from similar angles with similar lighting might show how this could be an optical artifact.)
  • "no plane" theories: These seem to be planted as red herrings originally, though perhaps repeated by sincere believers who haven't looked carefully at the arguments.
  • Dr. Judy Wood's theories seem to be massive red herrings, garnished generously with woo:

Further Investigation Needed

  • "Third NYC Jet" theories [8] youtube:057DZkKOdqY: if true, is probably "circumstantial" at best, but still a loose end worth tying down. (Note that some "third jet" video clips show what seem to be birds, without further explanation; is this an attempt to discredit "3rd jet" theories, or just paranoia?)
  • Reports of military exercises running that morning, one of which was uncannily similar to the events actually unfolding
  • The alleged pilots of the aircraft in each case were abysmal at flying, based on the testimony of their flying instructors (rebuttal: the twin towers made an easy target; no significant skill required. I've seen rebuttals of this rebuttal elsewhere; must find sources.)
  • Why did the man in the video of Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attacks look utterly unlike him (except superficially)? (Or was the video on Loose Change misdirection? Need to find actual videos. See wikipedia:Videos of Osama bin Laden.)
  • There has been repeated mention of an unusually large number of "put" orders placed on American Airlines and United Airlines for the 3 weeks prior to 9/11, and no apparent official investigation. [9]
  • Debris patterns and eyewitness accounts suggest UA93 was shot down, rather than the passengers seizing control and deliberately crashing it
  • The debris from UA93 in Pennsylvania was curiously sparse; news reports [10] show only small bits of scattered debris, and one smoking hole. Where are the high-resolution photos and the accountings of all the debris found? (This may be addressed here; haven't had time to check.)
    • The body of a jet airplane is primarily made out of aluminum, which is actually highly flammable in the right circumstances. When exposed to air, aluminum normally develops an airtight layer of aluminum oxide that prevents further oxidation (burning). However, if that layer does not have a chance to form, aluminum will burn violently. In fact, aluminum powder is explosive enough to be used in rocket fuel. In the environment of a jet plane crashing at full speed into the ground, it's not surprising that most of the aluminum body would ignite and vaporize on impact.
  • Why were there reports that UA93 landed safely in Cleveland? What was the "threatened" plane that landed there, causing evacuation of the Cleveland airport? Are these reports false? Is Loose Change [11] the only source for these reports? (Where did this report get its video?) Is there any confirmation of the "small white plane" that Susan McIlwain reports flew very low over her moments before the crash? (Was she still in her car when she ducked? If not, why did she get out; if so, why did she duck? Potential answers are semi-obvious, but the questions need to be asked in order to reduce the informational search-space. Who filmed the video shown here? Clearly it was not filmed for YouTube, comments notwithstanding, but for a broadcast documentary ("IQ1"?).)
  • Remote Control and the 9/11/01 Attack: "Imagining that teams of hijackers could successfully take over four jetliners then flawlessly fly three of them into relatively small targets, even though none had ever flown a jet, requires enormous leaps of faith. In contrast, robotically flying the jetliners into their targets could have been accomplished using the flight control computers that were standard equipment on the targeted planes."
    • One of the counter-arguments at 9-11 Research – "it fails to explain how the pilots were silenced without the help of another theory, since any flight recovery system would not block communications, and calls might be made using cell phones" – misses one possible scenario: there were hijackers, but they were stooges – told only to take over the plane, perhaps told that it would be landed safely somewhere. To do: check the Boeing specs, both these and these, to see if "Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions."

Circumstantial Evidence

There is already an alarming amount of circumstantial evidence seemingly connecting the leaders of the United States and with the events of 9/11 and giving strong indications that a significant number of people had pre-knowledge of some kind regarding the attacks, but this may yet turn out to be a coincidence; people who operate in powerful circles often turn out to have unusual connections with each other.

Nonetheless, in case it turns out to be significant later on, here is a collection of all the known circumstantial evidence:

  • George W. Bush ignored a number of warnings about the imminent likelihood of terrorist attacks on US soil
  • The administration has displayed a complete lack of interest in (indeed, antipathy toward [12]) resolving any of the noted irregularities
  • On 2001-11-10, Bush addressed the UN, saying "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists..." It seems odd that, almost 3 years before the 9/11 Commission released its official report determining what had happened, Bush would be so certain of the outcome of that investigation as to label any alternative theories as "malicious lies".
  • Evidence from Ground Zero was rapidly hauled off and disposed of; comparatively little of it was retained for forensic examination (some obvious reasons for this suggest themselves, but we are not currently aware of any official explanation), leaving crucial questions unanswered which might otherwise have laid to rest (One official comment is here)
  • The day before, Donald Rumsfeld had announced $2.3 billion for which the US military could not account; this was quickly forgotten on 9/11
    • video: Vince Gonzales / CBS report (this video may disappear, as it's obviously a screen-capture of an online-only report and therefore reproduced without permission)
  • suspicious financial transactions prior to 9/11: a huge number of "put" options were placed, days in advance, on both the airlines and various companies negatively impacted by the attacks; unusually large numbers of credit card transactions were processed by computers at the WTC in the minutes before the attacks. (This just adds to evidence which pretty definitely indicates that a number of people not necessarily connected with either the administration or the attacks nonetheless knew about it, at least as a rumor)
    • This is mentioned in the James Bond movie Casino Royale (clip)
  • The impacted section of the Pentagon had just undergone an extensive refit to harden it against impact damage, and was not fully occupied
  • George W. Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Center, Dulles Airport and United Airlines [13]
  • George W. Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama bin Laden's brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz (link found here is now 404)
  • George W. Bush's uncle (George H.W. Bush's brother) Jonathan Bush is CEO of Riggs Bank N.A. which was found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million [14] [W]
  • US intelligence used Al Qaeda as an asset ([15] is somewhat murky) U.S. supported al-Qaeda cells during Balkan Wars Macedonian dailies see links between Albanian Rebels and bin Ladin
  • more stuff here to list but I don't have time
  • Although $100 million was allocated to investigate Bill Clinton (in which zero deaths were involved), only $14 million was allocated to investigate 9/11 (involving the deaths of over 2000 people and a monetary loss of far more than $14 million) – up from an initial budget of $3 million.
  • Statements made by Bush (and recorded on video) contradict the official timeline. The contradictions certainly make one wonder what really did happen, but there don't seem to be any major implications either way (aside from being consistent with the "Bush planned 9/11" theory, in which case Bush's misremembrance could be a symptom of his having known in advance what was going to happen but certainly does not prove anything). It would be nice, however, if Bush would issue a statement clarifying what he meant and how it is consistent with the official report.

Links

Reference

infodumps

calls for a proper investigation

move these to 9/11 Truth page

local 9/11 Truth groups

Filed Links

version 2

[refresh]

Opinion

  • 2008-10-28 How 9/11 Was Done: a theory, posted in a single blog entry with multiple sections (includes photos, diagrams, and videos)
  • 2006-09-14 The Path From 9/11 by Rory O'Connor, AlterNet: the 9/11 Commission Report was "a fatally flawed official examination that ended up raising more questions than it answered, owing to a toxic brew of politics, partisanship, personal agendas and presidential obstruction."

Video

for video of the events, see 9/11 videos; this is video of further discussion

Books

News

  • 2007-10-16 Treason In Shreveport: Sander Hicks writes to the US DoJ Inspector General asking for an investigation into the mysterious 2004 death of 9/11 researcher Dr. David Graham.
  • 2007-10-12 New Eyewitness To WTC Basement Level Explosions: apparently this is but the latest in a string of eyewitnesses who have come forward. Article includes embedded videos. The starting time of the explosions was 8:46, according to the most recent witness, so these could have been due to the airplane impact explosion propagating down elevator shafts (for an explosion right at 8:46) or due to liquid jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts and being ignited by a stray spark. Odd that these reports only come from the basement, however. Wouldn't pouring jet fuel have been more likely to pool higher up?
  • 2007-04-04 Historic Result From San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury On The Crimes Of September 11, 2001 In New York City: Jurors Vote To Charge Sixteen With 'Conspiracy To Commit Mass Murder' On 9/11/01. This moves beyond observing that there are anomalies; it identifies specific individuals whose actions warrant further investigation.
  • 2001-09-12 Expert tells of inside help by David Kidwell, Miami Herald

Notes

Despite stereotypes, there was very little evidence of citizen panic -- even inside the burning buildings. where civilians broke into vending machines to get bottles of water and handed them to the firemen on their way up to extinguish the blaze. [16] One fireman, John Schroeder, describes people (even some who were injured?) inside the buildings as being calm and polite [17] (see 9/11 videos)

Personal tools
bookmarking etc.
Sister Sites