View Full Forums : 28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job


Swiftfox
09-07-2006, 01:31 PM
A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11 explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled demolition.

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.

Source (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/cia_official_says_911_inside_job.htm)

MadroneDorf
09-07-2006, 01:50 PM
hey the world didnt end on 6/6/6

Vekx
09-07-2006, 01:55 PM
How did they detonate the explosives?
Did they drill holes and cut steele, etc to plant the explosives?
Did they connect them all (just how many would you need in buildings that size) by wires running all over the place (except where the multitudes that work there would see them)?

MadroneDorf
09-07-2006, 01:58 PM
Duh!

Magnets!

Teaenea
09-07-2006, 02:11 PM
Weee more infowars crap.

First he has been retired for 27 years. Clearly this guy has no inside information about this. Unless he's suggesting Jimmy Carter started the plan before Reagan took office. He is just stating his opinion, which is at the very least suspect since he has a bias against the current administration.

According to Wikipedia "Christison and his wife are outspoken critics of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration. He was a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) with his wife, but both resigned 15 July 2003 over a VIPS memo calling for Dick Cheney’s resignation." (his reasoning why he left VIP is here http://www.counterpunch.org/christison07152003.html)

What he did was ask people to :"Stop Belittling the Theories about September 11." His main points in the article revolve around two points: "ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft...TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed."

Both nutjob theories have been debunked at length in other posts on this board, and others.

Summary, he's a axe grinding anti-Administration guy with no inside information that is completely ignoring expert testimony, evidence and reality.

Really, you should try different news sites other than infowars.

Eridalafar
09-07-2006, 02:28 PM
Hey the 9/11 towers are now at the myth level. You can't win it.

It like:
-Elvis is alive.
-JFK was killed by...
-E.T. in the zone 51.
-the Titanic

Now even if the true go out, it will never be as interesting that all the stories concerning them. And you can shout the true all you want, if nobody want to trust them, it will be only one of the many explanations possible.

Sad to a point, but true.

Eridalafar

MadroneDorf
09-07-2006, 02:42 PM
Elvis Shot JFK, the government faked his suicide so he could work in Area 51.

He later worked on ET at area 51, and then masterminded 9/11 to draw attention away from the Titanic.

Teaenea
09-07-2006, 02:46 PM
Elvis Shot JFK, the government faked his suicide so he could work in Area 51.

He later worked on ET at area 51, and then masterminded 9/11 to draw attention away from the Titanic.


Interesting, interesting... I'm starting to believe. Where do the faked moonlandings fit in?

Vekx
09-07-2006, 03:02 PM
Interesting, interesting... I'm starting to believe. Where do the faked moonlandings fit in?


That kept everyone watching TV while they placed the magnets all over the twin towers.

Swiftfox
09-07-2006, 06:15 PM
Foremost 9/11 Whistleblower Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job
Edmonds agrees weight of evidence leans towards criminal complicity. (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/edmonds_discusses_possibility_attack_inside_job.ht m)

Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

Edmonds appeared as a guest on the Alex Jones Show to give an update on her organization's (http://www.justacitizen.com/)progress and indicated that the preponderance of evidence, plus the outright cover-up surrounding 9/11 - suggests that criminal elements at the very apex of the US military-industrial complex had a direct hand in carrying out the attack.

London has bombed itself before
Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/former_mi5_agent_911_was_inside_job.htm)


Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.

Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack
Guide the planes in, then destroy the crime scene (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc7_german_minister_says_building_7_was_hq.htm)

Former Helmut Schmidt cabinet member, 25-year German Parliamentarian and global intelligence expert Andreas Von Bülow says that the 9/11 attack was run by the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus using WTC Building 7 as a command bunker which was later demolished in order to destroy the crime scene.

Robert M. Bowman, the former head of the Star Wars missile defense program will also be on hand to share his intimate knowledge of the architecture of government and how such an attack could have been pulled off by the highest levels of the elite.


Dr. David Ray Griffin is a longtime resident of Santa Barbara, California, a full-time academic from 1973 until April 2004, and is currently a co-director of the Center for Process Studies, and one of the foremost contemporary exponents of process theology, founded on the process philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. He is also a leading exponent of theories that dispute the accepted version of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and adjacent Building No. 7.

Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University told UPI: "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9-11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."

Reynolds added, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."


Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter appeared on The Alex Jones Show and stated that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of the Bush administration staging a terror attack in order to jolt a wavering foreign policy agenda back on track.

Ritter has extensive knowledge of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Europe. He served in the Office of Special Commission at the United Nations (UN), where he coordinated international efforts to implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions mandating the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. When Ritter's vocal pronouncements of the fact that Iraq had no WMD before the war went unheeded, Ritter became a leading critic of the Bush administration.
Ritter compared the atmosphere within the administration to that during the time of Watergate, where Nixon considered utilizing America's nuclear arsenal to create a devastating diversion from domestic calamity.


Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633)

The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwarz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O'Meara

Steven E. Jones (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many people, in what places need to go public and say it's an inside job before you look into it yourselves? WTC7 ... Just look at that one case, it stinks to high heaven. It's not like the US and British Government haven't used false flag operations to forward their adgendas before. Oprtation Ajax, Gladio, and Northwoods are proof. What makes you think that Governments and people today are so much more advanced that actions of the past wouldn't work on today's society. If anything those methodologies have been refined to be even more effective.

Watch Terrorstorm (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7152849288500417952&q=alex+jones+terror), Loose change (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7167151489146455453&q=Loose+change), or Martial law (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=911+Martial+law). PM me I'll even mail you a copy. I don't know how you can reasonably look at the evidence and not at the very least, Demand an independant investigation. The fact that it's even a question should be enough.

You attack dogs make out like you are so smart, and I'm sure you are, why don't you apply your vast superior intellect into proving to me what brought WTC7 down. In my mind its the key that opened my mind to the truth. JFK was shot for wanting to abolish the federal reserve, and creating a new curency for the people. The corruption runs so deep in the government in your very own posts yet you fail to see that it's entirely possible that you could be wrong. I could be wrong too, but all I've asked for is a real independant investigation. It's if I'm right that you fear. The 911 commision being headed by Henry Kissenger is rediculous, that guy should be executed for war crimes.

Both nutjob theories have been debunked at length in other posts on this board, and others.

Debunked straw man arguments. I know for a fact some readers have been swayed by my posts. Do you think if there truely was a consipracy, that smear tactics would be a plausible countermeasure? The 5 year aniversary of this tragedy angers me in that criminals involved remain free.

Minadin
09-07-2006, 06:59 PM
Most of the conspiracy theories revolve around misinformation such as, "Jet Fuel Burns at a Temperature too Low to Melt Steel" and a bunch of other conjecture by otherwise intelligent people trying to act like experts at something they are not.

1. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. At about 500 degrees Celsius it loses more than half its strength. Structures are typically loaded to about 2/3 capacity, or are considered inefficient. The jet fuel-fueled fires burned at over 500 degrees Celsius.

2. Eye Witness Accounts. People on the highway in DC saw the plane. Many of them. People in New York saw the planes. In fact, I was one of probably millions of people who watched the second plane slam into the World Trade Center on Live TV.

3. Occam's Razor: How many people would have to be involved, secretly, keeping their mouths shut, in an intricate plan of this magnitude, (less than) 9 months into Bush's first term in office? To name a few: President Bush, the head of the CIA, Osama Bin Laden, Zaccharias Moussaui, and just about everyone working in the World Trade Center, including the folks who died, not to mention all the contractors they would have needed to secretly place the explosives. All keeping the secret, no leaks. From what we've seen from this administration's ability to keep anything under wraps, when they are trying to, do you really think that is likely?

Swiftfox
09-07-2006, 08:22 PM
Occam's razor & Coincidence theorists (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread210129/pg1)

I've noticed the anti-conpiracy crowd here loves to bring up Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)when debating 9/11 evidence and they also seem to cast off each piece of evidence that supports a conspiracy as mere coincidence (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coincidence).

Lets just say that every piece of 9/11 evidence that supports a conspiracy is just a coincidence for now. Every event will have a few coincidences surrounding it, but the more coincidences an event has, the less likely they can all be mere coincidences.

If you anti-conspiracy people haven't noticed yet, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of coincidences surrounding 9/11:

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 (http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html)
200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media (http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html)
9-11 Coincidences (http://oldmanjoe.tripod.com/9-11_probabilities.htm)

At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

You would think when there are literally hundreds of them (with some coincidences being so amazingly coincidental all by themselves) that even the most harden Occam's razor fan would even succumb to the obvious that the odds are just too astronomical that there could be that many coincidences surround an event like 9/11 without it being a conspiracy.

Sorry, but unless you are a coincidence theorist, Occam's razor doesn't fly in the wake of so many coincidences surrounding 9/11.

Gunny Burlfoot
09-08-2006, 02:22 AM
There is no way you can convince a conspiracy theorist that the conspiracy he believes in does not exist.

Anything you can postulate will be incorporated into the theorist's conspiracy as disinformation, naivity, ignorance, or collusion.

There was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC. The leader of the worldwide conspiracy is/was Osama Bin Laden, and he had many followers, funding partners, and suppliers. All are part of it. The US is not included directly in the list.

Unlike Swiftfox, who most probably cannot list any proof that would convince him that Bid Laden did it without our assistance, I remain open to certain possibilities. One such possibility is that Bush and the Saud family were too close for Bush to remain objective enough to come down on them.

However, there would have to be incontrovertible evidence that Bush indeed, was, through action or inaction, somehow complicit in the 9/11 event.

'Squibs' ejecting from the towers while they collapsed is not such evidence.
The method of WTC 7's collapse is not such evidence.
A gas station attendant's declaration that a missile hit the Pentagon, rather than a plane because he thought it sounded like a missile is not such evidence.

I try to give a possibility to the extreme views. So, I've watched Loose Change and other movies, but some of them seem to draw their conclusions from one unexplained anomaly vs. 99 explained facts. However, my favorite is Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t! on 9/11 Conspiracies.


In the conspiracy theorist's defense, I will say that the Sauds were/are involved in terrorism funding, and should be jerked up short. That's if when we said "war on terrorists", we meant it.

Minadin
09-08-2006, 02:53 AM
Ok . . . do you really want to debate this on the points of merit that the conspiracy theorists hang their cases on? Look at these people you have quoted thus far in this thread:


Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist



Dr. David Ray Griffin is . . . one of the foremost contemporary exponents of process theology


Sibel Edmonds . . . a translator

weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter

You have an economist, a theologian, a translator, a marine . . . among others . . . none of which are even remotely involved in the building industry, telling us, as "experts" that these buildings could not have collapsed in the way that was described. I don't see any of these reports / theories quoting any architects or structural or civil engineers, ANYWHERE, whether professional or academic. There's a good reason you don't go to your grocer for legal advice, there's an equally good reason you don't pay a theologian to guarantee a building will stand. They are both completely out of their element.

As far as your "refute" of my use of the term Occam's Razor, may I safely assume that you think it IS more likely that secret ops teams spent weeks prior to the attacks rigging the buildings for demolition, without anyone noticing, that these charges were not disturbed at all by the giant, fuel-filled planes that we all saw smash into the towers, that the hundreds of people on the Virginia highway near the Pentagon were all either confused or complicit, that Osama Bin Laden and the supposed 9-11 hijackers - muslim fundamentalists, mind you - were conscripted by the Bush Administration and worked closely with them to develop and conceal this plot? And no one involved in this operation ever had any second thoughts, and remained completely secretive? Yet, you think that the explainations offered by sources like Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html) are far-fetched and coincidental?

And still, you still haven't given any sort of answer to my main two points. Namely, that steel doesn't have to melt to fail, it just has to bend - and the temperatures of the fire were quite hot enough to accomplish that - and that there were people all over the place that saw these things take place. Could it be that you, like many of the consipracy theorists, like to ignore the data that is not supportive of your conclusion? That's not exactly a scientific way to go about things, though it is a fairly common fault in people.


Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert):
I believe that all people favor what they think is in their best interest and then rationalize it with absurd philosophical arguments. Or worse, they join a “team” and agree with whatever the leader tells them.

Swiftfox
09-08-2006, 09:22 AM
You have an economist, a theologian, a translator, a marine . . . among others . . . none of which are even remotely involved in the building industry, telling us, as "experts" that these buildings could not have collapsed in the way that was described. I don't see any of these reports / theories quoting any architects or structural or civil engineers, ANYWHERE, whether professional or academic. There's a good reason you don't go to your grocer for legal advice, there's an equally good reason you don't pay a theologian to guarantee a building will stand. They are both completely out of their element.

No, they are saying they feel that 911 was an inside job. I am about 60% sure a plane did in fact hit the pentagon. But you have to agree that the initial damage on the pentagon looks minimal. See the last 911 inside job thread cause I'm not going into all that again.

You nor I can prove what the temperatures were in wtc1 or 2, Look at building 7, the fact that Larry silverstien said "We made the decision to pull, and we watched the building fall" Then tried to make out like he was talking about pulling the firefighters from the building , when none were in there from arounf 9 that morning. He made a pile of money from a huge insurance policy taken out only weeks before, and aquired the entire WTC lease only 7 weeks before 911.

Teaenea
09-08-2006, 09:54 AM
What gets me the most about this conspiracy theory is, we provide links to Experts in Architecture, engineering, aviation, plus hundreds of witnesses. We show hard physical evidence, point to the human remains, show the actual physics of what happened. In return we get Alex Jones, a slew of "experts" that have no credibility what so ever at least in the subject at hand. Many who are are certainly bias against the war and current administration. And most importantly, not one single scrap of hard evidence. Just all speculation and opinion. In fact, they discount actual evidence and ingore facts.

Galain
09-08-2006, 10:14 AM
If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon then tell me where that flight disappeared to along with all the passengers. By the way, do you prefer Reynolds or generic foil for your cap?

Erianaiel
09-08-2006, 10:26 AM
There's a good reason you don't go to your grocer for legal advice, there's an equally good reason you don't pay a theologian to guarantee a building will stand.

At least the theologician will have faith that the building will stand.


Eri
(p.s. I know bad Eri, bad Eri, for making such horrible puns)

Minadin
09-08-2006, 10:42 AM
But you have to agree that the initial damage on the pentagon looks minimal.

Minimal? The place is basically an above-ground bunker, and an entire section of it collapsed. They are still renovating and repairing it 5 years later!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Lawn1.jpg/800px-Lawn1.jpg


See the last 911 inside job thread cause I'm not going into all that again.

Why did you start this thread, if not to 'go into all that again'? You can't really make a point and then expect people to just accept it and not respond.

Erianaiel
09-08-2006, 10:50 AM
Occam's razor & Coincidence theorists (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread210129/pg1)

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with coincidence.

It is the scientific principle that if two theories explain the same observation the one that requires the least additional principles/influences/concepts is the most likely to be true. I.e. before Gallileo the earth was presumed to be the center of the universe with everything revolving around it. To explain the relative orbits of the planets around the earth a vastly complicated arithmetic was needed to explain why planets could apparently speed up, slow down, even move backwards at times. After Gallileo the same observations could be explained by the planets revolve around the sun in circular orbits which did show the relative movements of the planets as seen from earth without the need of complex and undiscovered powers to affect the speed of the planets. So per Occam's Razor Gallileo's theory is the correct one and the 'earth centrist' theory has to come up with some pretty compelling evidence to be taken as the better explanation. (It took Keppler and a few other brilliant observers and mathematicians to work out the principles of the elliptical orbit to get rid of the inaccuracies of Gallileo's circular orbit model. Inaccuracies that had been used to question the entire theory and as proof that in fact the earth should be the center of the universe after all)

In the case of the attacks, one theory says that a bunch of terrorists flew a couple of planes into buildings. Because of an until then overlooked physical effect the structure weakened in the fire until it was no longer able support its own weight. This led to a progressive collapse.
The other theory says that a bunch of terrorist flew a couple of planes into buildings. Then a couple of hundreds, if not thousands, of people had conspired to fill the building with explosive charges, managed to keep that fact a secret from the thousands of people working daily in those buildings. They blew up the building to blame the terrorists and to give a president the justification to start a couple of wars in relatively insignificant and remote places that nobody really cared about anyway.
Guess what Occam's Razor would cut off as an implausible theory?

Beside all that, even if through some incredible lapse of reason Bush and his team did decide to murder thousands of Americans AND could get the support to do so from hundreds of people, do you really think they went through all that trouble and incredible risk, just to drop bombs on a bunch of afghan sheepherders? I mean, if the real aim was to grab power, they sure bumbled in the follow up did they not? Sure the initial response was to allow the government to grab power, but since they have not done anything to -use- that power, they have allowed their opposition to regain the initiative and steadily lost ground in this hypothetical powergrab. I would be so bold to say that the level of incompetence displayed in their handling crisis alone is sufficient evidence to proof that there is no chance at all that the American government was in any way or shape involved with those attacks. To pull off such a conspiracy requires a degree of cold-hearted ruthlessness that has not been shown in -anything- they did after or before.
More likely Bush and his advisors saw a golden opportunity to shore up his presidency that had started off on such bad ground (like the huge controversy regarding his election amidst accusations of election fraud and nepotism). The natural response was to show the president as all tough and ready to strike back, which was exactly what the American people needed after the shock. Only the whole agenda started to run away with them and they got deeper and deeper into the mire they find themselves in today.
No conspiracy needed, just terrorist and opportunism.


Eri

Thicket Tundrabog
09-08-2006, 10:57 AM
What gets me the most about this conspiracy theory is, we provide links to Experts in Architecture, engineering, aviation, plus hundreds of witnesses. We show hard physical evidence, point to the human remains, show the actual physics of what happened. In return we get Alex Jones, a slew of "experts" that have no credibility what so ever at least in the subject at hand. Many who are are certainly bias against the war and current administration. And most importantly, not one single scrap of hard evidence. Just all speculation and opinion. In fact, they discount actual evidence and ingore facts.

It's because there is a difference between Science and Faith. Conspiracy believers practice their own form of religion. Conspiracy theorists start with a belief and build a construct of 'pseudo-science' around that belief. You can't scientifically or factually refute a belief.

It's no different than religious fundamentalists trying to get their beliefs on human origins passed off as science in school curricula. Rational people know that it's crap, but you'll never convince the fundamentalists. They KNOW that they're right.

While some conspiracy-theorists may have political agendas, I think most are dreamers and fantasizers that enjoy the excitement and intrigue of complicated fiction over the mundane and rational.

Swiftfox
09-08-2006, 11:19 AM
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/building/centerspray.jpg

This Picture is before the building collapsed. I would expect more damage and debris than what yo usee here. I'm not saying a plane didn't hit, I'm saying it doesn't look right and it's possible it didn't. Regardless we're still talking about 19 hijackers, 6 of which are still alive and well, hitting 75% of their targets. The FBI doesn't even claim Osama is wanted for 911 because there is no hard evidence sowing it was him, the "confession" tape was proved fake. I don't have all fvcking day to dispute every one of you lemmings points because I don't have all day.

here's the other thread (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=13782&page=6)

This thread was just showing prominent people with lots to lose are putting their necks out saying it looks like an inside job.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Minadin
09-08-2006, 12:45 PM
I don't have all fvcking day to dispute every one of you lemmings points because I don't have all day.

Compelling logic, to be sure. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything regarding this - you're going to believe what you want to, and that's your right, even if your belief is ridiculous. I'm simply refuting your points with fact, logic, and a bit of professional insight, in case people who aren't as informed start to think you have a point.

The questions you have quoted above are what we call loaded questions. A good example of a loaded question would be, "Is it true that you have stopped beating your wife?" because it both implies that you have a wife and that you were at one point beating her. If you say yes, that confirms that you did in fact beat her, if you say no, it means you still do. Therefore, those questions can't be answered without some sort of factual basis for them. Loaded questions are considered to be logical fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html), because of the presupposition of a factual basis that may or may not exist, and the ambiguousness that any answer might give. For Example:

Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day? Well, what evidence do you have that they were not followed? What are the standard procedures? Would they have worked to prevent the attacks in this case? From all that I recall, standard procedures for a hijacking have usually been to get the guy to land the plane and then have a long standoff while hostage negotiators try to reason with the guy, until he eventually gives up. Would that have worked, when the goal was to crash the planes into buildings? What was the point of your question there?


Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

Once again, what evidence do we have that there ARE extensive missile batteries surrounding the Pentagon? I haven't seen any. Who are they reported by? Other conspiracy nuts? And even if they are there we certainly don't know what the "standard operating procedure" is for them, or what they were built to protect against, if they ever were. I don't believe they were expecting a passenger jetliner to come at them at low altitudes in any event. Perhaps the reason that these missiles were not fired at the plane were that they needed specific clearance to do so, that they didn't have? Is it possible they didn't see it coming? Or maybe, just maybe, these mythological "reported" missles . . . don't exist.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-08-2006, 02:43 PM
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with coincidence....

Truth...

Accurate analysis...

More truth...

More insight...

some more truth...

...The natural response was to show the president as all tough and ready to strike back, which was exactly what the American people needed after the shock. Only the whole agenda started to run away with them and they got deeper and deeper into the mire they find themselves in today.
No conspiracy needed, just terrorist and opportunism.


Eri

Quoted for truth, and only editted to lessen burden on site database.
One of the best posts on this site on this topic, evar.

Eridalafar
09-08-2006, 02:52 PM
The world is falling! The world is falling!

Erianaiel and Fyyr Lu'Storm are on the same side for a time! Must be the E.T. or it Elvis that have done a mind trick?

:) :)

Eridalafar

oddjob1244
09-08-2006, 04:27 PM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Pretty much sums up 9/11 conspiracy.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-08-2006, 04:57 PM
I love this line from that site.

Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

Madie of Wind Riders
09-09-2006, 05:55 AM
Sure the initial response was to allow the government to grab power, but since they have not done anything to -use- that power, they have allowed their opposition to regain the initiative and steadily lost ground in this hypothetical powergrab.

I would have to disagree with this statement. The government has totally used this new found "power" to intimidate the American public and take away many of our rights in the name "National Security." Like... its OK that we are spying on your phone conversations, because someday we will find someone talking to some guy that might be a terrorist.

I am so tired of the government trying to scare the **** out of me that I simply find it difficult to believe just about anything that is said any more.

By the way, do you prefer Reynolds or generic foil for your cap?

Oh Swiftfox has an industrial cap... and has had for quite some time :) *hugs Swifty*

Erianaiel
09-09-2006, 04:38 PM
I would have to disagree with this statement. The government has totally used this new found "power" to intimidate the American public and take away many of our rights in the name "National Security." Like... its OK that we are spying on your phone conversations, because someday we will find someone talking to some guy that might be a terrorist.

I am so tired of the government trying to scare the **** out of me that I simply find it difficult to believe just about anything that is said any more.


I am not arguing that the Patriot Act is not a foul piece of legislation that should never have been signed into law.
The point I was making is that the Bush government gave itself a load of administrative and executive powers that are typically associated with an african or classical southern american dictatorship, and did exactly nothing with it to make sure their powergrab was permanent. If, as the conspiracy theorists claim, the goverment did blow up those buildings to grab power, you would have expected they used their new powers to remove opposition and make sure nobody could take their powers away from them. Instead they blundered from one scandal to another, did nothing their new powers -could- have allowed them to do (like e.g. secretly accusing them of relations with terrorists, arrest them and lock them away without bail or access to a lawyer while they 'studied the case' for the next ten or so years without the need to go through all those inconveniences like due process).
Any democratic government that takes such risks as murdering its own citizens does so with a very clear goal in mind. If that goal had been grabbing dictatorial power they would have done so to actually use those powers. Instead they displayed a level of incompetence in handling domestic PR crisis that is a complete contrast to the presumed ruthlessness in organising the attacks they are accused of by the conspiracy theorists.
This makes it utterly unlikely that the government planned to obtain those executive powers, and thus utterly unlikely that it did plan anything at all.


Eri

dedra
09-11-2006, 12:09 PM
Do I think the government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks? No. Do I think there is a lot of really coincidental evidence? Yes. Do I think it's possible for the government to pull off something like this? Yes. I think people underestimate the power of the government and what they can do if they wanted to. These are the people that are responsible for sending us to the moon 30+ years ago....or did they (lok, j/k) so I am sure they are more than capable of pulling off something like 9/11. Maybe I have watched one too many episodes of Alias but I think "they" could pretty much do anything they want and we wouldn't know about it.

A lot of the times it's frustrating because they just keep feeding the conspiracy theories with how they handle certain situations. Why were the video tapes confiscated from every hotel and gas station around the Pentagon which would have had footage of the plane flying towards the Pentagon? With the release of those videos they could squash all of the theories and put everybody's minds at ease. Why were the videos taken in the first place? They surely can't contain anything that would be harmful. Why aren't they ever going to be released? It's like they just want to put more fuel on the fire.

I like to keep an open mind about everyting. I enjoy researching the information surrounding 9/11 and I find a lot of it very interesting. I too have a lot of the same questions as most conspiracy theorists but that doesn't mean that I share the same beliefs as them. As time goes by I may change my mind but that is the great part about having an open mind. I am never too stuborn to hear what the "other side" has to say. This subject is no different than arguing religion. People never have an open mind about the other side's point of view and the discussion never goes anywhere.

Erianaiel
09-11-2006, 05:26 PM
Do I think the government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks? No. Do I think there is a lot of really coincidental evidence? Yes. Do I think it's possible for the government to pull off something like this? Yes. I think people underestimate the power of the government and what they can do if they wanted to. These are the people that are responsible for sending us to the moon 30+ years ago....or did they (lok, j/k) so I am sure they are more than capable of pulling off something like 9/11. Maybe I have watched one too many episodes of Alias but I think "they" could pretty much do anything they want and we wouldn't know about it.

The point is not if the american government is capable of flying a couple of planes into buildings. I am sure they are. The question is if they are willing to do so and if they are capable of keeping it a secret.
The track record of any government on the later is a resounding no. Not even the most die-hard cynical neo-con is actually willing to murder almost 3000 american citizens for a power grab, pull that off flawlessly and then is too incompetent to capitalise on the almost unprecedented level of presidential executive power by failing to remove their opposition.
Also, any conspiracy on that size needs hundreds of people to do the actual preparation work. None of these supposed conspirators have spoken up, there is no paper trail. Yet we have seen time and time again that large scale operations get exposed within a year (on any government in any country that is not a absolute dictatorship with a complete lockdown on the media and opposition that is).


A lot of the times it's frustrating because they just keep feeding the conspiracy theories with how they handle certain situations. Why were the video tapes confiscated from every hotel and gas station around the Pentagon which would have had footage of the plane flying towards the Pentagon? With the release of those videos they could squash all of the theories and put everybody's minds at ease. Why were the videos taken in the first place? They surely can't contain anything that would be harmful. Why aren't they ever going to be released? It's like they just want to put more fuel on the fire.

There simply are two operations going on at the same time: The first is of the law enforcements and intelligence agencies that try to gather evidence of what happened and who is responsible. Confiscating security camera tapes is simply so they have an accurate timing of exactly when a particular plane was where. Since their goal is to collect evidence and not to set the mind of the public at ease there is no reason to release those tapes again
On top of that there is a 'conspiracy' of sorts. The conspiracy of those agencies who should have been responsible for preventing those terrorists from murdering some 3000 people and failed. They are trying to cover up the evidence of their incompetency. Since that responsibility starts from the white house down, we see some signs of evidence being suppressed (just as evidence of all kinds of illegal torture and rendition programs was suppressed for years).


I like to keep an open mind about everyting. I enjoy researching the information surrounding 9/11 and I find a lot of it very interesting. I too have a lot of the same questions as most conspiracy theorists but that doesn't mean that I share the same beliefs as them. As time goes by I may change my mind but that is the great part about having an open mind. I am never too stuborn to hear what the "other side" has to say. This subject is no different than arguing religion. People never have an open mind about the other side's point of view and the discussion never goes anywhere.

To help you make up your mind:

There is no need for explosives to collapse a burning building. It certainly does not require esoteric fuels capable of melting steel. Any ordinary fire is more than capable of weakening an exposed steel structure where it collapses under its own weight. All that is needed is sufficient amounts of paper and wood and heat that is trapped inside the burning building. And a plane crashing into a concrete covered steel structure is going to shatter that covering, exposing the steel.
Aeroplanes crashing into something typically get shredded by the load bearing structure. The 25 meter wide aeroplane that crashed into the empire state building left a hole less than 5 meters wide. The cruise missile was not invented at that time. There is no reason to expect a modern wide-body aeroplane would leave a hole much bigger than that, especially since the pentagon was built to withstand explosions (even the parts that were not yet renovated). We are talking about a hole not even two offices wide, and less than two stories high. (i.e. about two of those firetrucks wide).
Controlled demolition of a building the size of one of the wtc towers would take a team of experts days, if not weeks if intensive drilling. It would require miles and miles of cabling being strung through the building in great loops so as to get the exact right delay between the charges going off so as not to topple the building. That is not something the people working in the towers would have missed. Those charges would be set at ground level to ensure the entire building collapses, and that is where the collapse would begin: In footage of demolished buildings you see a trail of explosions through the building where each directed charge cuts through a column. Then the building begins to drop down from the bottom up when the first levels are cut out from underneath it. By contrast, the collapse of the wtc towers clearly started near the top and worked down. You could even see the debris blowing out of the higher floors first (before the smoke and dust cload obscured the rest of the collapse).

*shrugs*
Not that anything of this has not been mentioned before and clearly it is not going to convince those who want to believe in conspiracies.


Eri

Panamah
09-11-2006, 07:07 PM
You know what is shocking? I heard yesterday that something like 36% of people believe there was a conspiracy in the government regarding 9/11. How can people be so incredibly stupid en masse?

Of course, still something like 43% believe Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11.

Swiftfox
09-11-2006, 07:47 PM
Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391)


There is no doubt that the attacks brought benefits. Indeed, several members of the Bush administration publicly said so. The president himself declared that the attacks provide "a great opportunity."2 Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world." Condoleeza Rice had said the same thing in mind, telling senior members of the National Security Council to "think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change...the shape of the world."3 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities."4

"A New Pearl Harbor" To Advance The Pax Americana

In the fall of 2000, a year before 9/11, a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses was published by an organization calling itself the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).6 This organization was formed by individuals who were members or at least supporters of the Reagan and Bush I administration, some of whom would go on to be central figures in the Bush II administration. These individuals include Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad (closely associated with Paul Wolfowitz7), Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Woolsey. Libby (now Cheney's chief of staff) and Wolfowitz (now Rumsfeld's deputy) are listed as having participated directly in the project to produce Rebuilding America's Defenses. Interestingly, John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, has been a member of the PNAC or at least publicly aligned with it.8

This PNAC document, after bemoaning the fact that spending for military purposes no longer captured as much of the US budget as it once did, argues that it is necessary for defense spending to be greatly increased if the "American peace is to be maintained, and expanded," because this Pax Americana "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." The way to acquire and retain such military preeminence is to take full advantage of the "revolution in military affairs" made possible by technological advances. Bring about this transformation of US military forces will, however, probably be a long, slow process, partly because it will be very expensive. However, the document suggests, the process could occur more quickly if America suffered "some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor."9 This statement, we would think, should have gotten the attention of some members of the 9/11 Commission.



I've listed possible motives of the government before. the grab for power is just a small fraction of the equation. Billions and billions have been made, from the CIA put options on the airlines to defence contracts, oil and numerous other ventures which I couldn't even think of. There really is a plan for global government by the some of the most influencial people on the planet.

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

— David Rockefeller

Incompetence is a great tool. I fake not being able to cook, so my wife will do it. It's amazing what you can get away with using that little trick. Yeah, I believe that honest mistakes were made but criminal negligence was apparent in many cases.

Area 51 is indeed real, and has numerous employees. Yet the goings on at the base have been kept completely secret for decades. (besides the odd conspiracy nut no one believes anyway.) Your argument that it couldn't be kept secret is not valid. Whistleblowers have no protection and the administration actively attacks them under national security with gag orders.
( I actualy don't believe in UFO's and aliens, I'm using Area 51 because its a good example. )

The thermate charges needed only be planted at key locations of which some can be seen in the form of squibs.(in my opinion anyway =P) Bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the building in the weeks prior to the attacks. Jeb Bush was in charge of security for the WTC buildings up until sep 10. Multiple power downs in the weeks prior to 911. As far as that goes entire floors could have been rented out and demolisions could have been placed leisurely without even worying about security or being caught. Multiple Firefighters and witnesses including William Rodriguez all report Bombs/explosions in the building.

911 truthers are accused of ignoring key evidence, I accuse the non-belivers of the same thing to a greater degree. There's been a lot more time researching why its totaly possible the government had a hand in the event than the vast majority of people have into looking into why its not.

- Drills were being run the same time the same day. Operations vigilant guardian and vigalant warrior. Shocker drills also happened the same time same places for the london train bombings too. (070707 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm))

Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was set for an exercise on Sept 11 at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [USA Today/AP, 8/22/02,

Bizarre!

-Spt 20, 2001: Several 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. Alleged 9/11 pilot Waleed Al Shehri, on seeing his name and photograph, says that he is alive. Abdulaziz Alomari states the name and date of birth are his, but he's alive and his passport was stolen. (London Times, 9/20/01, BBC, 9/23/01)
In Saudi Arabia, five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television.

Yzma: Kuzco is dead, right? Tell me Kuzco's dead. I need to hear these words.
Kronk: But do you need to hear all those words exactly?
Yzma: He's still alive?
Kronk: Well, he's not as dead as we would have hoped.
Yzma: Kronk!
Yzma: Just thought I'd give you a heads-up in case Kuzco ever comes back.
Yzma: He can't come back!
Kronk: Yeah, that would be kinda awkward, especially after that lovely eulogy.
Yzma: You think? You and I are going out to find him. If he talks, we're through. Now let's move!


Sept 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01

We trained em..

May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks.

May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing an independent commission to probe 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02] Vice President Cheney earlier opposed any public hearings on 9/11

If I was involved I wouldn't want anyone investigating either..

May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is threatened with retribution if he talks to Congress about this. [Fox News, 5/30/02]

Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later illegally destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04]

Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA.

Its all about perception really, I just have to change my attitude.. I like being lied to, The government is good, they love us (http://www.infowars.com/print/misc/history_human_experimentation.htm). I could go on, but you're right, you can't convince me that the conspiracy doesn't exist and I can't convince you that it does. If you're wrong what does that mean in compared to if I'm wrong?

Aidon
09-12-2006, 01:12 AM
Who the **** are you trying to convince?

****ing idiocy.

The more you prattle on about this ridiculous notion spewing forth continually misconstrued, misquoted, or downright erroneous points the more I'm convinced that you and your ilk are goddamned ****ing morons who need to stop smoking so much weed, take off the ****ing foil caps, and find something real to worry about.

****ing idiots the lot of you.

And I don't care if you're insulted.

Goddamn, stfu already about conspiracies disproven many times already. Jesus, you're as bad as the ****ing anti-war nuts who's only concern is that they finally have something to protest about like their pappy did back in '69. JFK was getting blase, so now all you goddamn idiots are rallying around this generations great 'conspiracy theory'...except this one doesn't even have as many ****ing inconsistancies as JFK did.

So now you all look like real idiots. There were no ****ing missles. There was no ****ing thermite. There was three big ****ing planes crashing into three big buildings by a bunch of ****ing Arabs.

Shut the **** up already. Can't you just go back to how the Government is trying to control us by adding flouride to the water or something?

Minadin
09-12-2006, 01:19 AM
The thermate charges needed only be planted at key locations of which some can be seen in the form of squibs.(in my opinion anyway =P) Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y)

Bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the building in the weeks prior to the attacks.They had been put on two weeks earlier because of phoned-in threats. The unusual thing is that they had been on extra duty for those two weeks, not that they were pulled off. (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html)


Multiple power downs in the weeks prior to 911. As far as that goes entire floors could have been rented out and demolisions could have been placed leisurely without even worying about security or being caught. So you're saying that during those brief evacuations, teams of demolitions experts swarmed over the buildings with thousands of pounds of explosives, dismantled the area around the core to access the columns and planted their charges, and repaired everything and cleaned up? (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html)

There were phone threats. That's why the bomb-sniffing dogs were doing extra duty. Seems like if there were thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings, those dogs might have detected them. (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html)

Jeb Bush was in charge of security for the WTC buildings up until sep 10 I thought he was the Governor of Florida? His brother Marvin was on the Board of Directors at Securacom, but the job ended more than a year prior to the 9/11 attacks, and before G.W. was even elected president. They only provided a small portion of the security at the World Trade Center, in any event: The head of security and recent FBI counterterrorism chief, Paul O'Neill. He had been on the job at the WTC for only a few weeks after retiring from the FBI. He died in the south tower after reentering it to help with rescue efforts. I would think that the FBI's head of counterterrorism might know of a massive conspiracy to take down the WTC, and would choose not to be in the buildings when the attack took place. (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html)


-Spt 20, 2001: Several 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. Alleged 9/11 pilot Waleed Al Shehri, on seeing his name and photograph, says that he is alive. Abdulaziz Alomari states the name and date of birth are his, but he's alive and his passport was stolen. (London Times, 9/20/01, BBC, 9/23/01)
This appears to be a case of mistaken identity. A different Waleed was brother of Wail. His family says he disappeared before 9/11. There is no evidence that he's alive. (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg5.html) The others also appear to be cases of mistaken identity. Abdulaiz Alomari was the name of two different guys with 2 different birthdays. (http://911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_al_omari_still_alive.html) There's lots of people with same or similar names in just about every culture. The stories you cite date back to the weeks right after the attacks. There was a lot of confusion, as you might recall. Most of it has since been sorted out: "The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday. Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered. "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml) (Nov. of 2001)

May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks. Why would anyone be suprised that Dan Rather wasn't doing quality reporting or investigating?

Sept 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01 I've bolded and underlined the important part of that headline that makes it fail as the definitive statement you eagerly accept. Like I've said, there was a lot of confusion about the identities of those guys in the week or two after the attack, which is conveniently when all your stories about the hijackers seem to have been written. In early July 2000, Atta and al-Shehhi traveled to Norman, Oklahoma ostensibly to evaluate the program offered through the Airman's Flight School. Although they stayed the first night at a hotel paid for by Airman, they did not enroll at the flight school. Instead, they traveled to Venice, Florida and began training at Huffman Aviation. Atta and al-Shehhi both obtained their pilot's licenses, instrument certifications, and commercial pilot certificates in the fall and winter of 2000 at Huffman Aviation. (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html) You can actually read the entire timeline of each hijacker's stay in the US at that link. There really wasn't enough time for them to have trained at super-secret military bases.

I don't know anything about the rest of your claims, honestly. I haven't seen any of the source material. I do suspect it's as logically fallible and easily debunked as the rest of your suppositions. It seems anyone can spin a headline, selectively quote, and make it appear to support their position, with a little bit of effort.

Teaenea
09-12-2006, 10:52 AM
Conspiracy theorist often point to the coincidents of 9/11 and use them for the basis of their arguments. It's a lousy base for an arguement. Here's a classic example. Here are a list of them comparing Kennedy to Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both of their wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Both were shot with one bullet.

Both were rumored to be killed in a conspiracy.
Neither was confirmed to be a conspiracy.

Lincoln was shot in the Ford Theater.
Kennedy was shot in a card made by the Ford Motor Company (a Lincoln no less)

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
Their first names both contain six letters.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names comprise fifteen letters.

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Both assassins were assassinated before their trials.

The only complete filming of Kennedy's assasination was shot by Abraham Zapruder.
The only complete account of Lincoln's assasination was written by John Zelfindorfer.

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was with friends in Monroe, Maryland.
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with his friend Marilyn Monroe.

Lincoln's last child, Tad, had his funeral held on July 16, 1871.
Later he was exhumed and moved to a different grave site.
Kennedy's son JFK Jr. was lost at sea on July 16, 1999.
Later he was found, brought up, and then re-burried at sea.

There can only be one explination! A Goverment plot!
The point is, Completely unrelated events, can be linked through coincidence.

Like it or not, Conspiracy theorist have the onus of proving their theories correct. So far, there is not one scrap of evidence. No names of any individual involved. Not one scrap of physical evidence.

Vekx
09-12-2006, 10:55 AM
And even if 9/11 was a government job....

why bother to use controlled demolition?

Why not just fly the planes into them and see what happens?

If the buildings don't collaps, so what? If they do collaps and tip over instead drop, so what? You've already killed many inoccent Americans and destroyed massive amounts of property. And you would have way less people involved if you didn't bother with the demolition.

You are trying to prove a point, that they were collapsed using controlled demolition, but have no real reason to even do it that way.

Teaenea
09-12-2006, 11:25 AM
And even if 9/11 was a government job....

why bother to use controlled demolition?

Why not just fly the planes into them and see what happens?

If the buildings don't collaps, so what? If they do collaps and tip over instead drop, so what? You've already killed many inoccent Americans and destroyed massive amounts of property. And you would have way less people involved if you didn't bother with the demolition.

You are trying to prove a point, that they were collapsed using controlled demolition, but have no real reason to even do it that way.

That's a very good point. You didn't need the collapse of the towers to accomplish the same thing. Loading a plane or two with explosives and flying them into the buildings by remote (or suicide bomber) would have accomplished the same thing politically. I distinctly remember the general feeling of my friends and co-workers after the second plane hit that we were "Under attack" and "at war." That was before anything collapsed.

The plot described by conspiracy theorists is just too complex and involve to many people for it to be real. Especially when much less would have been needed.

Eridalafar
09-12-2006, 01:21 PM
But if you use an incredible conspiracy like the 9/11 one to hide a lesser one?

Let begin a new conspiracy's theory about using the 9/11 conspiracy to hide another one!!!!

/e begin to eat some popcorn

Eridalafar

Vekx
09-12-2006, 01:56 PM
But if you use an incredible conspiracy like the 9/11 one to hide a lesser one?

Let begin a new conspiracy's theory about using the 9/11 conspiracy to hide another one!!!!

/e begin to eat some popcorn

Eridalafar

I have it.

They really just wanted to get rid of the twin towers. But they werent sure the could domolition them without toppling them and destroying other buildings around them. So they flew in planes as a scape goat in case they didn't drop straight down. They had to get non US pilots for many reasons. It wasn't in the plans for 2 of the planes pilots to get lost and hit other targets.

Panamah
09-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Well... Dick Cheney shot someone else in the chest and need to destroy the evidence. So he put the gun he used in the WTC and crashed planes into it to hide the evidence. The other 2 planes were just to confuse everyone.

Swiftfox
09-12-2006, 09:18 PM
Eyewitness Reports Persist Of
Bombs At WTC Collapse (http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm)

The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.


New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers (http://www.prisonplanet.com/032404firefightersdiscuss.html)

Power down (http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html)

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.


And even if 9/11 was a government job....

why bother to use controlled demolition?

Why not just fly the planes into them and see what happens?

Wow, I'm actualy impressed by this question. I dunno my only thought on it is for pure shock factor, I mean obviously the planes hitting was a horrific event in and of itself, but do you think it would have had the same impact without the collapses? I dunno, that is one I can ponder over.

Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html)

Larry Silverstien "Pull it (http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3)"

If you believe that he was refering to "pulling the firefighters" you're not listening. It's impossible that building 7 collapsed completly into its foot a block away from towers 1 and 2 due to fire alone. Look at buildings 5 and 6. although much shorter and closer than building 7 and having piles of buildings 1 and 2 fall on them they did not collapse completely. Firefighters were warning to move because it was coming down. How did they know this if it was only the 3rd building in history to completely collapse strictly due to fire? the first 2 being buildings 1 and 2. Look into building 7.

Quote:
Bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the building in the weeks prior to the attacks.

They had been put on two weeks earlier because of phoned-in threats. The unusual thing is that they had been on extra duty for those two weeks, not that they were pulled off.


Not to say that its wrong either way, I don't think dogs could detect thermite/thermate anyway being just rust+aluminum (+slupher for thermate) Igniting it requires high temperature such as magnesium ribbon to start the reaction.


Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

"When the fire started, the room was sealed," said Jones, who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building. "Flames were shooting off the walls....We started putting wet towels under the doors. The Fire Department unsealed the door and grabbed us by the hand and said, 'Run!' "

Security worker Diane Easton said she was out front writing tickets when notice of "a plane flying too low" placed security personal on alert.

"The plane went right through the building...and debris started falling everywhere, then 15 minutes later the second plane," Easton said.

Nancy Joyner said several police officers were knocked down and then were stampeded in the ensuing frenzy.

"People were flying out of the windows; there was nothing we could do," Joyner said. "People were pulled from the top floors by the wind tunnel created."



Oh, btw, with regard to thermite, it wouldn't surprise me at all. A little aluminum and some rust and wham, you have thermite.

But that doesn't mean it was some sort of bomb planted. It just means that amazingly, in a huge building there was aluminum (or other reactive metal, such as the lithium batteries in a laptop) and some form of oxidized metal (like common rust) that mixed at high enough temperatures (and the fireball from the explosion was more than hot enough) for them to form a thermite reaction - AIDON (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=13782&page=5)

No ****ing thermite? Kiss my Ass. I couldn't care less what you think of me. Don't read anything I have to say. I don't give a flying ****. You're bitter because your penis must have stoped working years ago, so you've taken to the only thing that lets you feel good about youself, your "intellectual superiority" to the other unwashed masses. It's OK.. Viagra adds arrive daily in your inbox, you're a smart guy ,you know what to do.

It was shown in tests that the thermite reaction cannot happen by chance by Professor Steven Jones who I guess believes Jesus came to America. Maybe he did, I mean he is the son of God, who am I to say he couldn't have. Honestly it doesn't interest me. The argument that because he believes this, he is wrong, is akin to saying that everything Einstein said is null and void because he believed in a creator. The majority of people at one time believed the world was flat too. This entire debate has fallen into the realm of Creatonist vs evolutionists.

Well... Dick Cheney shot someone else in the chest and need to destroy the evidence. So he put the gun he used in the WTC and crashed planes into it to hide the evidence. The other 2 planes were just to confuse everyone.

Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy cause he was drunk. He was allowed 24 hours to sober up before having to report to the police. Then he lied saying he shot him from much farther away than the balistics suggest.

200 plus smoking guns (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html) for 911

Panamah
09-12-2006, 10:22 PM
Swiftfox! The plans for the 9/11 attack... neatly embedded into a $20 bill.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

Swiftfox
09-12-2006, 10:41 PM
I just find that bill thing a quirky oddity at best.

Aidon
09-13-2006, 01:11 AM
No ****ing thermite? Kiss my Ass. I couldn't care less what you think of me. Don't read anything I have to say. I don't give a flying ****. You're bitter because your penis must have stoped working years ago, so you've taken to the only thing that lets you feel good about youself, your "intellectual superiority" to the other unwashed masses. It's OK.. Viagra adds arrive daily in your inbox, you're a smart guy ,you know what to do.

I'm willing to bet, Swiftfox, that you are not significantly younger than I am, and may even be older than me. Flames regarding a penis which must have stopped working years ago fall flat. Neither does such a flame change the fact that you're ****ing bat**** insane and incapable of accepting that your favorite crackpot theories (none of which you've had the originality or ability to even craft yourself, as you simply sit there regurgitating the rampant idiocy spewed forth by other, dare I say, better paranoiacs who at least have the saving grace of being original in their ravings) have been repudiated and disproven by so many multiple and diverse sources as to render supposition as to the "real cause" of the collapse of the towers excercises in intellectual masturbation, which in the end only makes you feel good, but produces nothing but a incohesive mess which should best be washed away so that you might focus your energies on something more worthwile.

It was shown in tests that the thermite reaction cannot happen by chance by Professor Steven Jones who I guess believes Jesus came to America. Maybe he did, I mean he is the son of God, who am I to say he couldn't have. Honestly it doesn't interest me. The argument that because he believes this, he is wrong, is akin to saying that everything Einstein said is null and void because he believed in a creator. The majority of people at one time believed the world was flat too. This entire debate has fallen into the realm of Creatonist vs evolutionists.

You put forth one crackpot scientist who, while a gifted physicist, is not an engineer and has been repeatedly denounced by engineers across America, including his own collegues at BYU. A crackpot who was placed on administrative leave by BYU because his theories, which he continues to promote as science, were not peer reviewed.

Oh, by the way, accidental thermite reactions happen. Its well known. A Hazardous Material Safety Data Sheet for All-State Bare Aluminum Welding Alloys (http://www.generalair.com/msds/ALST48D.pdf) page 4, section 5. "...Contact of molten aluminum with other metal oxides can initate thermite reaction."

Further, simple contact between water and molten aluminum can cause "violent explosions", if you continue reading that data sheet. Even in situations where one is introducing a drops of molten aluminum into water (versus introducing water to molten aluminum) it "can generate enough flammable hydrogen gas to present an explosion hazard".

There were sufficient sources of potential explosive reactions in those towers that there are no need for explosives...or thermite charges.

So, I am forced, once again, to retirate your idiocy for buying into this collection of utter bull****.

We have Islamic fundamentalists who hate us and want to see us die, a government who is trying its damndest to remove our last vestiges of civil liberties and limits to protect the people from authoritarianism, a corporate America who seeks to line its own pockets with the financial skin of the average American...and the only thing you can find to rail against with righteous indignation is ****ing lunatic fringe absurdity that even Oliver Stone won't touch? Are you really that clueless? ****ing idiocy of the highest order.

Minadin
09-13-2006, 01:55 AM
The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.
Barely hit it?
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image105.jpg

Relative size of the plane compared to building footprint:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image103.jpg


If you believe that he was refering to "pulling the firefighters" you're not listening. It's impossible that building 7 collapsed completly into its foot a block away from towers 1 and 2 due to fire alone. Look at buildings 5 and 6. although much shorter and closer than building 7 and having piles of buildings 1 and 2 fall on them they did not collapse completely. Firefighters were warning to move because it was coming down. How did they know this if it was only the 3rd building in history to completely collapse strictly due to fire? the first 2 being buildings 1 and 2. Look into building 7.
I have looked into building 7. About 25% of at least one of it's outer bearing walls was scooped away by falling debris from the other towers. So, you're correct, sorta. The collapse wasn't due entirely to fire.

I should point out that lots of buildings have collapsed due to fires, and will continue to collapse due to them. Fire makes buildings of nearly every type collapse. If you don't believe that, you haven't looked into it, at all. Not that that would suprise me.


It was shown in tests that the thermite reaction cannot happen by chance by Professor Steven Jones who I guess believes Jesus came to America. Maybe he did, I mean he is the son of God, who am I to say he couldn't have. Honestly it doesn't interest me. The argument that because he believes this, he is wrong, is akin to saying that everything Einstein said is null and void because he believed in a creator. The majority of people at one time believed the world was flat too. This entire debate has fallen into the realm of Creatonist vs evolutionists.


This is, perhaps, the world's grand champion of straw men. I mean, I don't see anyone anywhere arguing that this guy's research is not valid because he is a mormon. Why it would ever even come up is beyond my ability to rationalize.

Hey Aidon, did you hear about what Israeli author Natan Sharansky's take was, on the fact that we've not seen any other attacks in the US for the past 5 years was?


If you had no losses in five years from the terrorist attacks, it only means that you are tremendously successful in this struggle against this enemy, that you, your government, your army, your intelligence, are tremendously, unbelievably successful. And you have to keep this success, you have to savor this success, you have to cherish every day when there are no losses, but you also have to be ready. The struggle is not yet finished here. It continues. And, well, we go through these stages every day, and we know how it is important to win. And we can win with the weapon of freedom.

And, that's from the perspective of a nation that has to deal with attacks on an almost daily basis, and is doing a pretty darn good job of it, themselves, despite the odds.

Minadin
09-13-2006, 02:04 AM
Panamah -

Check out the neat $100 folding bill trick on this page:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Madie of Wind Riders
09-13-2006, 04:48 AM
While I have to say that I do not agree with the slanderous name calling and childish banter, that last flame was one of the best pieces of entertainment I have had for a long time Aidon :texla: :epopcorn:

Madie of Wind Riders
09-14-2006, 01:01 AM
ROFL I just noticed that Swiftfox now has the title "Conspiracy Nut"

Nice work! ;)

Aidon
09-14-2006, 02:42 AM
That wasn't me =P

I suspect Stormie, she's usually the one who gives out titles for fun and profit.