9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Because it is a inaccurate description of the hijackers.

There are already enough myths regarding 9/11, we don't need more.

 

9/11 Commision Report, pages 4-14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
See the paragraphs under 'events'. Includes other links.

 

Sweeney, from the way I read it, was just repeating the threat/warning of bombs on board the plane that the hijackers had proclaimed. There doesn't seem to be a link to her actually seeing the bombs or any evidence of bombs herself. I searched the .pdf for 'bomb'. There was nothing indicating that type of cause and effect.

 

In reading the report it seems I was in error: the hijackers threatened the use and presence of bombs, but there's no report of anyone actually seeing one.

 

What's the magic report say about WTC7?

 

There are no 'magic reports'. Magic was not used on 9/11.

 

What does the report say about the mysterious collapse of WTC7?

 

No mystery there, it got its very own report.

http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

 

Source Page 5.

There are a few other quotes about passengers saying that the hijackers had bombs. No one specifically said that they saw a bomb. Just clarifying it here. The statements about bombs were from the terrorists as a scare tactic to keep people from revolting.

There about 20 more that I can locate. Like I said though, all state that the terrorists claim to have a bomb. None that actually saw the bombs themselves.

 

Those swaps? Which swaps are you referring to?

The only trade I know of that was suspect turned out to be:

Seems like a stupid strategy if the person had foreknowledge of the attacks.

 

Yeah. I was just disputing that they had "wore fake bomb vests," as well, the indication that any of the people on board the doomed planes actually saw 'bombs'.

 

Does that make a difference in terms of passenger response? We're talking about (or at least I think we're talking about) passenger psychology. I think what really makes the difference here is what the passengers think the hijacker's motives are, not what they are armed with. Early in the day I don't believe passengers had enough information to suspect that the aircraft themselves were being used as weapons. It wasn't until outside information was able to get inside the aircraft that the passengers really knew what they were up against.

 

Do you want me to go pull the Asia times story again?

I've already beat you to death with it before(Metaphorically of course).

My financial knowledge > Yours

 

Asia Times?

Who uses that as a source?

 

There you go.

The problem is that this didn't work for you last time. because I would then pull the specific information, and the source where they got it from, and ask you to explain exactly how it was wrong.

You then attepmt to dance around the question, as I relentlessly bring you back to the point of specific examples of where money went, and financial experts with unquestionable credentials, and resume's, stating on the record these trades defy logic without prior knowledge to 9-11, and that much of the money made from these bets was never collected, as they were exposed, and collecting the money would open them up to criminal prosecution.

 

Only took what??? 7 or 8 years to generate that huh? I'm sure some might actually believe it's worth reading this late in the game. .

 

So prove why it's NOT,then.

And quit whining.

 

I'm waiting for the "genuine discussion" thread to offer up something before I incorporate its "inconsistencies" here. Should that actually occur, I'll jump in. Till then....if you can't beat 'em, I say join 'em. Goose, gander.....all that.

 

Sorry fraud,'imagined' inconsistencies don't count.

 

Yes, they were quite thorough in their investigation.

 

Why wait to be genuine? Why not just be genuine from the start?

 

You must have me confused with someone else.

Rather than puff up your e-chest over some imagined conquest, why not just answer the question?

 

Not to beat Fang's point to death, but in reviewing the document you can tell that several passengers were under the impression that they did have bombs. At that point there was no reason to question it at all. They had just stormed the cockpit, slit throats, and sprayed mace. In almost every previous hijacking the terrorists used bombs, landed at the airport and negotiated *insert ransom here*. At that point fear was the biggest weapon.

And pimptight, the put options have been debunked to death. Who uses that meme anymore? If your financial knowledge is so superior, than you would know that if they couldn't collect the money due to criminal prosecution than why would they do it in the first place? Common sense trumps your invisible financial knowledge. Any investor worth their weight in applesauce would be able to tell you that those trades would be tracked and brought to light. If anything, it would be more strange if absolutely no one went near the stocks at all and they fell off. At this point, your line of reasoning is flawed. Please put the e-ego away.

 

That's a great observation! Maybe there IS cause for hope! That's what I've always wanted to know. Why does a story need to change so many times?


Seriously though....shills....etc,etc. I applaud your dedication.

 

The story did not change so much as it was fleshed-out by discoveries of the exact processes by which the buildings fell.


Seriously though....conspiracy theory shills....etc,etc. I applaud your dedication.