9-11 mastermind 'fesses up after five years of playing hard to get at Gitmo
According to friar Ockham, the first denial they tortured out of him was probably the truth
15 questions for 9/11 "truthers"
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:24
#52
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:25
#53
You are asking me, Thorin, to prove there isn't an invisible fire breathing dragon in your garage.
I will admit that I can't.
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:25
#54
Not sure if it archive retrieval worked. One more time.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/index.html?pubdate=12.15.08&pub...
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:44
#55
You are asking me, Thorin, to prove there isn't an invisible fire breathing dragon in your garage.
I will admit that I can't.
No need for wild speculation now, Tommy. It doesnt matter so much that the inquisition's only real evidence is Khaled’s confession extracted by torture after five years holding out on them. What matters now is that Obama and his cosmetic guvmint execute Khaled Jack Ruby style before someone starts harping that an American military inquisition and genuine justice, like, with all the legalities and proper procedures regarded for introducing evidence, arent the same thing. Either that or they don't want Khaled doing Oprah and the talk show circuit. Because we all know only one side tends to do the talking wrt colder war inquisitions. Extreme ways are back again - Moby
Thu, 2008-12-18 22:19
#56
So let me understand that even though we don't trust fox news you will trust
Hearst Communications, Inc. is a privately-held American-based media conglomerate based in the Hearst Tower in New York City, USA. Founded by William Randolph Hearst as an owner of newspapers,
the company's holdings now include a wide variety of media. The Hearst
family is involved in the ownership and management of the company.
Let me understand this - much of "Loose Change"'s arguments come from an outfit called the American Free Press which is published by neo-nazi and Holocaust denier Willis Carto. You give those guys credence?
Fri, 2008-12-19 11:50
#57
You are asking me, Thorin, to prove there isn't an invisible fire breathing dragon in your garage.
I will admit that I can't.
Nice strawman arguement Tommy, I expected better than that. Asnwer my question on Oswald will you, is he the lone gunman? Simple as that. The evidence at the trial(even though there wasn't one for 9/11) says he did it. So I must asume you agree with Oswald had to have killed Kennedy and twice wounded the other senator in the car, with one bullet. Look I am not the one that started a thread for nothing but to bait people. I am telling you, I don't believe the offficial story. I don't know what happened but it wasn't 19 terrorists that managed to highjack 4 planes all co ordinated from an afhganistan cave over the course of 9 years. What is so hard to believe that the official story seems contrived. I can't prove myself right, but neither can you as you proved by making a ridiculous strawman about dragons.
Why hasn't bin laden made a tape in the last 6 years? Is he already dead from kidney failure. Is he in some prison, who knows but you would think he would have come out this week after the recent shoe-ing to prove that moslems don't want westerners in their countries. I also can't show you how electronics work, does that mean that little things called electrons don't move down wires and across open space to be recieved on our television. This thread asked why do you believe any of the other theories about 9/11. I gave my answers. If you guys don't want to accept them, fine but to berate other because they don't make sense to you is a little bit of a double standard. If you want to believe the "official story" Go ahead. But I don't. This is also my flounce from this thread as it is nothing but baiting. If you don't want our answers to the questions YOU guys demanded, then why ask them in the first place.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky
Fri, 2008-12-19 11:53
#58
There is all kinds of other ones on line that have NOTHING to do with "jew bankers" If that is what you are implying. If you are taking this personally because of your heritage, you shouldn't. Loose Change deosn't say anything about world bank, they do mention the money stolen from the vaults (I don't buy that portion) They also don't talk about the "jews were told not to come to work that day" a lot of people didn't get to work that day, because for almost 9:00 in the morning there wasn't too many people in those buildings which hold 100,000 people.
Did you watch it? I have read the pop mec article, have you watched ANY of the dozens and dozens of different movies with their various perspectives? Many of them cover the different physics that disprove what "official scientists" say.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky
Fri, 2008-12-19 11:56
#59
There is all kinds of other ones on line that have NOTHING to do with "jew bankers" If that is what you are implying. If you are taking this personally because of your heritage, you shouldn't. Loose Change deosn't say anything about world bank, they do mention the money stolen from the vaults (I don't buy that portion) They also don't talk about the "jews were told not to come to work that day" a lot of people didn't get to work that day, because for almost 9:00 in the morning there wasn't too many people in those buildings which hold 100,000 people.
Did you watch it? I have read the pop mec article, have you watched ANY of the dozens and dozens of different movies with their various perspectives? Many of them cover the different physics that disprove what "official scientists" say.
You miss my point. You chastised someone for referencing a publication that was published by Hearst. I'm saying that's rather rich coming from someone who is referencing a film that uses Willis Carto publications as its source material. While it's nice that Loose Change airbrushed out AFP and the Barnes Review's antisemitism and neo-nazism that doesn't change the fact that their source material (and by extension your source material) comes from a completely discredited source.
Fri, 2008-12-19 15:50
#60
Show me YOUR proof for the pan cake theory. Why didn't the building slump toward the side missing the corner where the plane went in. Instead we had a systematic collapse of the entire structure in freefall without any kind of resistance from the floor below.
The FreeFall myth: (Read the whole page, I'm just going to quote parts of it.)
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
AND...just to stop the WTC7 stuff too (not that this really will but still...)
Fri, 2008-12-19 16:14
#61
Fri, 2008-12-19 18:49
#62
Did you watch it?
Yes, several versions of it in fact. Odd how the later versions quietly drop assertions made in earlier versions without admitting that the claims in question were false.
Sat, 2008-12-20 00:18
#63
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. ae911truth
9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”
===
[i]"I don't understand you people! I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They don't mean nothing. You saw this kid just like I did. You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! "[/i] -- juror#10, Twelve Angry Men
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}
Sun, 2008-12-21 01:46
#64
"I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your own democracy again" -- President Elect Barack Obama
“The War on Terror was created immediately following the September 11th attacks, an incident that has never had a criminal investigation. However, nations were invaded and millions killed because of it. It's time for the government to either present to the world real evidence proving who was responsible for this terrorist event or immediately leave all invaded nations.”-- Daniel Paxton (Patriotic American, defender of good.), Houston, TX Dec 01 @ 08:00PM PST
Sat, 2009-03-07 03:11
#65
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/paul-d-boin/what-would-obama-do-revi... would Obama do? Revisiting 9/11[/b][/color][/url]
While it could be argued that the terrorist act already constitutes the pretext for a retaliatory response, any response is an exercise in decision-making. Even our basest and seemingly automatic human responses still inextricably involve a series of choices. Do we, in the case of the United States and its allies, respond immediately? Do we confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, who the terrorists were? Do we retaliate (punish) in a manner that is equal to the initial terrorist act (crime)? Are we also going to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in our chosen response? Who is to participate in this retaliatory action? And what range of repercussions may follow from our chosen response?
When deciding among these monumental choices, if we are to have any hope of making good decisions, our elected representatives, and the citizens in whose name they act, must have access to and demand the full range of facts. In order to make good, or truth-based, decisions we require complete and accurate information which is grounded in a broad context that is appreciative of history, the present, and the future. What happened on September 11, 2001 was unspeakably evil and insane. Before we respond to this terrorist act however, we must first ensure that the truth, or at least as full a truth as possible, is provided. In a world where there are enough nuclear warheads to kill all of the world’s 6 billion people dozens of times over, nothing less is acceptable
[url=http://pl911truth.com][color=mediumblue][b]Politicians for 9/11 Truth[/b][/color][/url]
Sun, 2009-03-08 01:46
#66
Sven
Questions are not answers.
I find the style of the 15 questions not much different than the style of all conspiracy theorists, 9/11 ones and otherwise.
I rather like aka Mycroft's questions. They are interesting to think about.
That being said, I completely agree with the following:
If there are those who believe that the Bush administration played a role in the attacks on Sept. 11, it is up to them to provide the evidence for such an hypothesis. Period. End of debate.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 03:20
#67
And if the bleeting "deception theorists" cant answer the questions, and the plutocrats refuse to answer the questions, then who will?
Sun, 2009-03-08 03:30
#68
Sven
And if the bleeting "deception theorists" cant answer the questions, and the plutocrats refuse to answer the questions, then who will?
Obviously, if relevant facts are unknown, then it may be difficult, if not impossible, to know what the truth is. But, if critical facts are not known regarding a claimed conspiracy, then to claim even the possibility of a conspiracy is mere speculation.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 06:04
#69
Sven, why do you think change.org erased several citizens requests for a new 9/11 investigation? Or would a transparent investigation with people held accountable represent too much change for the plutocracy?
And, do you think Bush and the neocon cabal should be arraigned on charges of war crimes? Because the head of the lawyer's guild in your country thinks they should.
Sun, 2009-03-08 10:48
#70
I have always supported Sunera Thobani's explanation for 9/11. It was so obvious to any progressive person that they had to organize a real conspiracy to vilify her.
Sun, 2009-03-08 11:57
#71
Sven
Sven, why do you think change.org erased several citizens requests for a new 9/11 investigation? Or would a transparent investigation with people held accountable represent too much change for the plutocracy?
"Conspiracies" are so fun because the only limits on what qualifies is one's own imagination. They are entertaining tales to tell oneself. They titillate like National Enquirer stories. They are fun to contemplate and the basis of many novels and movies. They are like sci-fi.
By their speculative nature, they can't be disproven.
But, to someone who is rationally and seriously exploring a question, unless there is evidence to support a conspiracy, then a conspiracy cannot be established as fact.
To say there is a conspiracy in the absence of evidence is to claim that pink unicorns visit us while we are sleeping and cause us to dream.
And, do you think Bush and the neocon cabal should be arraigned on charges of war crimes? Because the head of the lawyer's guild in your country thinks they should.
Which lawyers' "guild" are you referring to? Have you got a link to the individual's specific comments?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 13:23
#72
I wonder, are there any atheists who are 9/11 truthers?
I can see a connection between the two kinds of blind faith in invisible unprovable irrefutable conspiracies.
Sun, 2009-03-08 14:41
#73
Sven, why do you think change.org erased several citizens requests for a new 9/11 investigation? Or would a transparent investigation with people held accountable represent too much change for the plutocracy?
"Conspiracies" are so fun because the only limits on what qualifies is one's own imagination. They are entertaining tales to tell oneself. They titillate like National Enquirer stories. They are fun to contemplate and the basis of many novels and movies. They are like sci-fi.
By their speculative nature, they can't be disproven.
Sure they can be disproven, Sven. The very slip-shod 9/11 commission report amounts to conspiracy theory, and the reason the plutocracy refuses to produce the evidence to support their conspiracy theory is that they knew beforehand that it doesnt exist. The CIA never actually severed covert ties to their database of expendible Islamic gladios, "al Qa'eda", in 1992. Covert collusion with their religious robots actually continued well into the 1990's with Bubba's government aiding and abetting the creation of a militant Islamic base in the former Yugoslavia and with cooperation from British SAS, Pakistani ISI, OBL, Iranian Revolutionary Guard etc ad nauseum.
And their conspiracy theory will live on until there is a transparent investigation and people held accountable. The facts are that you still dont know who planned and perpetrated 9/11.
But, to someone who is rationally and seriously exploring a question, unless there is evidence to support a conspiracy, then a conspiracy cannot be established as fact.
So why do you think the plutocracy is afraid of a simple online petition? Would it be even harder to ignore if so many signatures were added to the bottom of such a petition, which is a similar tool used by the CIA in the recent past to destabilize governments around the world?
To say there is a conspiracy in the absence of evidence is to claim that pink unicorns visit us while we are sleeping and cause us to dream.
At least one famous scientist said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The American inquisition's evidence amounts to confession extracted under torture. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure confessions extracted under torture in an illegal gulag in Cuba dont hold much weight in normal courts of law.
And, do you think Bush and the neocon cabal should be arraigned on charges of war crimes? Because the head of the lawyer's guild in your country thinks they should.
Which lawyers' "guild" are you referring to? Have you got a link to the individual's specific comments?
Sun, 2009-03-08 14:41
#74
Thanks for the link, Fidel. Here's a [url=http://marjoriecohn.com/2001/10/hoist-on-our-own-petard.html][color=red]... good post[/color][/url] she wrote on Oct. 5, 2001. She's obviously no 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
Sun, 2009-03-08 14:49
#75
Sven
And, do you think Bush and the neocon cabal should be arraigned on charges of war crimes? Because the head of the lawyer's guild in your country thinks they should.
Thanks for the link to Majorie Cohn blog site.
I was confused when you referred to "the lawyer's guild" in the USA, as there is no single lawyers' guild (the biggest association or "guild" of lawyers, for example, is the American Bar Association, but there are many, many others, including the National Lawyers Guild, of which Cohn is president).
Besides, the NLG calling for the investigation of Bush is about as remarkable as when Dennis Kucinich called for Bush's impeachment. The NLG and Kucinich represent a small, left-wing viewpoint. In other words, just because Marjorie Cohn calls for an investigation into Bush administration activities, means little. It's about as noteworthy as a prominent Republican calling for tax cuts. Ho-hum.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 14:50
#76
She also says that war criminals and their lawyers must be prosecuted. And that recent Bush justice dept memos reveal a concerted effort for creating a police state in America.
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth say that normal proceedings of constitutional law were violated with the very slip-shod and unaccountable 9/11 commission report. What do you think of the alleged confessions extracted under torture at Gitmo?
I think the fact that people in the legal profession and intelligence communities around the world suggesting that 9/11 might have been an inside job and phony investigation a coverup is telling. Millions of Americans and people around the world just want a legit inquiry and the truth. Why should unaccountable war criminals be afraid of the truth? The answer is obvious.
Sun, 2009-03-08 14:53
#77
Sven
Thanks for the link, Fidel. Here's a [url=http://marjoriecohn.com/2001/10/hoist-on-our-own-petard.html][color=red]... good post[/color][/url] she wrote on Oct. 5, 2001. She's obviously no 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
That's because Marjorie Cohn has nothing to do with 9/11. This Marjorie Cohn discussion is just run-of-the-mill FTD ("Fidel thread drift"), where everything ultimately morphs into an anti-Bush commentary (which is becoming less and less relevant) or an anti-American commentary (i.e., the Unified Theory of Babble).
Anyway, back to 9/11 and conspiracy theories...
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 14:55
#78
Besides, the NLG calling for the investigation of Bush is about as remarkable as when Dennis Kucinich called for Bush's impeachment.
Does that in some way make the call for justice to be done less legit? Ralph Nader also signed a petitition for the original 9/11 commission to take place as well as a subsequent and legitimate one. Ralph commented that, ~ 3000 people died on 9/11, and the Bush cabal didnt even want to have an official investigation. Can you believe it?
Sun, 2009-03-08 15:03
#79
Sven
Does that in some way make the call for justice to be done less legit?
No. I'm saying that her calling for a criminal investigation into Bush administration activities is unremarkable and predictable. I read your early post as, "Gee whiz, even the head of the lawyers' guild is calling for an investigation into Bush administration. So, there must be something to it!!" That's like saying, "The head of the Republicans in the Senate is calling for tax cuts, so there must be something to it!!"
All that either statement generates is a yawn.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 15:13
#80
Does that in some way make the call for justice to be done less legit?
No. I'm saying that her calling for a criminal investigation into Bush administration activities is unremarkable and predictable. I read your early post as, "Gee whiz, even the head of the lawyers' guild is calling for an investigation into Bush administration. So, there must be something to it!!" That's like saying, "The head of the Republicans in the Senate is calling for tax cuts, so there must be something to it!!"
All that either statement generates is a yawn.
So how many signatures on a change.org petition might have been necessary to grease the wheels of justice for 9/11 truth? I suppose youll never know, will you, Sven? But we can sure that the CIA and its extensions NED, USAID etc will continue using phony citizens' petitions to harass and harangue governments they dont agree with and pursuing their brand of change around the world.
Sun, 2009-03-08 15:14
#81
Sven
Fidel, when you get some evidence (not speculation and conjecture) of a 9/11 conspiracy, you just let us all know, 'kay?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 15:34
#82
Fidel, when you get some evidence (not speculation and conjecture) of a 9/11 conspiracy, you just let us all know, 'kay?
Likewise, when Sven can point to something more substantial than confessions extracted under torture and alleged evidence witheld for reasons of "national security", we can be sure that Sven will be all over it like chocolate sauce on ice cream. But until then the criminal Bush regime's slip-shod 9/11 commission will be considered little more than ubsubstantiated conspiracy theory by tens of millions of people around the world while illegal and immoral warfiteering continues unabated.
Because in your mind, you, too, are fearful that 9/11 may well have been an inside job. Who's backsliding on democracy now?
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10144][color=red][... and the "American Inquisition"[/b][/color][/url]
Sun, 2009-03-08 15:40
#83
Sven
But until then the criminal Bush regime's slip-shod 9/11 commission will be considered little more than ubsubstantiated conspiracy theory by tens of millions of [color=red][critically unsophistcated][/color] people around the world.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sun, 2009-03-08 15:59
#84
So all you can do for now is speculate, Sven, because you dont know either. And apparently you are one of those who doesnt care to know anything further. Trust and obey. And that's your right as a citizen to remain an uncritical believer in government sponsored conspiracy theory. And we wont know anything much as to who might have aided and abetted the "al Qa'eda" plotters and schemers to carry out such a gladio style operation. And evidence does exist demonstrating pattern and precedent for false flag NATO sponsored terror to be sure. Theyre backsliding, Sven.
Sun, 2009-03-08 16:27
#85
TemporalHominid
They lied about WMD in Iraq.
So which is it? Are Bush and the neo-cons incredibly devious, manipulative, and secretive or are they incompetent? If neo-cons can't pull of a simple deception with all the resources at their disposal which ultimately resulted in the WMD fisaco, how could they have pulled off a 9/11 scenario to catapult United States into a prolonged war?
If Larry , Curly and Moe were in charge of the convincing the world of WMDs in Iraq, could they pull off the 9/11 caper?
Sun, 2009-03-08 16:30
#86
They lied about WMD in Iraq.So which is it? Are Bush and the neo-cons incredibly devious, manipulative, and secretive or are they incompetent? If neo-cons can't pull of a simple deception with all the resources at their disposal which ultimately resulted in the WMD fisaco, how could they have pulled off a 9/11 scenario to catapult United States into a prolonged war?
Ya sure, we know. Dick Cheney blamed the CIA for dragging them into a costly war with Iraq. Theyre incredibly unlucky with being duped into committing war crimes for real estate grabs. This theory has been peddled before. But as Canadian Naomi Klein and others have said, it's time to consider that serial mistakes and colossal blunders are not mistakes at all.
Thu, 2009-03-12 15:26
#87
Good, reasonable bunch of questions. Let me first state that my position on all of this is 'suspicious but undecided'.
(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
Coincidence is always possible, but it's unlikely. Maybe there was some reason that he wouldn't have been so perfect a figure to work with the Americans as we might be led to imagine. But the most obvious answer lies in the fact that when all was said and done, Karzai, the expat and former petrol man, was installed. Perhaps this fellow that was assasinated would have been the most likely national leader in the event of invasion, and wouldn't be inclined to give the petrol interests what they wanted. Or maybe the Taliban simply kill him. Which in no way would count as evidence that American officials knew of an impending attack but simply decided to let it happen.
(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?
I don't see that it would really be necessary. The real target of any false flag operation would be the American people and their hearts and minds. If they did indeed facilitate these ties with the NA before hand, that might be incriminating, no? All they would need is their 'Pearl Harbor Event' and the rest could be taken care of as needed. They do have the biggest military budget in the world, after all
(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?
I haven't read that. What are his sources, and what makes him reliable in this matter?
(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
Perhaps that would, again, be incriminating. Why the rush? Get the cause for war first and then worry about the actual attack.
(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
Considering that the actual hijackers trained for some time in the US, that would look rather awkward, wouldn't it? People would want to know why Iraqis and Syrians and Iranians were training in a Florida flight school, I imagine. An even better question is: if several of the supposed hijackers turned up alive after the fact (BBC carried that story) then who really was on those planes?
(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?
Well, the Egyptians pretty much do as they're told. But the true case may be that they did, indeed, have nationals on those planes
(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
They couldn't. That would certainly be another problem with having invasion plans drawn up ahead of time, wouldn't it? But if the 9/11 event happened, world sympathy were given, and Pakistan were threatened with 'with us or against us', that would change everything wouldn't it? Congratulations. You and I have found the answer to question #4
(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
I'll pass on the Israeli intelligence involvement question. I haven't seen enough evidence to comment in any worthwhile way
(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
I pass, again
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
Planes are spectacular. If only they'd done a proper forensic investigation into the matter, which they didn't seem to want to, we might have some answers concerning that
(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
The Taliban were kicked out of Kabul, but they haven't been made to go away yet, have they? Seems to me that the countryside is still under no one side's control. And pipelines make easy targets, providing they can even be built without the crews being wiped out
(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
Well, the other conspiracy theorists want us to believe that the best equipped, best funded air defense network in the world couldn't intercept a couple of airliners although it's SOP when a hijacking takes place. Quite a coincidence that an exercise that simulated hijackings were going on at the same time, on the same day. Might cause some confusion, I imagine. What timing.
(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?
Why did no one ever produce that alleged evidence that Bin Laden was responsible? Even as of today? Hell, for that matter, what were supposedly Wahabbist radicals doing drinking in strip clubs?
(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
How long could they go without intercepting that particular plane and still get away with it? The plane was likely shot down, and went down half an hour after the Pentagon strike and an hour after the 2nd WTC hit. How long would be too long? Hour and a half? Two hours? Perhaps it was a standby plane in case something did go wrong with another target.
(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?
Why kill them? The official conspiracy theory has the weight of unquestioning public support. Killing them would only draw attention to them and send up warning flags if they started dying off
Fri, 2009-03-13 05:31
#88
Don't bother with this thread. A lot of baiting(thanks unionist for adding to this heap) and yes I am an atheist that doesn't believe the 9/11 comission who's evidence is a passport that survived the exploding plane, subsequent fires, and was dfound in the rubble all the while a lack of said peron on the passneger manifest. Gosh i must be one of them there dang blarn southern baptists.
Fri, 2009-03-13 14:37
#89
Oh, I know.
I especially liked this:
" Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”.
Which in other words says 'If you can't come up with a better story than the official, improbable, full of big big holes bullshit, you have no business doubting that what the Liar Bush and company told you is true'
Which is, of course, arrogant bullshit.
"War is a racket" - Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC
Fri, 2009-03-13 16:12
#90
Which in other words says 'If you can't come up with a better story than the official, improbable, full of big big holes bullshit, you have no business doubting that what the Liar Bush and company told you is true'
Which is, of course, arrogant bullshit.
I don't blame you for feeling angry. It can be infuriating when people just won't listen to reason.
Fri, 2009-03-13 16:39
#91
Agreed
Fri, 2009-03-13 16:56
#92
[url=http://www.stj911.org/contributions/paul_craig_roberts/tapes.html][color... Were The Tapes Destroyed?[/b][/color][/url] Feb 2008
Many Americans are content with the 9/11 Commission Report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are not. Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a US Senator who resigned from the 9/11 Commission, telling the Boston Globe (November 13, 2003): “This investigation is now compromised.” Even former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (November 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the commission’s report and “questions that need answers.”
Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission,' and again in (January 2, 2008), the New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered -- or mis-answered -- questions.
On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: “What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the President, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”
Imagine being whistle blower on a 9/11 commission you were a participant to, and some large percentage of the sheep inisist on believing the official Bush government lies and deception. Eight angry men who were probably in conflict of interest, and two whistle blowers?
Fri, 2009-03-13 21:56
#93
I am always wary of "Truth" movements. Calling it the "9/11 Truth Movement" instead of, say the "9/11 Doubt Movement" was no accident as right from the start most "truthers" have only been interested in "evidence" if it supports their initial "truth." Hell, one of the most prominent people in the movement from the start is Alex Jones, a man who announced the "truth" that this was an inside job immediately after the planes hit the twin towers. Zero evidence is required when you start out with absolute certainty.
I don't think that the official government story is the full story. So, I would be thrilled if a movement started with the intent of finding out as much as possible based on following where the evidence leads. I would have a shred of respect for the "truth movement" if it stopped spreading "evidence" that has long been shown to be false such as: "if several of the supposed hijackers turned up alive after the fact (BBC carried that story) then who really was on those planes?"
Why is it too much to ask a truth movement to 1) provide evidence for their claims and 2) stop spreading lies? And why does asking a so called truth movement to rise above the antics of the creationism movement - like using the Gish Gallop technique of debate - make one a sheep?
Fri, 2009-03-13 22:24
#94
Why is it too much to ask a truth movement to 1) provide evidence for their claims
I think this is clearly the Bush regime's fault, and the fault of the Pentagon, FAA, CIA, FBI etc for botching the investigation and witholding what is apparently crucial evidence to support their own flimsy case. It's pretty bad when people in German intel, the BND and successor to the Stasi, have also opined that 9/11 was an inside job.
Sat, 2009-03-14 01:52
#95
Very much agree, Fidel.
It's hard to prove anything when there isn't much solid to go on. We have conflicting official accounts, rumors of things that are said to be true but were left out of the '9/11 commission' whitewash for reasons unsaid, stories from people on scene that suggest things, improbable tales, odd behaviors by hijackers that make no sense, hijackers alive who were said to be dead, crappy pilots who could barely fly a single engine doing barnstorming acrobatics with a jetliner, a blackout of evidence, and a general blackhole blizzard of obfuscation, doublespeak, and innuendo by people who subsequently proved themselves to be a-human liars of the first order.
There's no way to 'prove' anything. But there's every way not to believe, and I don't think that I believe what the Bush administration and its apologists have told me is true against all reason.
Sat, 2009-03-14 09:10
#96
hijackers alive who were said to be dead,
Twice now you have gave an example as to why I will never have anything to do with this so-called "truth movement."
If the movement had any integrity then those prominent in the movement when they found out that such a statement was untrue would have corrected it on their websites, or at minimum taken such claims off their sites. None that I have seen have ever corrected those claims, many eventually removed the claims, but many others still have those claims there.
If I was involved in a movement that says that it is interested in uncovering the truth then yes I would have included such information on my website when it was first reported. Then when said information was completely debunked I would have changed the information on my site and advised others in the movement to do the same. Afterall, if I am interested in the truth then why would I want people wasting time and resources chasing false leads? That would be the last thing I would want. But if, as is the case, the movement never was concerned in the slightest with the truth in the first place, but only interested in throwing out there every piece of (mostly bogus) "evidence" that supports my initial position, then I would do what the "truth movement" does. That is why people correctly compare this movement to the creationist movement.
There is a former NHL goalie who has the same name as I have. If one of us were to die and the parents of the surviving Trevor were to say "My son is still alive" that doesn't mean that the deceased Trevor is still alive.
It would be different, but still unacceptable, if this was the only lie still being spread by the "truth" movement, but sadly it is one of many.
Edit: And Fidel, if they can't achieve #1 (provide evidence for their claims) because of interference from the Bush administration then that is still no excuse for not making headway on #2 (stop spreading lies).
Sat, 2009-03-14 11:06
#97
What do you mean 'when they found out that such a statement is untrue'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
I haven't seen a retraction of this, even by following the update links in the article.
Personally, I don't have anything to do with any truth movement, either, outside of just not believing the official story and not being afraid to say so.
Sat, 2009-03-14 11:46
#98
When a story published 12 days after 9/11 about name confusion is more than 7 years later still the basis of your (and many conspiracy sites) belief that hijackers are still alive that should be your first clue to be skeptical of it.
When the update link in the article says among other things:
The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report
But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity.
That should be clues number 2, 3, 4 and 5. As clear as possible, is never clear enough for "truthers." I am not asking you to believe the official story. I am asking you to be even slightly skeptical of conspiracy websites. The families of the real Waleed M. al-Shehri Abdulaziz al-Omari, and Khalid al-Mihdhar have acknowledged that they were among the 19.
They even bolded this part:
The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
Sat, 2009-03-14 15:32
#99
When a story published 12 days after 9/11 about name confusion is more than 7 years later still the basis of your (and many conspiracy sites) belief that hijackers are still alive that should be your first clue to be skeptical of it.
The first thing you must do to tune in with "conspiracy" theorists is to begin to be open to the possibility that the public is being kept in the dark regarding several key aspects of the 9/11 government narrative. The FBI mismanaged identity of the hijackers right off the bat. By 10 am on 9/11, the FBI produced a list of 18 of the 19 hijackers' identities. But the fact that six of hijackers' real identities was in question was never described in the official 9/11 report. But that's not very interesting either and certainly not "the basis" for valid sketicism of the official coverup and deception.
You have to begin by questioning the unofficial narrative that says the US military and CIA severed all covert ties to Osama bin Laden and Islamic jihadis in Central Asia when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, or at least by 1992 when the PDPA government finally fell to their paid Islamic gladios fighting for control of that country. In fact, there is evidence that that the CIA and Brits maintained an intimate relationship with the "database" of expendible Islamic jihadi CIA assets all through the 1990's. A Republican senate committee website has essentially documented the Clinton administrations ongoing involvement with "al Qa'eda" in creating a militant Islamic state in Bosnia and successfully destabilizing former Yugoslavia by bombs away in 1999. Chechen "rebels" were also trained at the same madrassas in Pakistan and autonomous region bordering Afghanistan in the 1990s. And one might wonder why that upon request of the US FBI in 1993, the RCMP would release a known "al Qa'eda" expert on hijackings and thought to be CIA-Pakistani ISI agent in Vancouver, if indeed they'd severed all covert ties to their former Islamic gladios in Central Asia in the year before that.
And Liberal Democrats basically accuse the Bush Republicans of carrying on with "al Qa'eda" in kind post Clinton, back and forth yada yada. It's been a low level war of words between the two wings of the same US plutocracy. And as long as successive cosmetic leaders in government are protected by "plausible deniablity" and zero accountability and constitional obligations violated continually, shadow feds are able to carry on perpetrating what one independent writer on the matter describes as "deep state events" in the US and around the world.
So the world public was lied to unofficially and often early on in the story. This is a beginning to understanding why many people dont believe the official deception theory surrounding 9/11. And there's more, a lot more than this.
Sat, 2009-03-14 15:53
#100
The first thing you must do to tune in with "conspiracy" theorists is to begin to be open to the possibility that the public is being kept in the dark regarding several key aspects of the 9/11 government narrative.
Fidel, I highly doubt that anyone on this board - myself, unionist and Tommy Paine included - is not open to the possibility that the public is being kept in the dark by the government. However, I also think that we should be open to the possibility that many conspiracy theorists are pathological liars (Alex Jones? Hello?), and most other conspiracy theorists are not critical enough to question the views of the liars. I know what a conspiracy mindset is. I have had such a mindset. Many of my friends have such a mindset. They feel that they are the only ones being critical when the reality is that they are not being critical at all.
My very strong dislike of the Bush administration and my view that they are pretty close to pure evil meant that my default belief was that the Bush administration had to have been behind 9/11. So why don't I believe the truthers? Becasue It only took a brief scratching of the surface to see the truthers were lying sacks of crap (go deeper and it gets worse).
Sat, 2009-03-14 18:34
#101
My very strong dislike of the Bush administration and my view that they are pretty close to pure evil meant that my default belief was that the Bush administration had to have been behind 9/11. So why don't I believe the truthers? Becasue It only took a brief scratching of the surface to see the truthers were lying sacks of crap (go deeper and it gets worse).
How do you know Peter Dale Scott is a liar? Canadian professor Michel Chossudovsky? What about scholars for 9/11 Truth? Lawyers and architects for 9/11 Truth? And pilots for 9/11 truth have some very good questions for the FAA and a legitimate investigation.
And this wouldnt be the first time a NATO member country has been accused of deep state involvement with false flag terror. That's another thing that doesnt look very good on them - the fact that theyve orchestrated acts of terrorism in this hemisphere for a long time and even provided sanctuary for known terrorists in the USA (and Canada) since at least WW II. We're talking about a country with a known history of being the most significant source of state sanctioned terrorism in the world.