Greetings and request for directions

[Brannagyn]

Very happy to have belatedly found this site as it looks like an excellent resource for analysis of a wide variety of topics of interest.

The factor which drew me here was recent exposure to a video of Rosie O’Donnell and William Rodriguez and a desire to check out the reliability of the latter’s claims. His apparent self-aggrandization made me skeptical of his lack of bias and I was happy to find suitable comments on his claims here.

The same source that provided the video also linked to an article by David Ray Griffin who, from a quick search, I can see has been dealt with frequently here. I’ve managed to find threads on many of the topics discussed but would appreciate pointers to opposing views on the remaining topics (in bold).
As I can’t link to it the main points of Griffith’s article (new member status) I’ll summarize them here.

1. According to the FBI there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to the attacks. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
2. Immediately prior to the attacks the hijackers were acting completely unlike any devout Muslim would.
3. The issue of cell phones making long lasting calls from such height and speed. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
4. The specific issue of the FBI stating that the only call made by Ted Olson’s wife was ‘unconnected’. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
5. Mohammed Atta’s trip to Portland. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
6. Reliability of video and physical evidence implicating al Qaeda.
7. Failure of any pilots to send hijack code.
8. Circumstantial evidence of ‘stand-down’ order. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
9-11. Flaws in Cheney’s timeline and the 9/11 Commission’s omission of this error. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
12. Flight ability of Hanji Hanjour.
13. Choice of Pentagon target area.
14. E-48 in the air over the Pentagon at time of attack.
15. Failure of secret service to evacuate Bush.
16-18. Fall of twin towers and WTC7. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
19. Giuliani’s foreknowledge of collapse.
20. Simple allegation of impartiality against NIST and 9/11 Commission. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
21. n/a

If anyone could post links to threads dealing with the above topics it would be much appreciated.

While I'm here I hope to clear up a lot of misinformation that has come my way from various sources. At the same time I'm by nature a contrarian and like to argue against the majority opinion, not because I believe it wrong but rather from a desire to test its strength and ability to accept criticism (plus perhaps a natural tendency to side with the underdog). Because of this I imagine that I might end up in discussion looking at things from the 'fringe' side of things to see if their views hold any validity. As such,　I'd like to point out from the get go that my arguing a particular view should not be taken as evidence that I either believe in or endorse such a view.

All the best, and once again thanks in advance if you can help with the above,

Gray

[beachnut]

... main points of Griffith’s article (new member status) I’ll summarize them here.

12. Flight ability of Hanji Hanjour.
Gray lol, Griffith is the hearsay master of woo on 9/11. If he says it, it is wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89122

Hani. There is not one thing Hani did that required skill. 9/11 truth, terrorist apologist are liars and shallow researchers.

[DavidJames]

Welcome to the forum. If you don't mind, can you tell me why you spent time creating the list of DRG claims, did a "quick search" here, but apparently didn't bother read the results of your search, instead wanting people to do the work for you?

Sorry, maybe it's the "contrarian" in me, that wonders.

[Hokulele]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the hijackers and Al Qaeda's confessions, but were afraid to ask.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

[gumboot]

2. Immediately prior to the attacks the hijackers were acting completely unlike any devout Muslim would.

My work. (http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin22)
911 Myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html)



6. Reliability of video and physical evidence implicating al Qaeda.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this one, so you might need to expand on it a bit.


7. Failure of any pilots to send hijack code.

This one is relatively simple. The hijackers killed the pilots before they got the chance. The pilots of UA93 did manage to get out a "May Day" however.



12. Flight ability of Hanji Hanjour.

My Response (http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin23)
911 Myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)

13. Choice of Pentagon target area.

My response (http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin36).


14. E-48 in the air over the Pentagon at time of attack.

The E-4Bs (not E-48) were on standby or airborne for a NORAD exercise being conducted. They're often used by FEMA and other Government agencies for disaster relief. There's nothing really spectacular about their presence.

Of course in the context of questioning 9/11 there's nothing they could have provided from the air that couldn't have been provided by nefarious conspirators in a bunker somewhere on land, so their presence is rather irrelevant.


15. Failure of secret service to evacuate Bush.

This one I don't have any answers for, and am curious about myself. Having said that, I've not heard a plausible reason why the USSS should have evacuated Bush. He was safe and secure where he was. Moving him would have meant putting him at greater risk. The USSS wouldn't have done that unless they had reason to believe their location was under threat, and I don't think they did.




19. Giuliani’s foreknowledge of collapse.

My response (http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin34)

Hope that helps.

[1337m4n]

Hi Brannagyn! Welcome to JREF Forums.

Don't mind DavidJames, he gets moody sometimes. I assure you that I am way, way worse. :D

Could you please clarify #6? I assume you're referring to the tapes of them boarding the airplanes. Or perhaps you're interested in Osama's confession videos. You'll find we have a wealth of information on both.

[Brannagyn]

Hi guys and thanks for the responses.

Point six was comments by Griffith that the video footage of the terrorists was inaccurately timestamped and that physical evidence found at the site (passports and red Islamic headbands) were of questionable authenticity and/or discovered by unreliable sources. I had actually never heard about these things before myself. I would have imagined that any evidence of video-tampering would have been easily verifiable by the press and made public knowledge had it been true.

(@ DavidJames: A quick search was enough to turn up a huge amount of threads discussing the same issues. I read through a couple, and thus have no need for information of most of his points, but found that a lot of the information was being repeated or it would lead to a redirect to an earlier thread with clearer answers. As such I thought it would be more sensible to simply ask some of the considerate people here to point out the best threads on the subject and, as you can see, they kindly obliged. I can assure you the few moments it took to compose this request for help was far more cost effective than the several hours I spent last night reading fascinating, though at times repetitive threads and, once again, my thanks to those people who took the time to help me avoid several more hours of reading before finding the answers I was looking for.)

[Hokulele]

Hi guys and thanks for the responses.


Welcome to the forum! :)

One thing that would be a big help in the future would be to take your points one at a time, focusing just on the ones you still find questionable, rather than regurgitating everything in one post. This will make it much easier for others to address the single point, even if it is just providing a link. Just sayin'.

[Brainache]

G'day Brannagyn and welcome to the forum.

I was going to write a long and comprehensive answer to all of your questions using my super debunker research skills, but then I remembered that I'm basically here for laughs at Truthers. Luckily for you there are some very skilled researchers here at the JREF forum and some of them have answered you already.

So I'll just say:
How about those Truthers? Loons, or what?

[DavidJames]

I can assure you the few moments it took to compose this request for help was far more cost effective than the several hours I spent last night reading fascinating, though at times repetitive threads Of course it's more "cost effective", for you, when other people do the work.Don't mind DavidJames, he gets moody sometimes. I object to the word "sometimes". In fact, I don't like "gets" either. The rest, ok... ;)

[T.A.M.]

Very happy to have belatedly found this site as it looks like an excellent resource for analysis of a wide variety of topics of interest.

The factor which drew me here was recent exposure to a video of Rosie O’Donnell and William Rodriguez and a desire to check out the reliability of the latter’s claims. His apparent self-aggrandization made me skeptical of his lack of bias and I was happy to find suitable comments on his claims here.

The same source that provided the video also linked to an article by David Ray Griffin who, from a quick search, I can see has been dealt with frequently here. I’ve managed to find threads on many of the topics discussed but would appreciate pointers to opposing views on the remaining topics (in bold).
As I can’t link to it the main points of Griffith’s article (new member status) I’ll summarize them here.

1. According to the FBI there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to the attacks. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
2. Immediately prior to the attacks the hijackers were acting completely unlike any devout Muslim would.
3. The issue of cell phones making long lasting calls from such height and speed. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
4. The specific issue of the FBI stating that the only call made by Ted Olson’s wife was ‘unconnected’. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
5. Mohammed Atta’s trip to Portland. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
6. Reliability of video and physical evidence implicating al Qaeda.
7. Failure of any pilots to send hijack code.
8. Circumstantial evidence of ‘stand-down’ order. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
9-11. Flaws in Cheney’s timeline and the 9/11 Commission’s omission of this error. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
12. Flight ability of Hanji Hanjour.
13. Choice of Pentagon target area.
14. E-48 in the air over the Pentagon at time of attack.
15. Failure of secret service to evacuate Bush.
16-18. Fall of twin towers and WTC7. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
19. Giuliani’s foreknowledge of collapse.
20. Simple allegation of impartiality against NIST and 9/11 Commission. (PLEASE DISREGARD)
21. n/a

If anyone could post links to threads dealing with the above topics it would be much appreciated.

While I'm here I hope to clear up a lot of misinformation that has come my way from various sources. At the same time I'm by nature a contrarian and like to argue against the majority opinion, not because I believe it wrong but rather from a desire to test its strength and ability to accept criticism (plus perhaps a natural tendency to side with the underdog). Because of this I imagine that I might end up in discussion looking at things from the 'fringe' side of things to see if their views hold any validity. As such,　I'd like to point out from the get go that my arguing a particular view should not be taken as evidence that I either believe in or endorse such a view.

All the best, and once again thanks in advance if you can help with the above,

Gray

Others have addressed them well, but my thoughts, just off the top of my head, and what I know.

1. Hijackers not acting like devout muslims. Most agree that this was a combination of (A) mistaken Identity, and when true, likely in relation to the muslim practice of Takfir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir).

2. Reliability of physical and video evidence implicating Al-Qaeda. Most of this stems from the original video where OBl denied involvement, then in a later video admitted involvement. When you look at the video evidence, as a whole, it is very clear that it is reliable. You have a tape where OBL meets with other known Al-Qaeda leaders, and admits to his involvement. As well we have the confession videos of some of the martyrs. In addition there is video footage with OBL meeting with Ramzi Binalshibh, who was one of the operatives involved in the attack co-ordination. Physical evidence, unless you just assume it was planted (which many paranoiac truthers do), is plenty, including DNA evidence of several of the WTC hijackers, compared with samples found in hotel rooms and cars the hijackers had rented. It consists of some charred, but legible documents from them. It consists of confiscated evidence from a car they rented...there is much more.

3. Failure of any of the pilots to send a hijack code. I am not overly familiar with the evidence one side or the other on this one, but it does not surprise me, given the intent of the hijackers was to bust into the cockpit and immediately kill the pilots.

4. Flight ability of Hani Hanjour. Well he was qualified enough to get his commercial license. If someone has issue with his ability, then they should be very afraid, as there are hundreds if not thousands of other pilots, presently flying, with the same qualifications. Remember, he did not have to take off or land for the 9/11 attack, which is the most difficult, yet he got a license qualifying him to do just that.

5. I don't think there was any "choice" of what area of the Pentagon was hit. I think the pilot found the Pentagon, then once he had his target set, and had the plane in a position best to hit the building, he simply went for it. Speculation outside of this is...well...speculation.

6. E-48 over Pentagon. Why is that surprising, or even suspicious? A non starter if you ask me.

7. Not-evacuating Bush. Well first qualify that as not IMMEDIATELY evacuating Bush. My guess if they had already cleared the area he was is as safe, and felt he was in no immediate danger, decided to allow him to stay for a while. The better question is has anyone who questions this actually approached anyone with authority in the matter and asked them why this occured??

8. Guiliani and Foreknowledge. Well I would think that the Mayor and other important officials would be told in advance, if there were concerns the buildings might comedown. Has anyone provided you with evidence that Guiliani was told that the building was going to be taken down intentionally?
If not, I think it is safe to assume that it was caution on the part of fire officials etc....

Welcome to the forum.

TAM:)

[leonAzul]

Welcome to this site.

Be aware: I saw the twin towers go up, and some days I regret that I lived long enough to see them go down.

[PhantomWolf]

15. Failure of secret service to evacuate Bush.

The obvious response to this is "To where?"

The school had been secured for Bush's visit and the only other place that was a possible to take him was Air Force 1. That would have required travelling down an unsecured route back to a place that had lots of planes coming towards it. I don't know about the USSS, but unless I was told that there was a possible hijacked plane heading for Miami, I certainly wouldn't be moving him until I had a secured route and knew that I could get AF1 off the ground and in clear space without anyone attacking it. That takes time, if I had a safe and secure position till I have a clearance to move, I stay right where I am.

[gumboot]

The obvious response to this is "To where?"

The school had been secured for Bush's visit and the only other place that was a possible to take him was Air Force 1. That would have required travelling down an unsecured route back to a place that had lots of planes coming towards it. I don't know about the USSS, but unless I was told that there was a possible hijacked plane heading for Miami, I certainly wouldn't be moving him until I had a secured route and knew that I could get AF1 off the ground and in clear space without anyone attacking it. That takes time, if I had a safe and secure position till I have a clearance to move, I stay right where I am.


It's possible that when in sketchy locations the Air Force One crew keep the aircraft ready to fly at a moment's notice, however I suspect that's not the case when they're visiting a docile place inside the USA. Prepping a B747 for flight does take some time, and sticking POTUS in Air Force One to wait around for an hour is about as close as you can get to sticking up an enormous sign saying "Terrorists, attack here!"

[MarkyX]

2. Immediately prior to the attacks the hijackers were acting completely unlike any devout Muslim would.


Me thinks David Ray Griffin never met any muslim in his entire life.

[Brannagyn]

Of course it's more "cost effective", for you, when other people do the work.

Did you actually read my post above yours where I acknowledged this fact? Or the title of the thread and the use of the word "request"?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with that system of social interaction wherein one asks others to do something for you either because they can:
do it far more efficiently than you,
you are incapable of doing it,
or, you are simply unwilling to do it.
In consideration of the fact that you are actually wholly devoid of intersocial experience I'd like to also point out that this form of interaction is purely voluntary and generally done out of the goodness of the other person's heart. It does, however, often result in generation of comments of appreciation and positive recognition of the volunteer's character....but, perhaps I've strayed once more into terms you're unfamiliar with.

To the others above, thanks again for the comments. The site seems to be a valuable source of insightful views and opinions, marred only by the self-importance and meagre social proficiency of a minority of its members.

All the best,

Gray

[Travis]

To the others above, thanks again for the comments. The site seems to be a valuable source of insightful views and opinions, marred only by the self-importance and meagre social proficiency of a minority of its members.

All the best,

Gray

So you've already encountered some of our Truthers?:D

[T.A.M.]

Did you actually read my post above yours where I acknowledged this fact? Or the title of the thread and the use of the word "request"?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with that system of social interaction wherein one asks others to do something for you either because they can:
do it far more efficiently than you,
you are incapable of doing it,
or, you are simply unwilling to do it.
In consideration of the fact that you are actually wholly devoid of intersocial experience I'd like to also point out that this form of interaction is purely voluntary and generally done out of the goodness of the other person's heart. It does, however, often result in generation of comments of appreciation and positive recognition of the volunteer's character....but, perhaps I've strayed once more into terms you're unfamiliar with.

To the others above, thanks again for the comments. The site seems to be a valuable source of insightful views and opinions, marred only by the self-importance and meagre social proficiency of a minority of its members.

All the best,

Gray

While I will admit that DavidJames comment was a bit harsh, and a bit odd for him, to be honest, it does no good to retaliate with inflammatory and hostile remark. DavidJames has been here for sometime, and I have not known him to every be devoid of intersocial experience.

I suspect he mistook your inquiry for someone fishing at a socratic path to "da twoof". Of course, I could also be completely wrong.

TAM:)

[Pinch]

7. Failure of any pilots to send hijack code.

In order to send a "hijack" code, the pilots must physically set the code into the transponder. With "surprise" being one of the tactics of choice in this attack, it is quite obvious that 1) the aircrew did not have time to set the code in the transponder and 2) they were very likely fighting for their lives immediately after the terrorists/hijackers entered the cockpit.

12. Flight ability of Hanji Hanjour.

Hanjour and the other hijacker pilots could make their way around a cockpit very easily. You do not need to know all the intricacies of a 757 or 767 cockpit to fly the vehicle into a building. They did have various licenses, they had flown light civil aircraft before, they had had simulator time in large airliner jet simulators. Hydraulically boosted controls with digital flight computers meant the physical element of actually flying this aircraft was easy.

13. Choice of Pentagon target area.

What is so strange about this? Sure, you'd think the capital might be the most recognizable building in DC from the air, but we have no idea what was going on in the minds of the hijackers when they overflew the Pentagon and circled around to hit it.

14. E-48 in the air over the Pentagon at time of attack.

The E-4B, call sign Sword 31, was on a filed flight path to Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha the morning of 9/11 and was scheduled to participate in the NORAD exercise Global Guardian during its transit. Various sources (Tide88 provides this (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread387561/pg8#pid4954902) excellent post with a good link in it to what the E-4B was doing) are out there and I encourage you to take advantage of them. Bottom line is (my take) Sword 31 took off around 0923 that morning and had its flight plan canceled and its was re-tasked as an airborne command and control center (ACCC in mil acronym lingo, which is what it is designed for) and kept in the skies overhead DC to help radio communications links to ensure good comms between DC and the President.

[gumboot]

Technically the E-4B would have been taking part in the USSTRATCOM Exercise "Global Guardian". The NORAD CPX was "Vigilant Guardian". Having said that, I question whether Global Guardian was actually on that day - CinC USSTRATCOM was having a breakfast event with a bunch of business leaders and half his battle crew, and apparantly a scheduled tour of the USSTRATCOM Command Center and declassified mission briefing were next up on the agenda.

It would appear, therefore, that USSTRATCOM were not taking part in Guardian at the time. This isn't overly surprising as the various Guardian exercises overlap and various aspects are run together, but other aspects are run independently.

[Brannagyn]

TAM: Thanks for highlighting that segment

"In consideration of the fact that you are actually wholly devoid of intersocial experience"

I had actually intended to type "may actually be wholly devoid" and was honestly surprised to see what I'd put in its place. My apologies for that, it was stronger than it should have been.

While responding in kind to hostile remarks is generally pointless, I also wouldnt want to immediately be forced to ignore other posters. As he didnt seem to take my previous polite reply to his 1st post at face value I was left curious as to what his basic problem was.

@Travis: "So you've already encountered some of our Truthers?"

Actually no. I'm left wondering whether its worse to spout wild flights of fantasy with good intentions or to have rational theories and factual answers but use them to belittle people and wear as badge of intellectual superiority. Thankfully, as I said, these seem to be the minority.

[T.A.M.]

TAM: Thanks for highlighting that segment

"In consideration of the fact that you are actually wholly devoid of intersocial experience"

I had actually intended to type "may actually be wholly devoid" and was honestly surprised to see what I'd put in its place. My apologies for that, it was stronger than it should have been.

While responding in kind to hostile remarks is generally pointless, I also wouldnt want to immediately be forced to ignore other posters. As he didnt seem to take my previous polite reply to his 1st post at face value I was left curious as to what his basic problem was.

@Travis: "So you've already encountered some of our Truthers?"

Actually no. I'm left wondering whether its worse to spout wild flights of fantasy with good intentions or to have rational theories and factual answers but use them to belittle people and wear as badge of intellectual superiority. Thankfully, as I said, these seem to be the minority.

1. You are welcome.

2. Your last paragraph is an interesting one. Almost all of us here have the best intentions, and do our best to be educational, helpful, and as benign as possible. That said, it is very hard to maintain such standards when you are constantly (and I mean CONSTANTLY) inundated with the same tired, offensive, ridiculous theories and comments. You only have to see the line "No planes flew into the WTCs" so many times before you lose it, and just begin to intellectually mash the person to bits, superiority complex or not. It is either do so, or go cyberpostal on their ass.

TAM:)

[Brannagyn]

Thought the repetition might be a factor and I appreciate the efforts of those who persevere in the interests of providing assistance and information.

[rwguinn]

TAM: Thanks for highlighting that segment

"In consideration of the fact that you are actually wholly devoid of intersocial experience"

I had actually intended to type "may actually be wholly devoid" and was honestly surprised to see what I'd put in its place. My apologies for that, it was stronger than it should have been.

While responding in kind to hostile remarks is generally pointless, I also wouldnt want to immediately be forced to ignore other posters. As he didnt seem to take my previous polite reply to his 1st post at face value I was left curious as to what his basic problem was.

@Travis: "So you've already encountered some of our Truthers?"

Actually no. I'm left wondering whether its worse to spout wild flights of fantasy with good intentions or to have rational theories and factual answers but use them to belittle people and wear as badge of intellectual superiority. Thankfully, as I said, these seem to be the minority.

You must be aware that there are a lot of skeptics here (being a skeptics forum), and things you say are a lot less important than things you show evidence of.

A large number of people have come in, asking the same questions, (often paraphrased, but otherwise identical to yours), professing a desire to "debunk" the issue, and within a few posts, reveal the Jolly Roger when they can't get answers that support their true bleefs.
Pardon us if we are extremely suspicious of your intent. We have dealt with this many, many, many, many, many....many times before.

[leftysergeant]

Well come aboard. Please be sure your seatbelt is fastened at all times. And if you do not like occassional unpleasantries, you probably do not want to visit the political sub-fora.

13. Choice of Pentagon target area.[/B]

It is possible that Hani was going for the White House or the Capitol and realized when he reached a critical point that he was off course and decided to take out a secondary target rather than risk screwing up again. Whether it was a planned alternate or a target of opportunity is highly speculative. If it was a planned attack, he couldn't have picked a better approach. There are intervening elevated road ways and outbuildings on the other approaches that would have lessened the impact on the most significant parts of the structure itself. It is unlkikely that the remodelling was taken into consideration. Some might think that the work had temporaily weakened the structure, unless they had very detailed plans in hand of completion times and such. I also doubt that what offices they took out would have been a great consideration. Hitting any part of an enemy's command center is a significant coup. The operations seems to me planned to have as much a psychological impact as a material impact. Damaging morale, in a guerilla operation, can be as effective as damaging operational capabilities. This is especially important if you do not contemplate an immediate follow-up of any sort. The infrastructure can be rebuilt flawlessly. PTSD has lasting effects.

15. Failure of secret service to evacuate Bush.[/B]


This is actually a sign that someone was taking well-considered actions. They did not know immediately how many possibly hostile aircraft were airborn. I am not sure, but they may have wanted to call all civilian aircraft down before they even arrived at the air field.

If an attack on Bush was planned, the attackers would have probably known where AF 1 was parked. They would have to have been in place sometime before the attack, possibly before Bush's arrival. They would likely have known the route he took from the field to the school. There woulkd have to have been a decision taken as to whether it were better to return to the field by the same route or an alternate route. Certainly, they would have had to take steps to be sure that the return route was better-secured than would have been the original plan. In the mean time, Bush was near reasonably useful communications equipment and in hard-to-hit target. There was little he could have done airborne that he could not do from the school at that point, and he would have had a harder time communicating from a moving vehicle.

Could be, too, that they realized he was a bit too traumatized to respond properly in an emergency under way to AF 1 and wanted him to collect his wits before travelling.

[PhantomWolf]

It is possible that Hani was going for the White House or the Capitol and realized when he reached a critical point that he was off course and decided to take out a secondary target rather than risk screwing up again. Whether it was a planned alternate or a target of opportunity is highly speculative.

Well not really since the planner of the attacks has stated the four targets were the two towers of the WTC, the Pentagon and the Capitol building.