As you may know, my Signif Other is a 9/11 Truther. (No, that’s not why I haven’t posted anything on the controversies and conspiracy theories; it’s because I’m still digesting a lot of info about it). I think we’re an A-1 example of how people with opposing views can co-exist not only peaceably, but happily…a living lesson in how to treat those who disagree with you. Also, this makes for some very interesting conversations. I even attended the Vancouver 9/11 Truth conference last summer, and will probably post some of my thoughts on that at some point (right now, so much is happening with several of the conference speakers that I’d like to hold off until the dust settles a bit).
Anyway, R. has been attempting to convince me of the truth of the 9/11 conspiracy theories for a little over a year now (since he became an activist). No luck so far. So, he’s offering a “Christmas bonus” to the fellow Truther who can convince me. This little contest is open only to a select group of people with whom he is already in contact, but if you just happen to have startling new information that has not been presented in any Truth nor mainstream venue (because I’m already familiar with all of that), go ahead and give it a shot.
In any criminal case, people are rarely convinced by a single “WOW” piece of evidence. Instead, their minds are made up by the slow, steady accretion of solid and persuasive evidence. I have been hearing the Truthers’ “evidence” for over a year and am still not persuaded that 9/11 was a U.S. government-sponsored “false flag” operation. (I do suspect that some government insiders knew about the attacks in advance, but this has not been proven either.) “What about building 7?” won’t cut it, Truthers, ’cause even though NIST doesn’t have all the answers about its collapse – neither do you. I have yet to hear one credible alternate scenario to explain all the events of 9/11; I hear the names of suspects bandied around constantly, but the accusations are usually grounded in nothing more than speculation. Keep in mind that “My alien overlords told me so,” will probably not sway me either, though that would at least have some entertainment value.
Please keep your comments civil and coherent. I’m an open-minded and tolerant person who treats Truthers with respect, so I expect the same in return. If I can’t understand you, I can’t be convinced. If you bombard me with comments like “wake the &*#$% up you *&$%#ing *#&$@” I probably won’t even read them. And if you just refer me to Prison Planet or some other oft-cited Truther source (which I can find on my own, thanks very much), I’ll know straight off that you don’t have the goods.
I will try to respond to all comments that meet those basic standards, time permitting.
Best of luck!
Dear Sarah,as a 9/11 Truth activist, it is not my job to convince you or anyone that 9/11 was an inside job. No amount of money, evidence or facts (at my disposal) can do that. Moreover, like me you are welcome to believe whatever you like.That said, given the enormity of this horrific event, the loss of life and the consequences stemming from it and all that hangs in the balance, a moral person should want to examine the facts and evidence, and feel secure that he / she has been told the truth, and that justice has been done, or will be done, and I would hope that you are such a person.In view of the evidence that has come to light in the past 6 years, I am sure that most reasonable people would conclude that there is reason to doubt the official story, and to demand a new investigation. I think most reasonably informed people who have some understanding of history and the number of times that ‘false flag’ operations have been used to justify wars, torture, atrocities, genocides and police states, would insist that no stone be left unturned in establishing all of the facts and arriving at the truth.History requires that we establish the truth so that history is not repeated, and respect for those we lost means we honour them by asking questions, demanding answers, accountability and justice.The only thing that we, those of us who doubt the official explanation, can ever hope to do (at this stage) is to do show how ‘incredible’ the official explanation is, with evidence and facts that throw it into doubt, and thereby, demonstrate the need for a new official investigation. Anything beyond that is an exercise in futility.If there were to be a new investigation, all of the facts, physical evidence and eyewitness testimony (not hearsay) will need to be admitted into evidence. That evidence should lead to establishing what indeed happened that day, and what did not happen. That in turn will hopefully lead to the likely suspects being established. Those persons would then be arrested and brought to trial. The case against them would have to meet the standard of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” by a jury of peers. Only then will we know that it was an “inside job” an outside job” or a total comedy of tragic errors and bizarre coincidences of epic proportions. Who would not want that ?? …except perhaps those who did it, had a hand it, or who are profiting from it, whether they actually did it or not.I would love to be proven wrong about doubting the official story, as I am sure the rest of us would be, so that we can get on with enjoying our lives as slaves under the New Freedom of Homeland Security, and kiss our country, history and liberties goodbye.Perhaps, rather than trying to convince you, you might demonstrate to us doubters that the official story is true, or even credible. Do you think you could? I doubt it.The only thing we ask is a new, fair and impartial investigation with real resolve to establish the truth, as near as possible, with no evidence or witnesses barred.Do you object to this? Yes or no ?
Of course I am entitled to believe what I choose, and it’s no one’s job to convince me nor anyone else of anything. If you’ve examined the evidence and decided that the conspiracy theories fit the facts, I have no real desire to change your mind. It’s your choice and I respect it. Yet some Truthers insist on trying to change my mind, and I’m giving them that opportunity. They can take it or leave it. After examining the events of 9/11 and the various explanations for them, I agree that the official story has tremendous holes that have yet to be filled by solid information, particularly in regard to U.S. intelligence information and air defense. I agree that a new investigation is in order. The official story of hijacking by Arab radicals is acceptable to me, but the “we knew nothing” line is not.
Once it has been established that that WTC1,2 and 7 came down via controlled demolitionm, then 9/11 was an inside job. This has been established. WTC 1,2 were top-down demolitions. WTC7 was a conventional demolition. If WTC7 was not a controlled demolition then what category of collapse does it belong to? Pancake, pile-driver etc. Plus, FEMA tested some of the steel from WTC7 and found intergranular melting and portions of steel that had been partially evaporated. All of this is prima facie evidence of high temperature explosives or incendiaries. Of course, there is much more including what happened at the Pentagon, was Fight 93 shot down, why isn’t Osama listed for being wanted for the 9/11 attacks by the FBI, why did NORAD generals lie under oath etc…
tanabear, you cite many of the anomolies and pieces of evidence that i would also cite (and there are many more too) that totally refute the official story, which lead us to reasonably conclude that something happened that can not be attributed to bin Laden and the boxcutter boys. They indeed lead one to suspect that there was, at very least, collusion at official levels by other persons, but that does not make it “proof” of an inside job in a legal sense. Only proof that the official story is wrong. In order for justice to be done, there has to be a legal process with universally accepted standards of evidence and procedures, in an impartial and officially recognized court, not just the court of public opinion. Only then can we truly claim that it was an “inside job”. Until then, i just encourage people to look at the evidence and facts and come to their own conclusions. And if they convince themselves that the official story lacks credibilty, to join the movement for truth and justice, or support it. Taking that position is more productive, in my humble opinion, then making claims that are not yet legally proven.
Give it up guys!I’m the only one who could EVER convince SME that 9/11 was an inside job.
It has not been proven that WTC towers #1 and 2 were brought down by explosives. There are only unanswered questions and loose ends (eyewitness reports of molten steel, etc.). As I mentioned in regard to WTC building #7, no one yet knows precisely what happened to it. I’m as eager for an explanation as anyone. But even if it was intentionally demolished with pre-placed devices (perhaps because it contained sensitive documents that someone wanted to keep out of the hands of looters), this doesn’t prove that the hijackings and attacks were carried out by the same people.Bin Laden is not being sought for the events of 9/11 for an obvious reason: There is no solid evidence against him. If he had anything to do with the attacks, it was in a financial capacity – and that’s a very difficult thing to prove. Terrorists with “hands-on” involvement in 9/11 are considered more valuable targets than bin Laden (and they’re also easier to catch because they move around, rather than staying literally underground like bin Laden).Only an official investigation with access to all the evidence can even come close to answering the lingering questions of 9/11. tshsmom: Oh yeah? Bring it on! 🙂
Sarah,In order to be convinced by a 9/11 Truther one must think like a 9/11 Truther.If you can master that, then you will have no problem accepting 9/11 Truth as rational, scientific, backed up by an accumulation of massive evidence from literally thousands of different sources, investigated by the best forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects in the world.Here is the best summary of 9/11 Truth available.You will be able to see with crystal clarity how obvious 9/11 Truth is.Good luck!
Heehee.You know me, IF I ever believed the conspiracy theory, it would be because of solid, scientific evidence. This evidence would have to override the events I witnessed on TV that day.IF I believed it, you would too.So far, your commenters are just regurgitating the standard Truther fare. Sorry guys, NOT BUYING IT!BJ, I’ll NEVER be able to think like a Truther. There’s too much paranoia involved. 😦
Thank you, B.J. I’ll take a look at your link and let you know what I think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
B.J.: Heh heh, ‘kay, I just visited your site. Thanks!
OK. So far we have 3 people against, and 2 people for the Truther movement. You’re not gonna win the $100 that way Truthers!
Everyone was eager to convince me until I invited them to do it; then they retreated. I wonder if this would work with Jehovah’s Witnesses…
Looks like you are already a truther, We seek the truth with a new independent investigation. Same as you!
Well, that’s what I think too, e. Looking closely, Truthers will discover that people they consider “asleep” are actually in agreement with them on many points. Just because we accept portions of the official story doesn’t mean we plop ourselves down in front of the TV news every night and indiscriminately accept every word we hear.
what I wonder is how many pounds or tons of thermite or other explosives did it take to demolish the buildings? peace, peter
I don’t know the amount of explosives needed to bring down buildings the size of the World Trade Center towers, but it would be considerable. Yet no one saw suspicious material entering or leaving the building.
OK, I have been monitoring your transmissions, and I am now compelled to weigh in on this. As well, I may have totally ruined your fun with my original post perhaps scaring off some who may have otherwise participated. I feel obliged to now take up your challenge.You state “the amount of explosives needed to bring down buildings the size of the World Trade Center towers, but it would be considerable. Yet no one saw suspicious material entering or leaving the building.”In fact, it has been estimated that the amount of explosives, depending on the type, would be in the hundreds of pound, not tons. Some have postulated that mini-nukes may have been used, and they do in fact exist and have since the 50’s. If those were used, the number or amount would be far less still. No witnesses? No wonder. There were unprecedented ‘power downs’ in the towers just prior to 9/11 and bomb sniffing dogs and other security withdrawn. They said this was to upgrade cables, and there were indeed workers in the building. Cameras did not work, nor did other electronic security measures such as door locks. Tada! No witnesses and no tapes. Boy, that Osama is one clever cookie! Several workers reported later that they heard constant noise going on, on vacant floors, of which there were many (the buildings were considered white elephants as they were technically deficient for the hi-tech age and full of asbestos). They were losing money for this reason. Workers reported that each morning when they arrived in their offices, there was always a fine grey dust everywhere, which they had not experienced in the past.William Rodriguez, the janitor hero of the day who saved many people confirmed that he too heard strange noises eminating from vacant floors but he was never told what was going on. He said he was too scared to look inside.Several companies broke their leases and moved out, despite the huge cost of the penalties they would have faced, just prior to 9/11. I guess Osama tipped them off. Oh, but then again, they were Israeli owned companies. Hmmm. Nevermind.The cost of removing the asbestos was prohibitive and not worth the investment in a simple cost-benefit analysis, but at one point, they actually requested a permit to demolish the buildings, but were denied precisely because of the asbestos! Perhaps 9/11 was an urban renewal project contracted out to Bin Laden and Sons??You state: “It has not been proven that WTC towers #1 and 2 were brought down by explosives. There are only unanswered questions and loose ends (eyewitness reports of molten steel, etc.).” Actually, that is not true. If explosives did not cause the molten steel, what could have? You know that jet fuel could not have done it, right? Did you know that NIST has given up trying to explain the collapses of both towers, each of which fell in under 10 seconds, virtually capitulating to the controlled demolition theory. As to building 7, they stated that their best guess theory had only a low probability of occurrence. Forensic analysis of metal samples showed traces of sulphur and other elements consistent with explosives, especially thermate, which is used by the military and demolition companies. As already covered here, there were pools of molten metal under all WTC 1, 2 and 7 which could not be the result of jet fuel, proving once again the evil genius Osama bin Laden and the boxcutter boys who obviously stuffed their luggage with the stuff, but were careful not to get any on their passports that were recovered at the scene. Brilliant !Oh, by the way, Infra red satellite imagery also showed the pools of molten metal – not just witnesses. But those must have been al Jazeera satellites!If buildings could fall at free fall speed (which is undeniable) without controlled demolition, we would not need expert companies to bring them down. Nor would anyone build them, much less occupy them, nor insure them. Who would trust them? But then again, it was the evil genius Osama, who is capable of defeating the rules of physics! Silly me.The concrete was completely pulverized and the steel blown out in all directions, with pyroclastic flows along the ground, which are indicative of super heating. So either there were esplosives or the WTC was sitting on top of a volcano all those years. Who would a thunk it??. Squibs are seen shooting out well below the collapse areas or ‘demolition wave’. Pieces of steel beems weighing 30 or 40 tons shot out hundreds of yards, impaling themselves into neighbouring buildings. That takes a lot of energy, but maybe it was Osama’s flying carpets!Miraculously, the pieces on the ground were 30 to 40 foot lenghths, the size needed to put onto trucks for transport. What a stroke of luck, eh? What was Osama thinking? well, maybe he was heavily invested in building steel. Did you know that there was a world wide chronic shortage of building grade steel at the time? I’m sure Osama had thought about that too. There were no collapsed floors found, and none of the massive 47 core columns were left standing, thus the pancake theory is unfortunately ‘toast’ theory. Yes, obviously the floors (110 per building) just disintegrated because the plane hit, even if that has never happened before when buildings have been struck by large aircraft (which has indeed happened on a few previous occasions). It just means that Osama’s boys were experts and knew exactly where to hit to do maximum damage!”perhaps because it contained sensitive documents that someone wanted to keep out of the hands of looters”Actually, paper was strewn everywhere. It was virtually all that survived. One of the clean up workers said “you did not find a desk, you did not find a drawer, or computer, the biggest thing he found was a part of a telephone and it was about 2 square inches”. But paper was everywhere blowing in the wind and littering the streets. You’d think that, if they could not charge Osama with destroying the WTC, they would at least have charged him with littering. Doh!Paper is basically unaffected by explosives. It gets blown away by the force. But I pity the poor son-of-a-bitch who would have to sort through it all and put the millions and millions of pages back into folders and binders in proper order, such as all of the paper in WTC 7 related to the over 3000 cases of financial fraud being investigated there by the FEC, including Enron and World Com. Oh, but strangely, there were sudden eruptions of fire in that building! I guess Osama’s paper work was there too, so he burned it to hide his own financial paper trail so that no one could trace the 9/11 attack back to him. Pure genius! Sheesh! That guy thought of everything. What else survived were quite a few computer hard drives (funny that mine are never that resilient, but i digress). They were shipped to a data recovery company in Germany. A lot of data was recovered and it showed that whoever was using the computers had knowledge of the attacks and had been engaging in insider trading. Remember the record numbers of ‘put options’ placed on UA and AA stocks in the weeks prior to the attacks? So, obviously Osama had his team of hackers inside the buildings using the computers which would be destroyed to place stock option bets and make maximum profit and really stick it to the great satan!Actually, there is 100% proof that explosives were used at the WTC. YES! I swear it is true! Remember WTC 5 and WTC 6? They were too short to be hit with a hijacked plane (and maybe Osama ran out of tinder to burn them down with). Instead, they stood there, right next to the massive twin towers (unlike WTC 7 which was a block away) and they were pelted with falling debris from WTC 1 and 2. While they were rendered unusable, the silly things did not do the ‘WTC 7 trick’ and fall down on the command of Luck Larry Silverstein (the 7 billion dollar 9/11 sweepstakes winner). 5 nad 6 had to be brought down later by controlled demolition – arrrgggh! Did that ruin Osama’s day or what? Nope! As stated, he is a genius. That was his alibi! When he sent out his recorded video deploring the attacks and denying his involvement (prior to the one with the fat bin Laden allegedly claiming responsibility) he proclaimed his innocence. Obviously what the wily bin Laden was referring to was WTC 5 and 6 as they were still standing. “Bin Laden is not being sought for the events of 9/11 for an obvious reason: There is no solid evidence against him. If he had anything to do with the attacks, it was in a financial capacity – and that’s a very difficult thing to prove.”Ummmm. Actually, forensic financial investigation is very common and expected, and it works well! If anything could prove that it was bin Laden, that would. They always say, “follow the money” but Osama is vewwy vewwy twicky! He hid his papers in building 7! What we do know for sure about the money trail is that the head of the Pakistani ISI (a CIA asset) wired $100,000 to Atta Boy shortly before 9/11. The same guy was in the USA meeting with Bush Sr. and other neocon insiders at the time of the attacks. Sshhh. Nothing to see here. Move along conspiracy theorists!”Terrorists with “hands-on” involvement in 9/11 are considered more valuable targets than bin Laden (and they’re also easier to catch because they move around, rather than staying literally underground like bin Laden).”I absolutely agree. These guys were so dumb that some of them lived at the Pensacola Naval Airbase in Florida, while others were getting training at the defence language school in Monterey, California. And they rented planes at CIA run flight schools in Florida. Doh! That would explain why they were caught before they could carry out their evil plans! Oh. Nevermind. I mean of course, that explains why the FBI could determine so quickly ‘afterwards’ whodunit and give the evil boxcutter boys credit. That way, the boys could rightfully claim their 70 virgins in heaven. Well, that is … the ones who actually are dead. (9 are known to still be alive, but that is besides the point, right?)Moral of the story? “Let us NEVER tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories about September 11th!” as G W Bush admonished. I agree. The official one, is the most outrageous of all and should not be tolerated.So, was 9/11 an inside job? YES!One of those recovered hard drives had a tiny little label on it. It read “Osama Inside” ;-)Now, where’s my hundred bucks ??
I don’t want to embarrass you, thought criminal, but would you mind providing Sarah the actual sources for each and every one of your claims?Thanks in advance.
I’ll address this one soon, I promise. It’s been a busy week.
No embarrassment whatsoever. I could have sourced all of it, indeed with multiple sources. But if I did that for you, would you look? Or would you start nitpicking and looking for excuses to continue believing the official mythology? These facts are out there and well documented, and there is so much more too which refutes what we were sold. Seek and you shall find … if you really want to. Happy googling!;-)If doing raw research of news and documents is too tedious, you can watch a number of good documentaries that are out there (for free).I would recommend:1. Press for Truth2. Loose Change 23. 9/11 Mysteries4. Terrorstorm5. Everybody’s Gotta Learn SometimeThey are all well documented but have a notepad handy anyway, and then check out what they claim for yourself if you have doubts.
Well, thought criminal, this is Sarah’s blog and I don’t want to spoil the fun, so you’ll have to try your best to convince her.Even though you are unwilling to provide her any authoritative sources for your claims, such as for the amount of explosives needed, how they could have been planted, how many people would be needed, why anyone could keep quiet about it, etc., you are quite content to list 5 non-authoritative sources representative of your true beliefs anyway. Very curious.I’ll leave you to explain to Sarah why you would be so easily convinced by them.I’ll sit back and observe how you do.
Ordinarily sources would, indeed, by extremely important – vital, actually. But I already know the sources of about 99% of this material.
Well BJ, that is was a rather arrogant and condescending response. A number of smug and / or under-informed statements were made here that were also not sourced nor based on any fact, and are countered by other evidence and opinions. Why should I not be afforded the same ‘benefit of the doubt’? Everybody wants to laugh at “conspiracy theories”. Why am I not permitted to laugh at them too? Such as the official one.I can indeed source everything I said (except that which was said in jest), but would you look? No, based upon your attitude, I doubt very much that you would. If you’re unwilling to look at a few documentaries (which is pretty easy), what would be the point of my spending days meticulously sourcing every statement i made? It would be a total waste of my time. $100 would not be worth it.I stated from the beginning that I cannot convince anyone of anything. I only hope to open minds, and that people will question what they know as much as they question me. By the way, i did not ‘cite’ those documentaries as my ‘sources’. I said that “i suggest” those IF “doing raw research of news and documents is too tedious, you can watch a number of good documentaries that are out there (for free)” Not paying attention. Tisk tisk. Those documentaries happen to be based largely on “mainstream” sources, but also upon credible independent, investigative journalists, and some very credible scholars and experts in their respective fields, as well as eye-witnesses. Who are you to say that they are not “authoritative”? These people are not making money off of this (as the mainstream media are), but do so because of their moral courage, honor and out of respect and concern for their fellow man. It is not a hobby, it’s not a game, and it’s not fun. Many of these people are taking great risks to speak out. But then people come along and say, “well, i would have heard about it by now”. Pretty sad. In fact, the first documentary I listed “Press for Truth” is one produced by the victim’s families, and their epic struggle to get a fair and impartial investigation, based upon information that they themselves had to uncover, as neither their trusted “officials” nor the media was doing it’s job. I think everyone owes them that much respect to watch it.I spent a lot of time just on what i posted already, citing facts as i have come to know them (in 6 years of researching 9/11) just off the top of my head. That took me several hours. The least you could do (if indeed you care about 3000 people being killed that day and all those killed in subsequently in the wars) is look into some aspect of it for yourself. “the amount of explosives needed” and “how they could have been planted” were indeed addressed! Read it again.”how many people would be needed”? If you followed up on my comments and did some research, or even just logic, you would find that it comes down to 1. whose estimate for the amount of material in the buildings you use, 2.the type of explosives and incendiaries you use, 3. the amount of explosives and incendiaries you have calculated based on the above, 4. how much time you have, and 5. whether or not you have access, especially legitimate access. The last factor being the most critical. There is a clue there.You do realize, i hope, that the official story of 9/11 is itself a “conspiracy theory”. That is 2 or more people plotting in secret to do something immoral or illegal. A guy in a cave and 19 guys with boxcutters plotting to attack America fits the bill. There is nothing weird or unusual with having theories about crimes. Conspiracies happen everyday. The police and prosecutors prosecute conspiracy cases daily, based upon investigations (not fantasies). Defence attorneys will offer their own counter theories. It’s just a matter of which theory has the most plausibility, based upon the facts, as established in a full examination of all of the evidence. If you happen to be involved or are profiting from the crime, my guess is that you are going to do all you can to limit the scope of the investigation, keeping many facts out and dissuading others from inquiring. Wouldn’t you agree? In any real crime investigation, after collecting all of the physical evidence, forensic evidence (including money trails) and eye witness testimony as well as expert testimony, you ask: 1. who had the means, 2. who had a motive, 3. who had the opportunity, and 4. who benefited? Then you develop your theories and see which one best fits the evidence. That was never done in the case of 9/11. We were told within an hour who did 9/11, and they repeated it over and over, and over. They carefully sifted out any evidence to the contrary. Since then, they’ve been trying to keep a lid on it, using plausible deniability, smoke screens and ‘straw man’ arguments, psychological warfare (labelling doubts, questions and facts that expose their lies as “conspiracy theory”) as well as blatant threats, force and death when necessary. Their theory has not been proven – not even close! “why anyone could keep quiet about it”? Maybe it’s just your own naivity? Have you ever heard of the patriot act? Have you read it? You should.Foregive me, but it is ignorant to say or suggest that there are no whistle blowers or witnesses and that “someone would have come forward by now”. Indeed they have come forward. But some are under gag orders and threatened with the patriot act. That act means that they can label anything they want as terrorism and just make you disappear if you don’t shut up. Some have indeed come out and been financially ruined, blacklisted, put on “no fly lists” and such. Does it not bother you that your trusted and “authoritative sources” aren’t telling you that? Why would they not tell you something so important? Or why would they deliberately spin news stories that don’t fit with the version they gave you? Very ‘curious’ indeed! Speaking of “non-authoritative sources” Who are you to decide that? What makes your “authorities” better than anyone else’s “authorities?” The fact that you think that they are popular? The fact that they have lots of money? And you can just turn them on each day with the flick of a switch?Do you ever challenge those who give you their information on CNN or FOX news et al? Or just those that you don’t like? Or do you just challenge the ones that they tell you not to believe? When was the last time you asked them for their sources, hmmm? To assume that they (media) have nothing to hide, to cover up, or to lose, or to think that there are not powerful people who wouldn’t kill 3000 citizens to satisfy their own agenda is silly. That has happened over and over throughout history. Why? Because of people blindly trusting “authorities”.Every year we are reminded that if we don’t learn from the past, we are condemned to repeat it. But then, what do they ask us to do? To observe silence. They count on us being silent and obedient, and trusting them, or upon us being too busy, or being more concerned with petty pursuits like sports and soap operas, movies and video games to really care. They may well be right, but I will try to prove them wrong on that too. As stated, I can’t convince anyone of anything who does not care to look, or someone who doesn’t care period. Nor is that my intent. If I wrote a whole book here, would you not yawn or snicker and find a reason to not look? In fact, I would be surprised if you are even reading this, but exceedingly pleased if you are.All that I, and others in the 9/11 Truth Movement, are doing is supporting the families of the victims in their call for a ‘real’ investigation (which there has not been) and asking others to look at all of the facts; to ask questions, important questions and to hold “authorities” accountable where appropriate. By doing so, we honor the dead (not by blindly trusting “authorities”). I would expect no less if I was murdered this way. If you want the truth, if you can handle the truth, I suggest you stop accepting and repeating what the MSM puts out without subjecting them to the same standard of scrutiny that you wish to apply to me. Use your OWN judgment. Not theirs.Former Deputy Director of the FBI John O’Neill died September 11th, his first day on the job as the new head of security for the WTC. He had spent years investigating and trying to stop al Qaeda. He was a real American Hero and his death alone demands a careful, thorough investigation and sheds a lot of light on what really happened (and what did not) on September 11th, 2001.
Well, thought criminal, you’re doing just fine even without my prodding.I’m curious, though, just what knowledge you have of me, what I know about 9/11, or where my knowledge and thinking comes from? Funny, I’ve been at this long before 9/11, dealing with other types of denial and the pattern is the same. Nothing you have yet written is new – the same stuff has been written by your predecessors for years. The same claims, the same assertions, the same presumptive mannerism, the same presumptions of knowledge that we others just “won’t accept” until, and unless, “we open our eyes.”Newbies on the subject matter are like that.Would you like some suggestions for reading material?
I LOVE you BJ! 😉
This comment has been removed by the author.
a few people are making Billions off the War On Terror. (as all wars) Larry Silverstein, in my opinion, has the bloodiest hands of them all(so far) Please debunk the video in which he gives the order to “pull” WTC 7.
My understanding of the filmed comment is that Larry Silverstein was referring to the Fire Department’s agreement to “pull” the firefighting effort. If he had meant “demolish”, I don’t think the firemen would have had anything to do with that decision…
Press for Truth is an excellent film, which references the Complete 9/11 Timeline, a database that is largely based on mainstream media stories that shows that there were lots of warnings that the attacks were coming. seewww.cooperativeresearch.orgfor more on that.Loose Change, Terrorstorm and Mysteries have entertainment value but are not "documentaries" in any sense of the word.There are good claims and bad claims about official complicity. But using the word "truth" over and over is not the same thing as fact checking.Debunking the demolition claims does not mean that Bush's claim that they had no idea it was going to happen is true. The reality is in between these opposites.The weird focus on the false demolition claims avoids the issues of the ample warnings, the FBI investigations into the flight schools that were thwarted just before the attacks, the war games simulations during 9/11 (including a "plane into building" exercise near Dulles Airport) and the coverups after the fact, to cite a few smoking guns.Unfortunately, the nonsense claims have become so loud that the whole topic has been rendered ridiculous and a new investigation into 9/11 seems extremely unlikely at this late date.The REAL controlled demolition of Wall Street is now underway – the global financial crash.—–http://www.oilempire.us/911.htmlsifting good claims about best evidence from bad claims—–9/11 research is a rabbit-hole of Byzantine complexity full of snares and delusions and peopled with false friends, lunatics, earnest lost souls and a few heroes. It's not necessary to understand all the nuances of science and bureaucracy that allowed the government to get away with mass murder, blame it on swarthy foreigners (of whom many are eager accomplices) and use the incident as (in the words of the Cheney, Jeb Bush et al cabal, the Project for a New American Century) "a new Pearl Harbor." At this critical juncture in human history, it's only necessary to understand why they did it. The motive was Peak Oil, a disaster which will affect everyone on the planet, about which all must enlighten themselves and for which all must prepare. — Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organizationhttp://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2007/05/epa-whistleblower-alleges-more-fraud.html—–Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney by Michael Kane http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtmlMeans – Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.Motive – Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."Opportunity – 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks – who had trained their entire lives for this moment – would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.
"We had no idea" is a better excuse than willful negligence that results in mass casualties."I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."– George W. Bush, September 1, 2005"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."– CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July 2001"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."– Condoleeza Rice, May 16, 2002"They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it." – Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."- Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11note: Specter was the Warren Commission attorney who invented the ludicrous idea of the "magic bullet" to reduce the number of bullets actually fired at JFK (and therefore make it slightly plausible that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman)."There were lots of warnings."- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld"Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]."- Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Republican co-chairman of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11“If anybody could have predicted this economic crisis, I would have liked to have met them.”– Ellen Weiss, senior vice president for news, National Public RadioPBS News Hour December 11, 2008http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/npr_12-11.htmlA few links that compile publicly available information about foreknowledge of 9/11.http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=warnings&timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=300Complete 911 TimelineThe Warning SignsProject: Complete 911 Timelinehttp://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warningsComplete 911 TimelineKey WarningsProject: Complete 911 Timelinehttp://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefenseThe Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11By Paul Thompson
It is really disgusting that a GRADE SCHOOL physics problem is obscured by the sound bytes "conspiracy theory" and "inside job".We are talking about skyscrapers. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. With 110 stories in the WTC the 100th level had to support 10 stories. The 90th level had to support 20 stories. The 80th level had to support 30 stories, etc., etc., etc. So the designers had to figure out how many TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE to put on every level.This would affect the impact and its analysis and any supposed top down gravitational collapse. So how is it that after almost EIGHT YEARS we don't have a table with that information from either side and why hasn't the so called Truth Movement pointed this out.SCIENCE is supposed to be a TRUTH MOVEMENT. Why haven't our engineering schools been pointing this out? The Truth Movement runs on propaganda instead of grade school science.ImpactCollapse