Holy shit, you mean the military has training exercises for hijackings? That’s suspicious because nobody ever hijacked a plane before.
Pardon my sarcasm, NYC_Chic, but would you mind saying what you mean rather than copying and pasting?
I already said it. My theory is the buildings were rigged with explosives and brought down in some form of controlled demolition.
So asking if something is an exercise means there was also an exercise going on at the same time? When a fire alarm goes off because of a real fire, if someone asks whether it is just a fire drill does that mean there was a fire drill scheduled for the same time?
And how does that quote support your theory? You’ve got pilots asking if there is a training exercise taking place and being told no. I interpret that to mean there was no a training exercise going on. 
Why don’t you tackle a slightly larger subject and show how two 110-story buildings were rigged with enormous quantities of explosives without anybody noticing?
Ninjas.
But what is your evidence for this? I could posit a theory of mutant space chipmunks using graviton acorns dropped from orbit…but without any evidence it’s just a theory (though a good theory which I fervently believe).
Bringing down buildings that big through demolition would entail a LOT of explosives, wiring and modifications to the infrastructure. It would leave a lot of evidence. So…let’s see some of it. AFAIK there is more evidence of graviton acorns than det cord in the buildings. When a building is brought down through controlled demolition the main load bearing supports are the things attacked. Inconveniently these members are usually buried within the structure and aren’t accessible to demolition…which is why it usually takes weeks or months to prepare a building for explosive demolition. Where is the evidence that hundred of guys were crawling around these buildings preparing them for such an event? Where is the evidence of explosive damage to those load bearing members? In real life when buildings are brought down using explosives there is a lot of evidence of those explosives and the wiring infrastructure used to detonate it.
-XT
Har Har.
What’s suspicious is the same time of the actual attack, there’s a stimulated attack going on that confuses the response to the emergency. It’s either extremely lucky on the part of the Arabs to have chosen this day for their operation;) or… a way to distract people who would have normally responded to facilitate the terrorist attack.
More cutting and pasting, from the 9/11 Timeline:
Exercise Includes Simulated Attack on the US - Vigilant Guardian is described as “an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide”; as a “simulated air war”; and as “an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.” According to the 9/11 Commission, it “postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.” [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; Filson, 2003, pp. 55 and 122; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 458] Vigilant Guardian is described as being held annually, and is one of NORAD’s four major annual exercises. [GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002; Filson, 2003, pp. 41; Arkin, 2005, pp. 545] However, one report says it takes place semi-annually. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] Accounts by participants vary on whether 9/11 is the second, third, or fourth day of the exercise. [Code One Magazine, 1/2002; Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/2002] Vigilant Guardian is a command post exercise (CPX), and in at least some previous years was conducted in conjunction with Stratcom’s Global Guardian exercise and a US Space Command exercise called Apollo Guardian. [US Congress, n.d.; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002; Arkin, 2005, pp. 545] All of NORAD is participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002]
Exercise Includes Simulated Hijacking - Vanity Fair reports that the “day’s exercise” (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is “designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ‘traditional’ simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] However, at NEADS, most of the dozen or so staff on the operations floor have no idea what the exercise is going to entail and are ready for anything. [Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004]
NORAD Fully Staffed and Alert - NORAD is currently running a real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance (see September 9-11, 2001). It may also be conducting a field training exercise calling Amalgam Warrior on this morning (see 9:28 a.m. September 11, 2001). NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command will be in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported. An article later says, “In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on September 11.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; Bergen Record, 12/5/2003] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NEADS, will say: “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/2002] However, Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise (see (8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Or . … it juuuuust might have something to do with a pair of huge planes slamming into them.
Your theory doesn’t explain what happened any better than the “planes did it” theory doesn’t, and suffers from being nearly impossible to pull off, lacking in evidence, AND lacking in motive.
And here we go.
That scenario doesn’t make a lick of sense. Why would you bother to fly an airplane into a building you’ve wired with explosives? Too much chance of things going wrong. What if you cut the wires? Then you’ve got explosives all over the building, detonator cord, and so on, and the building is still standing.
Remember the fires and devastation when the planes hit? And how the collapsed much later? And how they didn’t collapse like a controlled demolition from the bottom up, but collapsed in an atypical way from the top down?
The reason the buildings look as if they were brought down by a controlled demolition is because the only building collapses you’ve ever seen were controlled demolitions. And in a demolition what really collapses the building isn’t the explosives, but gravity. You simply weaken the support members past their ability to support the structure and gravity does the rest.
And the same thing happened at the WTC. The impacts and fires weakened the support members past their ability to support the structure and gravity did the rest.
If you’re a shadowy cabal of Illuminati who wants a new pearl harbor so you can institute fascism, you either wire the buildings with explosives and detonate them, or you fly airplanes into them. Doing both makes no fucking sense. And if I were an Illuminatus I’d have voted for the planes method. They only needed 19 guys! How many people would be needed to wire the WTC for demolition? And how do you keep people from noticing? It’s a retarded plan, and any Illuminatus who proposed it would be fed to the Shoggoths as too stupid to be allowed to live.
But you don’t say how often these kind of simulations are run. If they’re commonplace, it’s not even a very interesting coincidence.
By the way, you didn’t answer my question, AND you may have overlooked this comment from the author of the story you linked to:
Yeah, but gravity is just a theory too.
“The cleanup took months, but they wanted to do it as fast as possible because, as you may have noticed, it’s right in the middle of a very active financial district. Thousands and thousands of people worked and lived there.”
I actually live in New York. I know that area well, my mother worked on Maiden Lane for like 20 years.There was so much stuff in the air and the area was so cordoned off that when NY One did a show a year later, people were *just *coming back. Most of the businesses there before 9/11 relocated to Jersey and the very wealthy people that live there stayed elsewhere.
Even now, almost 8 years later, traffic circles in such a way that you can’t even tell how much of that area you don’t have access to. I used to take the PATH into work and except what you needed to use to get onto the train, you don’t have access to that area. There was no reason therefore to “get rid of” anything or to put the call out immediately so by the next morning, the area was flooded with cleanup workers. And it was the NEXT morning. They started shipping off the steel the NEXT day. Even when the fire chief was protesting a week later that a three day walk thru was not thorough enough an investigation, Guiliani did not stop shipping it out.
So, we’re going to excuse that as “not a good thing” and accept your hypothesis that its just the FBI being secretive, aww shucks.
How many other times has the black box not been found after a crash?
One thing I’ve noticed reading threads about this here and on JREF and other sites, is that people don’t like supposition if it directly challenges their belief systems. This applies to “Derbunkers” and “Twoofers” alike.
Any speculation is usually met with ridiculous cries for production of “evidence” both sides know in all likelihood does not exist. Or at least not in the realms of reach of the average messageboard user.
I understand the importance of ‘facts’, but the facts are, we basically haven’t got a clue what is being done in “our benefit” and with our tax proceeds. Case in point, black budget operations. Every developed nation will have one of these departments and they basically operate with no accountable oversight whatsoever.
These thoughts are nothing to do with having a misanthropic or paranoid view of the world; we all too often see government and military abuses of power, so we can’t deny it goes on.
He was asking for clarification as to whether or not this was a real emergency or part of the training exercises taking place that day. Not like if a fire alarm goes off and you ask if its just a fire drill. More like if there’s a fire drill going on and someone starts screaming the room is on fire and you ask is the room really on fire or are they just trying to hype up the fire drill.
I posted the link from the 9/11 timeline. Read, maybe?
Somebody else pointed out that your source probably invented the story about finding the black boxes to sell a book. I think it’s possible the FBI has the black boxes, and if they kept it quiet, I think that’s wrong but also not proof of any other plot.
I don’t know. How many times have jetliners hit skycrapers in recent memory? Perhaps you should look into it, since you’re the one who thinks it means something.
Again, I point out that you haven’t discussed how the demolition was set up. For that matter you didn’t address the comments about Bellone.
Actually I think that not finding the ‘black box’, or finding it but it being so damaged that it’s unusable happens fairly often. Remember…the plane hit a building at several hundred miles an hour, then burned uncontrollably for a period of time (usually when they hit the ground there are fire fighters at hand…also, since they generally hit the GROUND there aren’t a lot of other fuel sources about to maintain the fire, or to concentrate the fuel in a small area. Like, say, a building), and then the building collapsed. Is it REALLY that hard to understand how the black boxes could have been lost, destroyed or so damaged as to be unusable? I get the impression that some folks think these black boxes are indestructible…they aren’t.
-XT
O ye of little faith!
Because we all know, all crimes and horrendous acts make perfect sense and criminals and killers are very linear and straightforward in there thinking.
I’m sure I won’t convince the faithful, but here is a really good video explaining the NIST investigation. It’s worth watching IMHO.
-XT
But there are differing levels of conspiracy. If we found out that the 9/11 hijackers were secretly financed by the CIA, or if Bush knew the attack was going to happen but let it happen anyway, or that evidence that would have stopped the attacks was on someone’s desk but they ignored it and then covered up their failure after the attacks–well, all those things are thinkable.
But the controlled demolition theory is in a whole other category. It doesn’t make sense, and it ignores the plain evidence. Any conspiracy theory that doesn’t include 19 guys getting on board 4 airplanes and trying to crash those planes into various landmarks can be dismissed as impossible. Conspiracy theories about who those guys really were and why they boarded the planes and who helped them and who knew at least have the advantage of not being instantly contradicted by the evidence.
So if your theory is that Cheney knew, I don’t think it’s true but I can’t disprove it. If your theory is that the planes didn’t really crash into the WTC and the crash didn’t collapse the WTC, then I can easily disprove it.