9/11 : Ten Years?!

[Bold Seagull]

What's inappropriate are the reactions of those over here, with absolutely no connection to the attacks, or even the US, who get abusive just because someone wants to debate the veracity of the official story.

Personally, I think it's an insult to the memories of the dead, and to their families, if we don't at least try to find out what really happened to them.

Not only that, every time we let our governments get away with these sorts of charades then we're just making it easier for them to con us again in the future.

[MENTION=12506]thejackal[/MENTION], your final statement is what is most difficult to understand. You want to find out what really happened and debate the veracity of the official story, however it's clear from your last statement (and others you have made) that you're already certain it's been a charade, and that you've been conned. That isn't suggesting you are open debate, it suggests you've already made your mind up and that you are unwillingly to consider any other information unless it corroborates what you've chosen to believe.

 

[thejackal]

The fantasy World the conspiracists inhabit is very sad. One thing not mentioned is that Bin Laden would have had to have been in on the whole thing. He and Al Queda have claimed responsibility. If he knew they did not do it and it was an inside job, surely he would have blown the whistle as this would have destroyed the USA and the USA government more than he could ever do. No, you are all deluded and as such its impossible to have a debate with you.

Uncle S, that's just incorrect.

Bin Laden denied responsibility, and the US authorities have never had anything resembling a case against him.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the FBI's OBL 10 most wanted poster, it mentions the attacks in Africa, but no mention of 9/11, because they had, in their own words, "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Here's the link again: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

This is one of the primary reasons that this never came to court. The US still have absolutely no case against him, other than confessions extracted using torture, which are not admissable in the courts of civilised countries because it's accepted that people will say anything when they're being tortured, just to make it stop.

Also, if Bin Laden had accused the US of being in on it do you honestly think anyone would have believed him?

Again, there was no chance of this anyway as there was never a meaningful trial.

If I'm honest, and I do say this with humility and respect, I think it is you that is a little deluded. You're the one that's making it impossible for us to have a proper debate, because you don't want to look at the facts. If we're polite, and we stick to the facts, or at least information that is in the public domain, then surely a meaningful debate would be very possible?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I believe terrorist scum did it
You believe Bush and the USA government did it

We are in a stand off situation and I can't see that its worth debating anymore.

Kind Regards

Uncle Spielberg

 

[thejackal]

[MENTION=12506]thejackal[/MENTION], your final statement is what is most difficult to understand. You want to find out what really happened and debate the veracity of the official story, however it's clear from your last statement (and others you have made) that you're already certain it's been a charade, and that you've been conned. That isn't suggesting you are open debate, it suggests you've already made your mind up and that you are unwillingly to consider any other information unless it corroborates what you've chosen to believe.

Yeah that's a fair point.

The thing is, I'm not saying that I know exactly what happened - I don't - but I am saying that the official story cannot be taken seriously because it contains so many inconsistencies, distortions and ommissions, as to be almost laughable.

You see, no-one is denying that the offical report - and therefore the official story - was a whitewash. Almost all of the members of the commission have since made statements to that effect. I quoted three of them in my post #169, so here are some different ones:

"the [9/11 Commission] findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself" - Loius Freeh, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI

"there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people" - Congressman Curt Weldon

"The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence" - John Loftus, U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice

I have literally hundreds more.

These are serious people at the top of their games in the US administration. I don't believe any of them would make this stuff up, it's just not in their interests to make wild statements.

Even the 2 heads of the commission Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton have since expressed doubts. This is one, but there are others.

You do make a fair point about what I now believe, but I have come to my conclusions about 9/11 over the course of 10 years, having read over 30 books by well-respected authors on both sides of the debate, including the official report and the NIST hit pieces.

Not only that, I reserve the right to change my mind about any of this. I am open to your views, although I have been through the official story many times with a pretty fine tooth-comb so you can expect me to already have an answer to many of the well-worn myths contained in the official account.

I may think it now, but I certainly didn't start out with the assumption that it was a cover-up.

 

[The Wizard]

I believe terrorist scum did it
You believe Bush and the USA government did it

We are in a stand off situation and I can't see that its worth debating anymore.

Kind Regards

Uncle Spielberg

I also believe terrorists carried out the attack, doesn't however mean there aren't unanswered questions from the US government.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Yeah that's a fair point.

The thing is, I'm not saying that I know exactly what happened - I don't - but I am saying that the official story cannot be taken seriously because it contains so many inconsistencies, distortions and ommissions, as to be almost laughable.

You see, no-one is denying that the offical report - and therefore the official story - was a whitewash. Almost all of the members of the commission have since made statements to that effect. I quoted three of them in my post #169, so here are some different ones:

"the [9/11 Commission] findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself" - Loius Freeh, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI

"there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people" - Congressman Curt Weldon

"The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence" - John Loftus, U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice

I have literally hundreds more.

These are serious people at the top of their games in the US administration. I don't believe any of them would make this stuff up, it's just not in their interests to make wild statements.

Even the 2 heads of the commission Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton have since expressed doubts. This is one, but there are others.

You do make a fair point about what I now believe, but I have come to my conclusions about 9/11 over the course of 10 years, having read over 30 books by well-respected authors on both sides of the debate, including the official report and the NIST hit pieces.

Not only that, I reserve the right to change my mind about any of this. I am open to your views, although I have been through the official story many times with a pretty fine tooth-comb so you can expect me to already have an answer to many of the well-worn myths contained in the official account.

I may think it now, but I certainly didn't start out with the assumption that it was a cover-up.

You seem failry reasonable about this but to counter one of your quotes (I've not checked on the others), the one from Louis Freeh is taken completely out of context. He was referring to possilbe evidence as to whether one of the AQ Plane hijackers was previously known to the FBI, possible evidence of incompetance on the part of one or more people, nothing to do with conspiracy. One of your quotes the other day was similarly misleading (can't remember which one offhand)

 

[Bold Seagull]

I am open to your views, although I have been through the official story many times with a pretty fine tooth-comb so you can expect me to already have an answer to many of the well-worn myths contained in the official account.

I may think it now, but I certainly didn't start out with the assumption that it was a cover-up.

I think this debate has fractured into a polarised discussion regarding 'conspiracy - the bringing down of the towers was a planned event in collusion with agencies / government', 'cover-up - withholding of information in regard to the failures that led to the attacks', and the belief in the story as has been told. I think it is a little more grey than that.

My personal opinion is that the cover-up of information is/was inevitable given how clandestine politics and intelligence agencies are in the US. I don't doubt that there are aspects of how these terrorists learnt to fly planes, and plan their attack on American soil over many many months never got spotted or raised as a concern at any level, or if it did, that decisions were taken not to act. I therefore can agree with you that we don't know for certain what happened in the lead up, and in turn the decisions made in the aftermath.

What I do believe however, is that 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists and flown into the Pentagon and the 2 world trade centre towers. I cannot see past this on the evidence.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Y

I may think it now, but I certainly didn't start out with the assumption that it was a cover-up.

What do you think is being covered up- U.S govt. complicity or ineptitude? Or a mix? Or something else?

 

[thejackal]

You seem failry reasonable about this but to counter one of your quotes (I've not checked on the others), the one from Louis Freeh is taken completely out of context. He was referring to possilbe evidence as to whether one of the AQ Plane hijackers was previously known to the FBI, possible evidence of incompetance on the part of one or more people, nothing to do with conspiracy. One of your quotes the other day was similarly misleading (can't remember which one offhand)

Well, yes, that's a fair point too, although in my defence, those quotes are only intended to highlight the lack of credibility of the commission report, and are not supposed to demonstrate proof of a conspiracy.

 

[thejackal]

What do you think is being covered up- U.S govt. complicity or ineptitude? Or a mix? Or something else?

Very good question.

It's very hard to say but my opinion is that it was almost certainly a mix of the two.

I'd be guessing if I gave you any more detail but if you want a guess then I'd say probably more ineptitude than complicity, but that's not to completely dismiss the complicity aspect.

 

[thejackal]

I think this debate has fractured into a polarised discussion regarding 'conspiracy - the bringing down of the towers was a planned event in collusion with agencies / government', 'cover-up - withholding of information in regard to the failures that led to the attacks', and the belief in the story as has been told. I think it is a little more grey than that.

My personal opinion is that the cover-up of information is/was inevitable given how clandestine politics and intelligence agencies are in the US. I don't doubt that there are aspects of how these terrorists learnt to fly planes, and plan their attack on American soil over many many months never got spotted or raised as a concern at any level, or if it did, that decisions were taken not to act. I therefore can agree with you that we don't know for certain what happened in the lead up, and in turn the decisions made in the aftermath.

What I do believe however, is that 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists and flown into the Pentagon and the 2 world trade centre towers. I cannot see past this on the evidence.

Yeah I agree with most of that.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Very good question.

It's very hard to say but my opinion is that it was almost certainly a mix of the two.

I'd be guessing if I gave you any more detail but if you want a guess then I'd say probably more ineptitude than complicity, but that's not to completely dismiss the complicity aspect.

I think if either is the case we're highly unlikely to ever find out. Which will sadly leave enough unanswered questions and grey area for the more outlandish conspiracy theorists, which in turn will tarnish the asking of valid questions.

 

[thejackal]

I think if either is the case we're highly unlikely to ever find out. Which will sadly leave enough unanswered questions and grey area for the more outlandish conspiracy theorists, which in turn will tarnish the asking of valid questions.

spot on

 

[brunswick]

but thousands of people did see something and they cant all be misguided or inventing it. even the mainstream conspiracy sites accept there were witnesses to this event.

to question who was responsible or how actions occured is fair game for debate and conspiracy. to questioned the basic premise of 9/11, that two planes crashed into the towers, is fantasy and i dont really think you believe it either.

i like crossing swords and debating with you, as you are smart and look into things yourself.

on the first point above i have never seen these "thousands" ....just a handful of "i saw a plane" people on various MSM interviews. I have actually seen many more "i heard a big bang / i felt a big bang" witnesses.

on the 2nd point, i am swayed 80/20 towards the no planes theory, and am fully happy in the objective truth that this is a theory.

i think the whole thread can be wrapped up in a quick sentence:

"for those that believe it was an inside job, little proof is required, for those that believe the official line, no proof would be enough."

i still find it hard how you can rule out all of the 1500 experts just because there are others, do you rule out the ex-FBI and CIA whistleblowers too?

“What the CIA has done to us is unbelievable, look at the terrorist acts that have occurred,
the CIA are behind most, if not all of them....we had the WTC in 1993.....unfortunately for
them only six people were killed, not enough to pass the [anti-terror] legislation, so what
happened is two years later April 1995 down comes Oklahoma City building, one hundred
and sixty eight killed, one year later the Anti-Terror legislation which takes away many of
our constitutional rights and civil liberties is passed.”
Ted Gunderson, Former FBI Chief of Dallas and Memphis Operations

 

[brunswick]

The fantasy World the conspiracists inhabit is very sad. One thing not mentioned is that Bin Laden would have had to have been in on the whole thing. He and Al Queda have claimed responsibility. If he knew they did not do it and it was an inside job, surely he would have blown the whistle as this would have destroyed the USA and the USA government more than he could ever do. No, you are all deluded and as such its impossible to have a debate with you.

never have i seen such an ignorant uneducated post on NSC.
1) There is NO EVIDENCE linking Bin Laden to 9/11 - if you have some - post it!
2) Al-Queda is the name of a database from when the CIA trained Afghans, it is now a MSM buzzword. If you have proof they exist and are a current terror cell then post proof.

The fantasy land of the official report and the drones that source ALL their belief systems from the MSM is a land much worse than some of those who search for information independently and at at times fall down a false hole.

The "insulting" and "damning" of conspiracy theorists is a group think paradigm that has been delivered by the MSM.

As humans we should be open to ALL information, but rule it out when we internally find flaws, to knee jerk refute and insult at stage1 is a sign of a closed mind.

Uncle S, explain building 7 to me.

 

[beorhthelm]

on the first point above i have never seen these "thousands" ....just a handful of "i saw a plane" people on various MSM interviews. I have actually seen many more "i heard a big bang / i felt a big bang" witnesses.

is that because thats what gets put on youtube? the problem with "i heard a bang" witnesses is that there are alot of things that make a bang and most people wouldnt know an explosion from a gas cylinder, a falling lift, a small bomb or a detontion charge. more over, many of the good quality witnesses are of the occurance being some time before the collapse (otherwise they wouldnt be around to tell the tale), which means they wouldnt be related to controlled detonation.

on the 2nd point, i am swayed 80/20 towards the no planes theory, and am fully happy in the objective truth that this is a theory.

really? there isnt enough complexity and conflicting ideas being juggled already, now "they" would fake the method which they would use as cover for the actual destruction? it relies on unknown science (not technology, basic science of light and optics) and there's no evidence (past interpretation of a few low res frames and some manipulated youtube videos i gather), while pieces of plane littered around to prove there were planes. as i say before, why pretend to have a plane when a bomb would suffice? noplane hypothesis (it doesnt deserve the name theory) damages the case for "truthers" by presenting an utterly incomprehensible additional layer, and i understand isnt even supported by the mainstream conspiracy proponents. imo its been created recently by young newcomers wanting a chance to make a new input on the saga. Occam turns in his grave.

i think the whole thread can be wrapped up in a quick sentence:

"for those that believe it was an inside job, little proof is required, for those that believe the official line, no proof would be enough."

i think the sentance assumes if one doesnt believe the conspriacies (as many and varied as they are), one automatically believes the official line. as if there is nothing else in between. theres certainly a truth in that sentance though, the proof required for those that want to believe an inside job is very little.

i still find it hard how you can rule out all of the 1500 experts just because there are others, do you rule out the ex-FBI and CIA whistleblowers too?

again, i dont rule out those 1500 members of AE911, just question their opinions (they aren't consistant) and would like to weigh them up against the input of the other 99.9% of their profession. just as one should with whistleblowers. they work for the distrusted agency supposedly involved but when they say something that matches, this is trusted with out questioning their motivation. heres a point made to me once*: if an official who is subject to the official secrets act tells the world something and they dont end up in court/prison, what they said probably isnt true, or has only the mearest brush with "the truth". what your quote shows is that context is always important, its doesnt say anything directly and mostly shows there is friction and conflict between the FBI and CIA (who'd have thunk). its inuendo and opinion, he's not saying "i was on the ops team that...".

i dont even care this much. i just want someone to explain how the control demolition theory deals with the conflicting accounts of demolition using explosives (witnesses heard, single blown window) and thermite used which doesnt explode, along with how on earth they where supposed to rig the building with the hundreds of tons of either. instead of explainations, theres just more complex conspiracies added to the original. Bush could have personally remote controled a plane into a tower, it would make more sence than CD and most the restof the conspiracy narratives.



*by a chap who worked for "them" in this country. he reckoned 9/11 probably did have ex-intelligence involvement in it, because FBI/CIA couldnt be that stupid to allow this group to run around so easily... then again it is the US intel, he joked.

 

[Bold Seagull]

2) Al-Queda is the name of a database from when the CIA trained Afghans, it is now a MSM buzzword. If you have proof they exist and are a current terror cell then post proof.

Would it not be easier for you to post proof of the database?

 

[brunswick]

Would it not be easier for you to post proof of the database?

i could, but it would only serve for replies of "that is just text from a webpage," but research what robin cook said shortly before his death, and research the CIA involvement in training people in the middle east in the early 90's.

i dont even care this much. i just want someone to explain how the control demolition theory deals with the conflicting accounts of demolition using explosives (witnesses heard, single blown window) and thermite used which doesnt explode, along with how on earth they where supposed to rig the building with the hundreds of tons of either.

so you think this image below can happen from 2 planes going into a building with no explosives? explosives can easily be placed in a large building by a crack group of people.

now that is a conspiracy theory.

here are 5 photos for the Thermite "debunkers" such as yourself.

the big question away from all the big questions like demolition, norad, b7, and planes (that seemed to be all grouped as "conspiracy theories" is this:

who was to gain from 911? this answer is america - invasion into middle east, more control laws, boosted economy, and less freedom of speech - for only a few thousand deaths.

 

[beorhthelm]

so you think this image below can happen from 2 planes going into a building with no explosives? explosives can easily be placed in a large building by a crack group of people.

you are either confusing your conspiracy narratives or coming up with a new one. the normal controled demolition theory holds that both towers were brought down by, well, controled demolition. multiple floors rigged with explosives to suitable weaken/destroy the structure in a manner to bring down the building neatly. getting a bunch of explosives onto the 78th floor (or there abouts) to create a explosion to initiate the collapse is neither controlled or proposed. i think its quite possible that the still you show is of an explosion, however you know full well its immediatly after the collapse of the 84th+ floors, so explosives (which would have had to survive the inferno for an hour) are unnecessary, as we have a simpler observed explaination of 20 floors pulverising 5.

the point about the thermite is missed. the CD theorist hold that there is proof of demolition: bangs heard, blown out window to indicate the explosion. others hold that that it must be demolition because the the heat wasnt enough to melt steel, so invoke thermite to cut through the steel work. but thermite doesnt explode, it burns, thats the whole purpose of it. so there would be no bangs, no blown out windows. so which is it then, because the two proposed theorys exclude the other. and thats before considering the logistics of rigging 80 whatever floors with the charges.

the aunt sally question "who is to gain" is always the same no matter what the conspiracy, WTC, Tube bombings, JFK, fake moon landings. boosted the economy? there was i thinking that was the result of repealling the Glass–Steagall Act and the mortgage boom freeing up or creating consumer spending. no doubt this is part of the same plan of [secret group], forgive me if i roll my eyes at yet another link to yet another conspiracy.

 

[brunswick]

forgive me if i roll my eyes at yet another link to yet another conspiracy.

again, i could call the official story a link to a large conspiracy theory.

here is a live radio show about 911 on now if interested.

you can go on about "how" the explosives, compounds, and chemicals reacted to create the explosion but any fool surely can see that IS an explosion of STEEL floors above where the supposed planes entered.....planes just cannot do this.

also on the subject of Al-Qaeda....link1 and link2, you can brush these off as conspiracy but Pierre is a real person, just like your people on CNN that said "it was muslims in a cave" - i prefer to use independent sites than CNN and the unified corporate controlled profit making MSM.

I hope we are not going down the road again of all sites except the MSM are CT.