Skeptic Project

If they are cutting columns they can cut them at an angle so they will fall where they want them to like tree cutters so how is that a waste of their time?

I happen to be a professional arborist. Are you talking about your shady uncle cutting down a sweet gum tree in his back yard with a Poulan or a professional arborist wielding a Stihl and bore-cutting a fifty inch white oak? I'll tell you one thing, if you cut a tree "at an angle" on a job site, two things will happen. 1) boisterous laughter; 2) termination of your employment

Okay, I lied a little when I said I was done in this thread.

I'm shocked...

This is the same argument people use when they say things like "how could a dying man in a cave in Afghanistan demolish the World Trade Center with box cutters".

That is silly. Its also silly to say that that arabs couldn't possibly have hijacked a plane.

These people identified as "suicide hijackers" had virtually nothing in the way of resources,

Al Qaeda does have resources, sorry. But on 911 they STOLE the resources, the planes, they hijacked them remember?

and had no access to the buildings,

They didn't need to.

Of course I see where you are going, you're claiming its ridiculous hijackers could have carried out 911 based on the false assumption that explosives were in the WTC and so they would have had to plant explosives in there and since that's ridiculous then the idea that they hijacked jets and flew them into buildings is also ridiculous.

yet they were able to utterly demolish not only the two towers that were struck by planes,

The collapse was inevitable, many experts said they survived better than expected.

but also Seven World Trade Center, which was not hit with anything. whoa

Is that all? No. The collapse of towers 1 + 2 destroyed A LOT of buildings. All the other WTC buildings were destroyed and with WTC6 it had a MASSIVE internal collapse.

Even the collapse of WTC7 itself also damaged buildings across the street from it so badly that it had to be torn down (ie 30 West Broadway.)

These men were apparently so clever they could accomplish the demolitions so effectively,

Fallacy. Your assumption that they demolished anything worked into a conclusion.

You have not proved demolition.

but they were also so bumbling that they left a trail of bread crumbs for the FBI to follow, including trips to strip bars, arabic flight manuals, flight computers, wills left in luggage, passports that survived the crashes and fireballs, etcetera. eh-hem

And then came right out and admitted many times they carried it out and were happy about it. The only reason they wouldnt want to be found out is if they didnt want anyone to know about it, and obviously they did.

Nothing you said, as twisted as it was, comes close to the logical knots you have to tie yourself in to believe what you do. Tell me about those hijackers again? That's one example of how retarded you are trying to convince us these conspirators are. But you also think they are capable of perfectly orchestrating the demolition of two of the tallest buildings on earth using a super secret demolition method never used before or since. Lets keep talking and I can point out some more examples of how you are trying to tell us how genius they are and how stupid they are at the same time, that is sure to be fun.

passports that survived the crashes and fireballs, etcetera. eh-hem

See, like this.

Truthers must believe that all the plane debris that was found on the street after the impacts were planted shortly after by some kind of secret team of black ops ninjas under the noses of all the NYC citizens.

You see not only did they find a passport they found all kinds of plane parts, personal effects, plane seats, lifejackets and even the airplane itinerary etc etc
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911</p>

You dont find truthers that talk about the passport ever mention all that though, I wonder why!

So in this case we have to be convinced of the genius' of this plot to plant all this stuff with no one noticing, yet at the same time they are morons for trying because truthers claim its impossible for all this stuff to survive.

as far as how fast the buildings collapsed, we have the "official" story:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html<br /> 'Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report states, "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, .... The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud."'

"drjudywood.com"

lolgtfo

...proof that not a single one of the 19 hijackers has been seen alive since 9/11?

Such proof lies outside the realm of the possible. No fewer than seven of these people have come forward of their own volition to clear their names.

...proof that no one has ever claimed that it was "jet fuel melting steel" that caused the towers to collapse, but in fact it was structural weakening (which occurs at a much lower temperature than melting point) combined with physical damage from the plane strikes that began the cascading collapse?

Again, such proof lies outside the realm of the possible. Many people have said that jet fuel melted steel, and the "official" story states that jet fuel fires "weakened" the steel (of the entire building at once, apparently), never mind that the temperature of a jet fuel fire is not hot enough to reach the first critical threshold where steel actually begins to weaken. Either way this is a non-starter, you can't burn down a steel-frame skyscraper with what is essentially a kerosene and office fire. Also we have video evidence of literally molten metal pouring out of the building before it was demolished. It isn't aluminum, aluminum doesn't luminesce when it's melted, in other words it doesn't get "red hot" yet we see "red hot" metal pouring out of the building. Where'd it come from? Who know, who cares, it's just another "coincidence" for coincidence theorists to latch onto.

...proof that the bulk of the insurance award Silverstein received for the WTC losses was legally required to be put into the rebuilding of them?

For one thing, the towers aren't being rebuilt. The site is going to be home not only to New York City's newly envisioned transit hub, but also the "Freedom Tower".

Also, Larry Silverstein paid only two hundred million dollars on a seven week old lease before he was awarded a seven billion dollar payout. The lease was forgiven so he owes nothing to the New York Port Authority, and he made a cool seven billion in profit. Pretty smooth, no wonder this man is one of the richest australian jews on the planet.

I sort of wish you would live up to your promise to stop posting about this, because I get so tired of reading the same Truther shit I have for years.

no wonder this man is one of the richest australian jews on the planet.

I love it. There's reason to mention that he is a Jew.

All aboard the Joo Train!

I always love how Silverstein gets roped into the conspiracy. What possible role could he have played?

It's like, the military (who Plautus evidently believes is responsible for the disaster, despite not a shred of evidence) decided, "Hey, we're going to blow up the World Trade Center for oil profits so we can justify attacking Afghanistan, a country that has no oil...and oh, by the way, we'll let Silverstein in on the plot so he can make a killing on the insurance money, because we're just nice guys n' stuff."

Whose job was it, Plautus, to convince the Pentagon to give Silverstein such a sweetheart deal? Who approved it? Why? What possible benefit could it have been to anybody but Silverstein?

""Hey, we're going to blow up the World Trade Center for oil profits so we can justify attacking Afghanistan, a country that has no oil...and oh, by the way, we'll let Silverstein in on the plot so he can make a killing on the insurance money, because we're just nice guys n' stuff.""

We invaded Afghanistan to take over the poppy fields. Synthesizing Rush Limbaugh's opiates ruined the economy.

Okay, I lied a little when I said I was done in this thread.

I'm shocked...

I only said I was going to stop because I was accused of "hijacking". I guess if nobody gives a shit, I don't care either. I just didn't want to get in "trouble".

That is silly. Its also silly to say that that arabs couldn't possibly have hijacked a plane.

Actually in the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition there were exactly zero successful hijackings in the United States. I checked the statistics, there were two or three attempts, all foiled. Ronald Reagan declared a "war on terror", if you're old enough to remember that. Under his reign, a system called "Home Run" was implemented so that all civilian passenger jets could be commandeered from the ground by remote control, making hijacking from the cockpit a literal impossibility.

Al Qaeda does have resources, sorry. But on 911 they STOLE the resources, the planes, they hijacked them remember?

See above as to whether the planes were hijacked from inside the cockpits. Also, "al qaeda" is just the name given to the mujahadeen by the CIA when they were on the payroll in Afghanistan. It's a myth, more or less, and the Mossad has been busted in Gaza and other places trying to establish fake "terrorist cells" by recruiting locals and telling them they were "al qaeda".

The collapse was inevitable, many experts said they survived better than expected.

If by "inevitable" you mean the buildings were physical constructs and thus doomed to eventual deterioration, then you're right. If you mean the buildings were not designed to and capable of withstanding plane impacts, you are abjectly wrong. The designer of the towers said they were built to withstand the impacts and subsequent fires, and we all saw them survive the impacts and subsequent fires. Then we saw them being demolished in a controlled fashion by well-placed explosives put there in advance of the plane impacts.

The collapse of towers 1 + 2 destroyed A LOT of buildings.

Identify one.

Even the collapse of WTC7 itself also damaged buildings across the street from it so badly that it had to be torn down (ie 30 West Broadway.)

It's true that this event spurred a lot of demolition, it was the perfect excuse to clear out some deadwood from downtown New York City.

Fallacy. Your assumption that they demolished anything worked into a conclusion.

You have not proved demolition.

umm...seriously? The buildings were both demolished, don't you remember? Oh, wait, are you saying these nineteen men the FBI conspiracy theory identified did not do it? Oh, I agree with you completely.

And then came right out and admitted many times they carried it out and were happy about it.

The "suicide hijackers" boasted about it? Did they do it from beyond the grave? I think maybe you're confusing those men with the israelis arrested standing on top of an Urban Moving Systems van, recording the entire incident from long before the planes started hitting. Also recovered from another israeli in a similar moving van was a video of the Sears Tower made at the same time. The plane that was shot down over Pennsylvania was slated to arrive in Chicago around that time. How curious, the Sears Tower is in Chicago. Several years later Silverstein put in a bid to buy the Sears Tower. :D

But you also think they are capable of perfectly orchestrating the demolition of two of the tallest buildings on earth using a super secret demolition method never used before or since.

I think you're confusing my contentions with yours. It's you who's suggesting this new method of building demolition (airplane impact and subsequent office fires).

Truthers must believe that all the plane debris that was found on the street after the impacts were planted shortly after by some kind of secret team of black ops ninjas under the noses of all the NYC citizens.

There's no reason to plant any evidence, it can simply be inserted into the chain of custody at any point by complicit agents of the FBI. Also, there was Daniel Lewin on board one of the planes, former israeli special forces, founder of Akamai, supposedly sitting right in between two hijackers. He couldn't handle two scared kids with boxcutters? The guy was israeli special forces, he was trained to kill people with his bare hands if necessary, and he just let them fly the planes into buildings? What was he doing on the plane, anyway?

You see not only did they find a passport they found all kinds of plane parts, personal effects, plane seats, lifejackets and even the airplane itinerary etc etc

That's great.

""Hey, we're going to blow up the World Trade Center for oil profits so we can justify attacking Afghanistan, a country that has no oil...and oh, by the way, we'll let Silverstein in on the plot so he can make a killing on the insurance money, because we're just nice guys n' stuff.""

That's essentially what happened. By the way, Afghanistan is a key transport nation in the region. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan both have lots of gas and oil that need to get to market, the only other way out for them is through Iran, and Iran has its own gas and oil to export. Afghanistan is key to the US strategy of seizing the last of the precious "juice". You might also remember that the World Trade Center demolition engendered a lot of support for the invasion of Iraq, we even had millions of dullards believing that Saddam Hussein demolished the World Trade Center and that he had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (all of which we sold him, all of which was long past its usable "shelf life", all of which was also destroyed, none of which were ever found, which we knew, or we wouldn't have invaded yet). Ask UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter about that, if you're not convinced. He contends it was the US that threw UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein.

We invaded Afghanistan to take over the poppy fields. Synthesizing Rush Limbaugh's opiates ruined the economy.

Actually, the Bush regime paid off the Taliban to the tune of about forty million dollars for the single most successful drug interdiction in the history of the world. The Taliban razed 98% of the poppy fields before the invasion, leaving only a tiny fraction which was under control of the "Northern Alliance", a gang of serial rapists led by an Uzbek gangster Abdul Rashid Dostum. If you remember, Dostum was featured on the television news talking about how "Usama" (he pronounced it quite clearly as usama, not osama) bin Laden was responsible and the Taliban were going to pay. Minutes after the World Trade Center was demolished, the "Northern Alliance" began attacking the Taliban. Do you remember the night shots of rockets blazing through the air and exploding? I do. I have an attention span like an oil painting and an excellent memory, not the attention span of a mayfly on crack and the memory of a goldfish.

So these insurance companies must have been given loads of money from the government! So the government had to pay billions of dollars to insurance companies to keep them sweet for allowing Silverstein to make billions .. yes makes total sense!

The insurers protested, and it went to court in a lengthy and vitriolic process. For example, Swiss Reinsurance protested Silverstein's claim, a jury upheld their views, April, 2004, stating that all ten insurers would pay only for a single occurrence, in other words, 3.5 billion dollars. Three more insurers were added at that time. A second trial (why? how?) led to nine insurers being liable for a double occurrence, in other words, they had to pay double the face value of the policies. That was in December, 2004. Three years after the fact. It wasn't until 2007 when a settlement between Silverstein and the New York Port Authority, and the various insurers, was reached. That's six years after the fact. So it isn't as if these insurers just gladly handed over the money. They protested loudly and longly.

I don't know if it's really relevant to this discussion per se, but do a quick Google search for "insurance bailout" and you'll find that the US government has handed HUNDREDS of billions of dollars to insurance companies, such as AIG. This began in 2008, a year after the settlements between Silverstein and his insurers. eh-hem

And don't forget they also didn't make any connections to Iraq or put any Iraqi's on the plane to give them a reason to attack Iraq (its best if you use hijackers from a country you're allies with like Saudi Arabia) and then they didn't make any WMDs and had to admit they didn't exist and there was no connection to Iraq from 911 on TV and make themselves look really bad.

It turns out that it wasn't necessary to directly implicate Saddam Hussein or Iraq, since the US public is exceedingly ignorant and stupid:

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/linkstoTerr.cfm</p>

An overwhelming majority believes the Iraqi government is actively involved in supporting terrorists, though the public seems unsure if it is connected to the September 11 attacks. Iraq's possible links to terrorism and September 11 appear to play a minor role in justifying support for military action among the general population. However, belief in the link between Saddam Hussein and September 11 plays a critical role for a significant minority, such that without it there might not be majority support for military action. If new evidence were established showing links between Iraq and terrorist groups, this would substantially increase support for military action.

Iraq's Links to Terrorism

A near-unanimous majority believes that the Iraqi government trains and supports terrorists. In an August 2002 Gallup survey, 86% said they think "Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States." Just 8% felt Hussein was not involved in such activities (don't know: 6%). This is virtually unchanged since late 2001, when Wirthlin found 91% saying they "believe that Iraq encourages, trains, and supports terrorists." Asked the same question by Penn, Schoen and Berland in September 2001, 91% believed Iraq was involved in aiding terrorists. Most recently, Newsweek elaborated a different version, asking whether respondents "believe[d] that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and helping them to develop chemical weapons." A somewhat lower 75% said they believed this (September 2002). [1]

Also, an overwhelming majority believes that removing Saddam Hussein would be at least somewhat effective as a step in the war on terrorism. A November 2001 Zogby poll found 80% who said this would be at least "somewhat effective" (with 48% saying "very effective"). [2]

Iraq is even seen as more supportive of terrorists than Iran. When asked in an August 2002 Fox poll whether Iraq or Iran "is a stronger supporter of terrorism and poses the greater immediate danger to the United States," a strong plurality of 49% chose Iraq. Just 18% chose Iran, while 23% volunteered that they were both about equal. [3]

It is not clear, however, that a majority believes there is a connection between Iraq and the September 11 terrorist attacks. When respondents were asked to say who they thought was responsible for the September 11 attacks, a fairly small percentage identified Saddam Hussein or Iraq. Shortly after September 11, respondents were asked the open-ended question: "Who do you think is more responsible [sic] for the recent terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon?" Only 3% proposed Saddam Hussein or Iraq, while 57% named Osama bin Laden as the most likely suspect. All who answered were asked for a second choice; this time Iraq scored higher, but still only got 27% of responses (Wirthlin, September 15-17, 2001). When a CNN/USA Today poll presented Iraq as a possible object of blame for September 11, 41% said they blamed Iraq "a great deal", but this was lower than the percentage blaming other countries and actors a great deal, including Osama bin Laden (83%), Afghanistan (64%), and fundamentalist Muslim leaders (53%). [4]

<quote>One poll has found a slight majority saying that Iraq was behind the attacks. In August 2002, a Gallup poll found 53% saying they believed "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks"; 34% did not think so and 13% had no opinion. However it should be noted that this question immediately followed a question in which 86% agreed that Hussein was involved in supporting terrorists generally, so that a 'response set' may have accounted for some of this agreement with the question about September 11.</quote> [5]

Justification for Military Action

Iraq's possible links to terrorists and September 11 seem to play a fairly minor role in most Americans' support for taking military action against Iraq. When a poll question specifically made the connection between Iraq's link to terrorism in general (not specifically September 11) and attacking Iraq, a modest majority saw it as a justification. Asked, "In your mind, is there enough of a link between Iraq and terrorism to justify a US military campaign to try to topple the regime…or does the US need to offer more evidence?" 55% said there was enough of a link; 34% said the US needed to offer more evidence (11% not sure; Investors' Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor, December 2001). However when an August Gallup poll asked respondents who said they had a clear idea why the U.S. is considering military action against Iraq to cite "the reasons why the United States may take new military action against Iraq." Just 4% said it was because Iraq had something to do with terrorism. [6]

However, it does appear that for a significant minority Iraq's possible links to September 11 plays an important role in its support for taking action against Iraq. When NBC/Wall Street Journal asked in January 2002 whether the US should "take military action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, even if Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks," only 47% said the US should take military action in that case, while 42% said the US should not. This level of support for military action is approximately 20% lower than questions that have simply asked about taking military action. Thus it appears that were it not for this possible linkage between Saddam Hussein and September 11 in the minds of a minority of Americans, there would not be clear majority support for taking military action against Iraq. [7]

Several poll questions reveal that if new evidence emerged linking Iraq to terrorism this would strengthen support for taking military action. In Pew polls taken in both January and April 2002, when respondents were asked to suppose "we learned that Iraq helped terrorists attack the United States," an overwhelming 83% said they would see it as a "very important reason to justify the use of military force." In the January survey, Pew also found that "if we learned that Iraq was harboring other terrorists," 75% would see this as a very important reason to justify the use of military force.

It also appears that when the President makes an association between Iraq and terrorists this elevates slightly the support for military action. Told in a February 2002 Los Angeles Times poll that "George W. Bush has named Iraq as one of the countries that are harboring terrorists and stockpiling chemical, biological and nuclear weapons," 77% then favored "taking military action against terrorist targets in Iraq"-a percentage a bit higher than most polls find when respondents are not given this information. [9]

>> It turns out that it wasn't necessary to directly implicate Saddam Hussein or Iraq, since the US public is exceedingly ignorant and stupid:

Name an educated public full of wise people.

Actually in the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition there were exactly zero successful hijackings in the United States.

2. Whats your definition of successful? Apparently pretty weak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings</blockquote>

This wikipedia article you cite only confirms what I said. In the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition there were exactly zero successful hijackings in the United States. Check the information in that article, you'll see it agrees precisely with exactly what I said. EXACTLY ZERO SUCCESSFUL HIJACKINGS IN THE UNITES STATES

3. Even other truthers think the Home Run claims are absurd:
http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm<br /> http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html</p>

Whether or not people think it's absurd, it's a fact. All civilian passenger jets in the United States are equipped with this system, it was integrated into their designs on the drawing board, and it was a sensible move, to be honest. You don't want passengers to have the capacity to take over and fly the plane. Not to put this system in place would have been negligence of the highest order. Remote control technology existed in the forties, it's not magical, it's not mystical, it's not science fiction, it't science fact. I, myself, owned a remotely controlled airplane in the seventies. This technology was mature enough then to operate in miniature inside a toy plane so clearly it would have been possible and desirable to install such systems in passenger jets. As I stated, it would be supremely negligent NOT to do so. Is your government supremely negligent? This is the other side of the coincidence theorists' coins, they'd have you believe everything is due to coincidence and incompetence, that nineteen "terrorists" are able to outwit the entire United States military and state department. It's absurd on its face, and quite frankly I'm amazed you would put yourself in such a position of intellectual weakness by arguing in favor of it.

Are you seriously suggesting all Islamic fundamentalists are fake and that none of them really want to attack the US?

No.

They didnt survive the fires, the fires were raging out of control. Please do try and claim they weren't bad and I can make you look bad.

Look, we all saw it happen, we all saw those buildings stand in the face of the impacts and the fires. When the buildings did collapse, they did so at slightly slower than freefall speed. period

He said they designed the towers to withstand the largest airliner at the time and 707 LOST and LOW ON FUEL and that they did not factor in the subsequent fires from the fuel.

This is partly wrong and partly right. The buildings were designed to withstand both the impacts and subsequent fires. It's true that the 707 was used for the model. It's also true that the impacts of the actual planes was comparable to the impacts the buildings were designed to withstand. One plane was heavier and slower, the other was lighter and faster, the physics tells us the impacts and fuel load fires would be nearly identical.

All a conspiracy right?

All a coincidence and incompetence on the part of the authorities, right?

Many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, Verizon, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, is currently being deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse.[63]

None of these buildings you mention in the quotation above collapsed due to damage, of the ones that aren't still standing and being used, without exception they were demolished by demolition teams, not demolished by falling debris from the World Trade Center towers or from Seven World Trade Center. The buildings collapsed almost entirely into their own footprints. Almost all of the debris with the exception of the aluminum cladding and some of the outer structural columns landed in a pile of small pieces in the footprint of the buildings. Incidentally, what blew the aluminum cladding and structural steel across streets to be embedded in neighboring buildings if not explosives? Did the structural steel beams float like gliders?

Wow so after just saying that they only destroyed 3 buildings on 911 I tell you thats 100% bollocks and you don't admit it, just say that even if other buildings were destroyed that was all intentional and they knew exactly which buildings they wanted to destroy and they knew exactly how the building was going to fall to cause that damge, like 30 West Broadway. Its even funnier of course because truthers like to claim WTC7 fell all neatly into its own footprint so it didnt damage other buildings, yet it destroys a building across a 4 lane street, but that was intentional.

Again, no building was completely or even significantly destroyed by falling debris. In every case these damaged buildings were either repaired and are in use still or they were demolished by demolition teams after the fact.

I'm obviously talking about Bin laden and other Al Qaeda members and sympathisers you twit, why be so intentionally idiotic?

Actually Usama bin Laden denied any involvement on three separate occasions. The fact that you think he boasted about his supposed involvement shows to me just how delusional you are. You fell for the movie, you took your eye off the ball and now you have a head full of bad wiring. Sorry about your bad luck.

How do you know they set up before the attack occurred?

The israelis arrested from the top of an Urban Moving Systems van had video of the World Trade Center covering some time span leading up the the plane impacts, the subsequent impacts, and the immediate aftermath. They were turned in by a concerned citizen who noticed them all laughing, cavorting and high-fiving each other after the planes hit. The video of the Sears tower was taken at the same time, and recovered much later, in the possession of one Moshe "Moses" Elmakias, an israeli who was arrested and deported for treason along with dozens of other israelis who were usually (but not always) identified in the media as being from an "arab nation", which Israel is, it's teeming with arabs.

Maybe if he realised they were going to fly the plane into the building he would have done something.

Daniel Lewin, former israeli special forces and founder of Akamai, was in a perfect position to interrupt any hijackings that might have been taking place, yet he did nothing. We were first told that he was shot in the head, to explain his inaction, then we were told he was stabbed to death. Stabbed to death, with box cutters, by two scared arab kids, and he's former israeli special forces...um...

You weren't told to beat the crap out of hijacker's because you assumed they wanted to see tomorrow, just let them land and let the SWAT team sort it out.

The very wikipedia article you cited that proved my claims about the utter lack of successful hijackings does mention one attempt where the flight crew supposedly subdued the hijacker. As you state, this is more or less against "policy". I'll leave it to you to decide if the hijacking was stopped by the flight crew, or if you think the flight crew followed procedure and the hijacking was interrupted in some other way (like remote control of the plane by NORAD, maybe Santa Claus or the easter bunny did it, who knows, maybe somebody prayed and god miracled the plane to the ground). :|

I love the logic though since United 93 passengers did fight back, and yet you say that's also a conspiracy. Good job.

This is another lie, the Todd Beamer "let's roll" part of the movie. Most people can't even remember the official lie, which is that Todd Beamer called (somehow) an operator and told her what was going on, then the operator later called Todd Beamer's wife and told her how it all went down.

Here's a possible scenario:

Mrs. Beamer finds out her husband died aboard a civilian passenger jet bound for, say, the White House, or wherever. An army colonel knocks on Mrs. Beamers door. Hello, Mrs. Beamer, we have some things we'd like to talk to you about. See, Mrs. Beamer, we had to shoot that plane down, there's been so much loss of life already, we had to do the unthinkable, Mrs. Beamer, we had to tell one of our brave pilots to kill dozens of americans on board that plane, because terrorists had ahold of it, Mrs. Beamer, he didn't want to, Mrs. Beamer, but he had no choice, it was for the greater good, Mrs. Beamer, please help us, don't let this fine pilot become the man who killed americans on 9/11, we have a way out, Mrs. Beamer, all you have to do is just tell a little lie, and instead of ruining some brave pilot's life, instead of making him a villain, we will make your husband a hero, Mrs. Beamer, Todd had pluck, he had vim and vigor, Mrs. Beamer, that's all we want you to tell people, that he's just the kind of person who could have crashed that plane instead of letting it kill who knows how many hundreds, maybe even the President of this great United States, Mrs. Beamer, we'll just tell the world your husband saved the life of the President, Mrs. Beamer, how does that sound to you, oh and by the way we'll give you the equivalent of a military widow's pension, Mrs. Beamer, if you just help us out, help us save this pilot, Mrs. Beamer, yes, he killed your husband, but he had to, he had no choice, now you have a choice, Mrs. Beamer, you can let the world think your husband is a hero, you can have the copyright to "let's roll"...or you can simply be the widow of a man killed by a US Air Force pilot whose life is now in ruins. So what's it going to be, Mrs. Beamer?

I'm weeping as I write this, because I have absolute certainty that something exactly like this happened, and that this poor dazed widow was given a fool's conundrum, to tell the lie, to be the widow of a hero, instead of just some poor bitch who lost her husband at the business end of an air to air missile.