This weekend I found myself talking to a small group of teenagers in London, most of them from deprived backgrounds; all were from ethnic minorities. I asked: “How many of you think the US government had a hand in planning 9/11?”
They all put up their hands.
This is what we’re up against.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Damian,
Did you ask them about their influences?
Yup. They’d seen Loose Change. I told them to check out Screw Loose Change.
Ho ho. You’re losing the battle. The official story of 911 cannot stand up to scrutiny. All you can do is try to depict people who can see through it as crazy and gullible, and lump it in with crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster etc. But these straw men arguments are irrelevant to the scientific evidence regarding the collapse of the three buildings, let alone all the other smoking guns and question marks.
But, to flatter your conceit, and because it’s interesting to me, what’s your take on the 1980 Bologna bombing? What’s the official version of that? And also, what about JFK? Do you really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed him, acting alone? And while I’m at it, what about Anne Boleyn? Am I a conspiracy nut for thinking she was set up?
Actually, this is what you’re up against………
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
pilotsfor911truth.org
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
“The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.”
(Andreas von Bülow, former German Defense Minister)
“From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it ‘confessed’ that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
(Former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga in “Corriere della Sera” 11/30/07)
http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml
Osama-Berlusconi? «Trappola giornalistica». Corriere della Sera
Is it wrong to think that the original premise (that a group of students discover a government conspiracy behind 9/11) that these Loose Change idiots were considering for their fictional movie (before it became a ‘documentary’) might have actually made a decent (fictional) movie?
Of course, such a movie so soon after the event would have likely been too close to the bone for the American public. Perhaps conspiracy theorists are all just misguided screenwriters?
PS. I only bought your book the other day, through which I discovered this site. A great read, though I did find myself bursting out laughing, scaring other commuters on the tightly packed train home as I read about Creationist ‘museums’ and the calculation of ‘the speed of heaven’.
Wow, and the loons are really coming out to play in the comments.
Still, can’t help thinking that if our governments had lied less about 9/11 (especially by making up the Iraq connection, denying the Saudi connection, and pretending they hadn’t been tipped off in advance with some quite specific intelligence) then the conspiracy theorists would have rather less to play with. Trusting liars is hard, even when they’re right.
It’s all coming apart at the seems now.
The Globalist Control Freaks have screwed up big time, they Know we are on to them.
Many thousands of Scholars Question this, Jet fuel Does NOT Burn hot enough to Melt steel.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Denmark TV Airs 9/11 Truth.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13235
German Secret service and the Ex Italian PM says that Intellligence agencies know 9/11 was an Inside Job
http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm
Japanese Parliament questions 9/11 and calls the official version of events a ‘FairyStory’
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13392
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13340
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12215
“There was no consensus, however, on the subject of Osama bin Laden: some students thought he was an actor hired by the CIA, while others thought he was a real person but innocent of 9/11.”
(Damian Thompson, The Telegraph 19/2/2008)
Dear Mr Thompson, I wonder if you could provide me with one single piece of solid evidence which connects Osama Bin Laden with 9/11.
Just one.
I look forward to your reply.
Definition of a conspiracy theorist – someone who doesn’t believe anything he sees in the papers, but everything he reads on the internet.
That’s you, pal.
BTW, ‘fraser’, Andreas von Bulow was never the West German Minister for Defence – he was a state secretary (1976-1980), which makes him a somewhat less elevated character.
Both he and Francesco Cossiga seem to be (respectively) the German and Italian equivalents of Michael Meacher. Which means their rantings aren’t worth a damn either.
Dear Sackcloth and Ashes,
Every time I post a piece of information relating to 9/11, I back it up with mainstream newspaper reports or official documents. For example when I say that there is evidence that the 9/11 hijackers attended US military training institutions in the 1990s, I back it up by providing the following reports from the Washington Post and Newsweek…..
“U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.”
(Newsweek Sept 15th 2001)
“As the investigation gathered strength Saturday, unusual leads began to surface, among them the possibility that some of the hijackers may have received training at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida or other U.S. military facilities.
Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base.
In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively. ”
(Washington Post Sept 16th 2001)
I don’t deal with “internet only” information.
Just to absolutely clear.
And when I say that there is no evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11, I back it up by posting a link to his “Most Wanted” page on the FBI website, on which there is no mention of 9/11…..
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive – Usama Bin Laden
…….and then provide a statement issued by the FBI themselves explaining why there is no mention of 9/11 on this page.
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
(FBI Chief of investigative Publicity, Rex Tomb, June 5th 2006)
But it seems that many people ( eg Damian Thomson and most likely yourself) are convinced of Bin Ladens responsibility for 9/11 and I’d like to know why, when even the FBI aren’t convinced.
Obviously you folks know something that they don’t.
So let’s hear it.
Also, S & A,
I’d be grateful if you would take a look at the following lists of people who question the official account of 9/11, and explain to me why “their rantings aren’t worth a damn either”………
and why yours are.
Thanks.
Your pal, Fraser.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
core group @ pilotsfor911truth.org
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
Why does mainstream media (CNN) cover an animation fabricated by an independent civilian researcher not based on any flight data whatsoever, but refuses to cover an animation produced by the National Transportation Safety Board based on what the NTSB claims is flight data from AA77?
Click here to find out…
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media_blackout022908.html
Click here to email CNN and others involved…
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11113
Right, let’s deal with this one step at a time.
Firstly, I’m fortunate enough to have a well-stocked College library at hand, so I went looking for your ‘Newsweek’ source among the back issues, and I couldn’t find it. That might actually be because there was no edition of that journal published on 15th September 2001. So that article is a ghost.
Secondly, I’ve gone onto the ‘Washington Post’ website (I don’t have their archive physically accessible, unfortunately, so I have to go online) and .. guess what … I can’t find it. The only sources that have it are hooky websites run by wierdos like you. So again, that sounds like something someone has made up.
Thirdly, the FBI didn’t issue an indictment for Bin Laden because they’d already indicted him for August 1998 Nairobi and Dar-e-Salaam bombings. As for all the Rex Tomb quotes, I can only find them on Prison Planet and other nut-job sites, not on any original source. Pardon me if I don’t automatically trust the ability of yourself and other fellow wingnuts to transcribe someone’s comments accurately.
Funnily enough, a search on the FBI’s own website showed no reference to an individual called ‘Rex Tomb’, or to any appointment listed as ‘Chief of Investigative Publicity’. So what’s the chance that that’s just a made-up name and a made-up post, and a made-up quote?
So contrary to what you’ve said, all you have proved is that you rely on a cyberspace equivalent of Chinese whispers.
As for the remaining websites. They’re just as shit and as ill-informed as your comments.
Just to be clear, I did (during my break) check the ‘Newsweek’ editions for the 17th and 24th September 2001, only to find no reference to your Pensacola story. My searches on the ‘Post’s own site involved variations on the keywords ‘9/11′, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘Hijackers’, ‘Training’, ‘US Military’ and ‘Pensacola’. No dice.
So the bottom line is someone made up the story, and you bastards are too lazy to check to see if there’s an original source. Says all that needs to be said about your kind, really.
Here are some more sources of the same information, I do hope this helps to clear the matter up.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — “Three of the men identified as the hijackers in the attacks on Tuesday have the same names as alumni of American military schools, the authorities said today. The men were identified as Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.
The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif. ”
(New York Times)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED7163BF935A2575AC0A9679C8B63
AFTER THE ATTACKS: MISSED CUES; Saudi May Have Been Suspected in Error, Officials Say – New York Times
“Perhaps coincidentally, two men with names identical to those of two hijackers had lived or studied at Lackland Air Force Base. Pentagon sources confirmed that a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland, and that both Saeed and Ahmed Alghamdi appeared on a list for foreign military housing. (Men with the same names as other hijackers turned up at other bases in the south.) Whether the hijackers stole the identities of these men is as yet unknown.”
(Time Oct 1st, 2001)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000899-2,00.html
The Plot Comes Into Focus – TIME
“There’s no mystery here,” said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″
S & A,
Yesterday I was your pal, but today I’m a “weirdo”, a “wingnut”, a “nutjob” and a “bastard”…….is it something I said ?
Oh, well, that’s really convincing. As if every Arab has a unique name which no one else may share. Do you think it’s unlikely that there may be more than one person called Mohamed Atta in Egypt, let alone the entire Moslem world? You must be one of those geniuses who says ‘Oh you come from London. Do you know my friend ‘John Smith’?’. Priceless.
The ‘Time’ article also hints at another possibility, namely identity theft, which happens quite a lot online. If you don’t know anything about this, then I suggest that you don’t answer any emails purporting to come from Nigerian bank managers asking for your account details.
Oh, and Rex Tomb does exist, I see, but he’s just a ’spokesman’, not the ‘Chief of Investigative Publicity’. But I notice the ‘Post’ source does not quote him as saying ‘The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11′. He’s quoted thus ‘They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it’. The article also states that ‘”The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice,” the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. “Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001″‘.
For those of us who employ logic, that means ‘We’ve got an indictment outstanding, we don’t need another’. If we followed your line of argument, we’d believe that Al Capone wasn’t a bootlegger or a murderer because he got busted for tax fraud.
You’ve got bog all evidence, so give it up.
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) have identified 19 individuals as those who
hijacked four commercial airliners September 11 in the worst terrorist
attack in U.S. history.
“I think we have a fairly high level of confidence,” that the
individuals are the people who were on the plane, said Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller who joined Attorney
General John Ashcroft in a press briefing September 14.
The FBI names the 19 suspected hijackers in a press release available
at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/09/mil-010914-usia09.htm
DOJ Officials Brief on Terrorist Investigation Sept. 14
I think by now we can safely rule-out identity theft, don’t you?
By the way, maybe you could apply your logic to this problem, if Bin Laden is,
” … wanted in connection with the August 7th, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya”.
How is it that he can receive medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai 2 months before 9/11, receive a visit from the CIA, and not be arrested ?
“CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July | World news | The Guardian
Er, no it doesn’t, you prong. Let’s put to one side the fact that your FBI statement deals with the hijackers, and the ‘Time’ and ‘NYT’ articles refer to the search for accomplices.
Firstly, there is a name on the FBI’s list – Abdulaziz (perhaps Abdul Aziz) Alomari. The innocent Saudi Arabian pilot in the ‘NYT’ piece is called Abdul Rahman Alomari. That doesn’t sound strange to me (we’ve got two Arabs in my college with the surnames Al-Amri and Alamri).
Secondly, Ahmed and Hamza Alghami (who according to your baroque account seem to have been trained by the US military as pilots) are not listed as the pilots for UA175. In any case, each team of hijackers worked with 2 to pilot the plane, with the rest working as the muscle. Why train two men to fly a plane when all they’re going to be doing is terrorising passengers into submission with Stanley knives?
Thirdly, if 9/11 was a collosal covert black op by the US government, then why were the hijackers trained in military institutions, when a more discreet means might have been found to give them flight training – such as sending them to a civilian flight school.
This is all I’ve got time for. Some of us have jobs to do and lives to live, you know.
Oh, and before I turn my computer off, this blows your Dubai story to shreds:
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html
Give. It. Up.
Get. A. Life.
Shame you’ve got to go, I was hoping you could explain why the hundreds of senior military ,intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, pilots, aviation professionals,engineers, architects, professors, 9/11 survivors and family members who also question the official account are “wingnuts” and “bastards” too.
And why we should take you seriously, but not them.
In case you’ve forgotten who they are, here they are again:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
core group @ pilotsfor911truth.org
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
Air Force Officer Suspended for Criticizing Bush
By Reuters | New York Times
Tuesday, 4 June, 2002
MONTEREY, Calif. (Reuters) -” A U.S. Air Force officer has been suspended from duty after he wrote a letter to a California newspaper accusing President Bush of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to happen “because he needed this war on terrorism,” a military official said on Tuesday.
Lt. Colonel Steve Butler was relieved of his duties as vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute pending an investigation into his letter, which was published in the Monterey County Herald on May 26, a military spokesman said.
Butler’s letter accused Bush — the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces — of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to occur for his own political ends.
“Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama,” Butler’s letter said. ”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.06E.butler.bush.htm
t r u t h o u t – Air Force Officer Suspended for Criticizing Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2025939.stm
BBC NEWS | Americas | US officer banned for Bush ‘joke’ jibe
I know I shouldn’t, but I can’t resist this …
Why should I take you seriously? Why should I take any of you so-called ‘truthers’ seriously. During the course of one day, I have addressed practically every piece of ‘evidence’ that you have forwarded here, and have shown you that it is at best highly circumstantial, but at worse you have quoted out of context, distorted evidence, failed to check the veracity or the feasibility of your claims, and you’ve even referred to evidence that doesn’t exist.
Every time I do this, rather than refute my arguments and defend your case, you just come back with other pieces of ‘evidence’ which are as flimsy as a whore’s nightie. Not only this, but you don’t even realise that you contradict yourself at every turn. For example, you claim that the FBI has ‘no evidence’ on Osama bin Laden (and I shoot that down in flames), and that this proves Al-Qaeda is innocent of 9/11. Then you come out with a cock-and-bull story about the CIA meeting OBL in Dubai, which (through innuendo) you hint suggests that he was involved, but with the US government’s connivance.
I mean, if you’re either too stupid or dishonest to stick to and defend one story, what makes you think you’re worth respect?
People like you are sick. You make a mockery of ‘truth’ and ‘evidence’ by twisting facts and reportage, and by cherry-picking small nuggets of information that supports your twisted theorising while ignoring the vast mountain of proof that shows your ‘theories’ are utter crap. You claim sympathy for the victims of this atrocity, and yet you turn their deaths into a disgusting on-line parlour game, little caring about whether this causes distress to their relatives and to survivors – the vast majority of whom are aware that 3,000 people were murdered by Al Qaeda, and who might not take kindly to claims that (for example) the United 93 passengers are actually still alive. And every time people like me punch holes in your arguments, you simply parrot the same crap ad nauseam. Or you just come up with completely irrelevant material.
(One example of this is your link to Lt-Col Butler, USAF, being suspended from duty for his accusations against Bush. What does that prove? He insulted his commander in chief which is never wise. If you had a job, you’d realise that publicly slagging off your boss doesn’t get you very far. The BBC story also made it clear that officers were disciplined, under Article 88, for trashing Bill Clinton. Learn to fucking read beyond the opening paragraph).
Regarding the ‘hundreds of senior military ,intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, pilots, aviation professionals,engineers, architects, professors, 9/11 survivors and family members’ you refer to, I sympathise with the handful of victims and relatives who feel that they have been deceived – grief can do strange things to the bereaved. But all these experts you cite are usually shown to be talking shit, or they’re less ‘eminent’ than you claim them to be. Some of them turn out to be openly batty, and are recognised as such.
You people are scientifically, logically and politically illiterate, and none of the ‘theories’ you come up with survives half an hour of critical scrutiny. So yes, you are all ‘wingnuts’, ‘bastards’ and various other unmentionables. You belong in a zoo.
It’s so nice that we can have mature, reasonable discussion
isn’t it ?
Since you evidently haven’t fully read and comprehended the material which I’ve presented, preferring instead to hurl childish insults and accuse me of things I haven’t done, (”distorted evidence”? All I’ve done is quote directly from the mainstream media.”Out of context” ? Where ? How ?) allow me to boil this down.
We have multiple reports in the mainstream press of statements from the Defense Department and the FBI saying that people with the same names as the 9/11 hijackers attended U.S Military training institutions in the 1990s.
Not just one, or even two, but as many as five.
Their identities are so similar to those of the hijackers, that we were told the possibility of identity theft was being investigated.
The FBI have stated that they have a “fairly high level of confidence” that they have correctly identified the hijackers and their entries on the FBI website remain unchanged, so it seems that identity theft is no longer a consideration.
The Military and the FBI have never conclusively denied that they are the same men.
No more is heard about the matter.
But you’re satisfied this doesn’t need to be investigated further?
It’s all just a big coincidence?
Presumably you think it’s “sick” to want to know more about this?
What I’m trying to show is that there is quite a lot of evidence which suggests that the US Military and the CIA have a closer, more co-operative relationship with Al Qaeda than we’re told.
And obviously this one example doesn’t conclusively prove this, but nevertheless, it is evidence, and taken together with all the other evidence of the CIA assisting and protecting Al Qaeda terrorists, it begins to paint a rather disturbing picture.
Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA after all.
Given that Western Intelligence services have a history of carrying out terrorist attacks and blaming them on others (yes, even our own trusted and beloved British Intelligence has done it) is it really so crazy to want to know more?
“I used to be in charge of the visa section at the CIA’s Consulate in Jeddah. … There for a year and a half I issued visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and its asset Osama Bin Laden. … Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah.”
(J. Michael Springmann – Former career Foreign Service Officer with the State Department and the International Foreign Trade Administration of the Commerce Department. Former Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he supervised the issuance of visas. 20-year Federal Government career.)
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
“A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress of fabricate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Circumstantial evidence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“…..you turn their deaths into a disgusting on-line parlour game, little caring about whether this causes distress to their relatives and to survivors….”
(Sackcloth and Ashes)
Another popular misconception is that people who express doubts about the official version of events are insulting or upsetting the families.
Allow me to introduce you to Bill Doyle:
“Bill Doyle – Father of Joseph Doyle, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC North Tower. Founder of the Bill Doyle 9/11 Support Group, a bi-partisan support group of more than 7,000 members of 2,573 families. His group merged with the Coalition of 9/11 Families in 2004 and is now know as the World Trade Center United Family Group.”
Bill Doyle: “If you want to believe the 9/11 Commission story, like a lot of us don’t, it almost looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, if you really look at all the facts — a lot of families now feel the same way. …”
Alex Jones: ” Bottom line, is 9/11 an inside job?”
Bill Doyle: “From everything that I look at I’m sure there was a lot of complicity, at least — in the least there had to be a lot of complicity. If you read and know all the facts of what I know or you might know, there’s no way in hell that nineteen of these hijackers carried out this mission. …
There’s just such a continuing coverup. And why don’t we just let the information about 9/11 be known? And then maybe this conspiracy type of thing would go away, but it’s never going to go away or I don’t think it can go away because they were complicit. …”
Alex Jones: “With your 7,000 members, I’m sure you’ve talked to most if not all of them. Run the gamut, what percentage, a guesstimation, would you say believe 9/11 is an inside job, to some extent?”
Bill Doyle: “Maybe half, maybe. It’s probably 50-50.”
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.wtcufg.org/about_board.html
WTC United Families Group ~ Board Members
The deprived and ignorant are always with us.
Some of the comments on this thread, as well as those London kids show us why.
Just a correction, the following should read ‘OK, we’ll willingly accept that nearly all of the hijackers were our own citizens’.
The rest still stands.
Well done Frazer for trying to shine some light into these murky minds.
As the post itself shows, no lie can live forever.
Daniele Ganser wrote a book entitled ‘NATO’s Secret Armies’ (on ‘Gladio’ and ’stay-behind operations’) which was generally panned by academic reviewers, who commented on his lack of historical rigour in using his sources. For example, Ganser used a purported US Army Field Manual (30-31B) to demonstrate his claims of a pan-NATO conspiracy to use armed right-wing terrorist groups to undermine democracy in Western Europe during the post-war period. What he failed to acknowledge was that FM30-31B was a KGB forgery produced during the early 1970s.
Ganser’s book is shown here – the Amazon listing of books bought alongside this crud tells you all you need to know:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/NATOs-Se…y/dp/ 0714685003
Incidentally, the latest edition of ‘The Journal of Strategic Studies’, a peer-reviewed journal with established and credible academic credentials, has a special edition on ‘Gladio’ and ‘Stay-Behind’ armies in NATO (namely, covert forces set up in the late 1940s to act as the focus for resistance in case the Soviets invaded Western Europe). Unfortunately, the journal is subscription-only and the contents are not easily available, but they are worth referring to.
The money-quote from this collection of essays comes from Leopoldo Nuti and Olav Riste, respectively two of the best Cold War history specialists in Italy and Norway, and again scholars of proven academic credibility. They both note that:
‘[A] young Swiss researcher, Daniele Ganser, has published what purports to be the most comprehensive assessment so far of the whole stay-behind organization, in a book whose ambitious conclusions do not seem to be entirely corroborated by a sound examination of the sources available’.
In academic-speak, that means ‘The man is a crank, and his scholarship sucks’. It is therefore no surprise that this discredited excuse for a historian has attached himself to the ‘truther’ movement.
Sackcloth,
If all academics criticised by their peers for incorrect readings of sources should properly be regarded as completely discredited professionally, we’d have to close down the universities. As you’re shown, disagreements over the meaning of sources is the very stuff of historical and political discourse.
Just for general information, Ganser’s had a few articles published in peer-reviewed journals, so it’s bogus to suggest he’s a substanceless hack.
What’s your view of the stay-behind organisations, Sackcloth?
Neil
Sackcloth, you’re wasting your time with these loons.
Also jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel but it sure as shit does get high enough for it to cause steel to lose it’s structural integrity and that’s all that matters.
No structural integrity = no building.
“We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
(National Institute of Standards and Technology, 27/9/2007)
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
pilotsfor911truth.org
Fraser, as well as being a wingnut you are also a quote miner.
If you read the whole of NIST’s letter
(http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf) it talks about the difficulty in making a detailed computer model of the collapse. It does not suggest or imply that the collapse was anomalous or unexpected, or that it supports the controlled demolition ‘theory’:
F. The Goal of the WTC Report and Its Overall Analysis.
The final section of your request asserts that the WTC Report’s stated goal and overal analysis violates the Data Quality Act and OMB/NIST Information Quality Standards. The basis given for this assertion is that NIST did not fulfill its responsibilities under the NCST Act because the focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. The NCST Act, as you note in your letter, requires NIST to “establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.” In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapse of the towers. This conclusion is supported by a large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.
Your letter contends that NIST’s report violates the Information Quality Standard of “utility.” NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.
“NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.”
But sadly, no further than this. The problem with the NIST analysis is that it does not explain what happened to the 47 massive central steel columns.
How did they all instantly disintegrate into little sections, all at the same time ?
Even the floors which were nowhere near the area of impact and jet fuel ?
In about 10 seconds ?
“NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.”
Yes, the point at which gravity took over.
There are no problems in the NIST report but there are problems with your ability to assimilate simple information and use logic.
You’ve asked a number of fairly imbecilic questions which have been answered numerous times, in simple terms for the hard of thinking, on numerous forums. Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?
“Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?”
The evidence for this is the fact that the Twin Towers both collapsed symmetrically in approx 10 seconds, as witnessed by a great many people.
It’s not enough just to say that “gravity took over”.
Please explain the mechanism by which this occurred.
Did they crumble?
Did they melt ?
How?
Can you precisely explain to me how gravity caused 47 huge vertical steel columns to collapse simultaneously in 10 seconds?
The collapse time of 10 seconds means that the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, which means that the steel columns offered virtually no resistance.
How could the remainder of the jet fuel weaken 80+ floors of steel columns to the point of total failure in 10 seconds?
You said:
“Can you precisely explain to me how gravity caused 47 huge vertical steel columns to collapse simultaneously in 10 seconds?”
I didn’t say that gravity was the cause.
I said:
“Why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?”
You said:
“The evidence for this is the fact that the Twin Towers both collapsed symmetrically in approx 10 seconds, as witnessed by a great many people.”
That’s not evidence. That’s you being a wingnut. Do you actually have any idea what actually happened? I quote from the NIST report FAQs:
“…the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.”
You said, re. the ‘47 massive central steel columns’:
“How did they all instantly disintegrate into little sections, all at the same time ?”
Again, where is your evidence that they did? I agree with the findings of the NIST report. You don’t. As you are the one with the alternative hypothesis and you disagree with the 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—who reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse, please explain a) what your alternative hypothesis is, b) what your evidence is for it and c) why your hypothesis and evidence is superior to the NIST report.
You see, in the real world that’s how science works. Not as easy as sitting around hating The Man and watching Loose Change is it?
You said:
“Why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?”
The evidence for this is the fact that one moment the huge 1000′+ central steel columns (which were largely unaffected by fire) were standing vertically, intact, and 10 seconds later they became a pile of short sections lying on the ground.
I don’t think anyone really disputes this.
Can you show me any photos of 1000′ long steel columns sticking out of the debris pile?
The towers fell straight down. not sideways.
This means that the columns failed simultaneously.
You said:
“As you are the one with the alternative hypothesis…..”
Alternative to what ?
My point is that NIST don’t have a hypothesis for the total collapse.
At all.
NIST themselves admit that they only carry their investigation to the point where the buildings are “poised for collapse” and no further, seemingly content to allow intuition to fill in the blanks.
“…we are unable to provide a full explanation
of the total collapse.”
(NIST Sept 2007)
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Architects and Engineers for 911Truth
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
Bentham Science Publishers
“Not as easy as sitting around hating The Man and watching Loose Change is it?”
Do you imagine that the following individuals sit around “hating The Man” ?
“It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume (”911 and American Empire” vol1) confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole ‘war on terror’ was based on a prior deception.”
( Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.)
“David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job – I’ve got to say I think that it was too. … I have since decided that….at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen. … The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. … All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions.”
( William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.)
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
pilotsfor911truth.org
Sackcloth and Ashes:
It was an independent journalist from the muckraker report who reported the FBI spokesman saying that they had no evidence of a UBL-9/11 connection. It’s a judgement call whether to accept his report.
But you do quote the FBI’s note added to their non-9/11-including indictment list for UBL:
“Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001″
They seem to say: as various investigations continue (i.e. more evidence is gathered), further indictments may be added.
I can only understand this as meaning ‘if and when we get enough evidence, we will add more indictments’.
Sackcloth and Ashes said:
“Firstly, I’m fortunate enough to have a well-stocked College library at hand, so I went looking for your ‘Newsweek’ source among the back issues, and I couldn’t find it. That might actually be because there was no edition of that journal published on 15th September 2001. So that article is a ghost.”
I can help there.
S&A, this paysite appears to reproduce the article which does indeed seem to be from Newsweek and published on 15th September 2001.
http://www.mywire.com/pubs/Newsweek/2001/09/15/316109?extID=10051
I fetched it by tapping the relevant dates source and phrase into Google News archive search. If you’re not familiar with that, you can just use google, e.g. enter a phrase and the site:
“Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base” site:washingtonpost.com
in the search box.
That example brings up http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38270-2001Sep15
which is the Post story that you couldn’t find – as I also couldn’t – by searching for that phrase on the Post site itself.
Don’t worry about it though mate it’s easily done, I suppose. Often if we are already fairly sure of something, we don’t explore the alternatives very thoroughly.
Which reminds me of this summary of the FEMA report on the 9/11 events:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf
There are a couple of puzzling bits from the account of WTC7 (which is very different from those of 3,4,5,6, which all had extensive fire and impact damage).
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, *the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence*. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
“Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and confirmed. How the collapse of an unknown number of gravity columns brought down the whole building must be explained.”
‘Often if we are already fairly sure of something, we don’t explore the alternatives very thoroughly.’
Which is as neat a summary of the 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement as anyone has ever offered. Cheers, dad.
S&A: well done for your brilliantly observed riposte. Glad that you get the point – if not the irony. The observation of course applies to many people: some ‘truthers’, and many sneerers like you and Thompson.
cheers, D
‘This weekend I found myself talking to a small group of teenagers in London, most of them from deprived backgrounds; all were from ethnic minorities. I asked: “How many of you think the US government had a hand in planning 9/11?”
They all put up their hands. ‘
==========================
Smart kids..It shows that id educated adults are unable to escape the mainstrean media brainwashing, these undereducated kids can. But then thats no suprise…the educted are the first to endorse the states own lies.
Yes Brian, but one day those kids will grow up, and as they do so they’ll develop their facilities for critical thinking, and realise that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on a mixture of conjecture, internet-based rumours and outright lies. They’ll see through ‘truthers’ like you given time.
Funnily enough, ‘Dad’, what you’ll find from critics of the 9/11 ‘Lies’ movement like me is that we subject the conspiracy theories to the same critical scrutiny as the established version of events, and this is why we find the theory that AQ was responsible to be the most plausible explanation. So we are actually being open-minded and sceptical. It is the ‘truthers’ who are adopting a superficial and doctrinaire view of events to which facts and evidence are either twisted or ignored to support what is essentially a dogma. They are the bigots and fanatics on this issue, not us.
‘we subject the conspiracy theories to the same critical scrutiny as the established version of events’
Runs both ways mate.
No it doesn’t, and you’re not my mate.
As is the case with others accused of debunking, we have consistently shown that the ‘truthers’ rely on fragments of ‘evidence’ which on closer inspection are shown to be either factual distortions, internet-based rumours, non-scientific twaddle (thermite etc) or outright lies. The evidence is on our side, which is why the ‘truth’ movement has made no progress whatsoever in pushing their case since 2001, and why its supporters are confined to the fringes of the extreme left and right.
I agree. I depair too, putting up with the bunch of thickos I go to school with.
I fear, had Ted Bundy investigated himself he would be running loose killing more people.
If the Gov, or portions of the Gov were involved then it would be impossible to get the truth.
The only truth we know for sure, is that for sure we don’t know the truth. A small handful of ‘truthers’ are probably closer to the truth than most, but certainly “good tax-payers”, “nine-to-fivers”, and anyone that watches TV too much are far, far away from it with their head in the clouds.
Can I have a word of advice? I’m confident youve obtained a thing fantastic through here. But suppose you provided some links to a web site which supports what you are? Or even you may provide you with us some added important information to investigate, a little something that will connect what you have been mentioning, a little something additional concrete?
This weekend I found myself talking to a small group of teenagers in London, most of them from deprived backgrounds; all were from ethnic minorities. I asked: “How many of you think the US government had a hand in planning 9/11?”
They all put up their hands.
This is what we’re up against.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Damian,
Did you ask them about their influences?
Yup. They’d seen Loose Change. I told them to check out Screw Loose Change.
Ho ho. You’re losing the battle. The official story of 911 cannot stand up to scrutiny. All you can do is try to depict people who can see through it as crazy and gullible, and lump it in with crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster etc. But these straw men arguments are irrelevant to the scientific evidence regarding the collapse of the three buildings, let alone all the other smoking guns and question marks.
But, to flatter your conceit, and because it’s interesting to me, what’s your take on the 1980 Bologna bombing? What’s the official version of that? And also, what about JFK? Do you really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed him, acting alone? And while I’m at it, what about Anne Boleyn? Am I a conspiracy nut for thinking she was set up?
Actually, this is what you’re up against………
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
pilotsfor911truth.org
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
“The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.”
(Andreas von Bülow, former German Defense Minister)
“From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it ‘confessed’ that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
(Former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga in “Corriere della Sera” 11/30/07)
http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml
Osama-Berlusconi? «Trappola giornalistica». Corriere della Sera
Is it wrong to think that the original premise (that a group of students discover a government conspiracy behind 9/11) that these Loose Change idiots were considering for their fictional movie (before it became a ‘documentary’) might have actually made a decent (fictional) movie?
Of course, such a movie so soon after the event would have likely been too close to the bone for the American public. Perhaps conspiracy theorists are all just misguided screenwriters?
PS. I only bought your book the other day, through which I discovered this site. A great read, though I did find myself bursting out laughing, scaring other commuters on the tightly packed train home as I read about Creationist ‘museums’ and the calculation of ‘the speed of heaven’.
Wow, and the loons are really coming out to play in the comments.
Still, can’t help thinking that if our governments had lied less about 9/11 (especially by making up the Iraq connection, denying the Saudi connection, and pretending they hadn’t been tipped off in advance with some quite specific intelligence) then the conspiracy theorists would have rather less to play with. Trusting liars is hard, even when they’re right.
It’s all coming apart at the seems now.
The Globalist Control Freaks have screwed up big time, they Know we are on to them.
Many thousands of Scholars Question this, Jet fuel Does NOT Burn hot enough to Melt steel.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Denmark TV Airs 9/11 Truth.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13235
German Secret service and the Ex Italian PM says that Intellligence agencies know 9/11 was an Inside Job
http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm
Japanese Parliament questions 9/11 and calls the official version of events a ‘FairyStory’
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13392
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13340
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12215
“There was no consensus, however, on the subject of Osama bin Laden: some students thought he was an actor hired by the CIA, while others thought he was a real person but innocent of 9/11.”
(Damian Thompson, The Telegraph 19/2/2008)
Dear Mr Thompson, I wonder if you could provide me with one single piece of solid evidence which connects Osama Bin Laden with 9/11.
Just one.
I look forward to your reply.
Definition of a conspiracy theorist – someone who doesn’t believe anything he sees in the papers, but everything he reads on the internet.
That’s you, pal.
BTW, ‘fraser’, Andreas von Bulow was never the West German Minister for Defence – he was a state secretary (1976-1980), which makes him a somewhat less elevated character.
Both he and Francesco Cossiga seem to be (respectively) the German and Italian equivalents of Michael Meacher. Which means their rantings aren’t worth a damn either.
Dear Sackcloth and Ashes,
Every time I post a piece of information relating to 9/11, I back it up with mainstream newspaper reports or official documents. For example when I say that there is evidence that the 9/11 hijackers attended US military training institutions in the 1990s, I back it up by providing the following reports from the Washington Post and Newsweek…..
“U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.”
(Newsweek Sept 15th 2001)
“As the investigation gathered strength Saturday, unusual leads began to surface, among them the possibility that some of the hijackers may have received training at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida or other U.S. military facilities.
Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base.
In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively. ”
(Washington Post Sept 16th 2001)
I don’t deal with “internet only” information.
Just to absolutely clear.
And when I say that there is no evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11, I back it up by posting a link to his “Most Wanted” page on the FBI website, on which there is no mention of 9/11…..
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive – Usama Bin Laden
…….and then provide a statement issued by the FBI themselves explaining why there is no mention of 9/11 on this page.
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
(FBI Chief of investigative Publicity, Rex Tomb, June 5th 2006)
But it seems that many people ( eg Damian Thomson and most likely yourself) are convinced of Bin Ladens responsibility for 9/11 and I’d like to know why, when even the FBI aren’t convinced.
Obviously you folks know something that they don’t.
So let’s hear it.
Also, S & A,
I’d be grateful if you would take a look at the following lists of people who question the official account of 9/11, and explain to me why “their rantings aren’t worth a damn either”………
and why yours are.
Thanks.
Your pal, Fraser.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
core group @ pilotsfor911truth.org
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
Why does mainstream media (CNN) cover an animation fabricated by an independent civilian researcher not based on any flight data whatsoever, but refuses to cover an animation produced by the National Transportation Safety Board based on what the NTSB claims is flight data from AA77?
Click here to find out…
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media_blackout022908.html
Click here to email CNN and others involved…
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11113
Right, let’s deal with this one step at a time.
Firstly, I’m fortunate enough to have a well-stocked College library at hand, so I went looking for your ‘Newsweek’ source among the back issues, and I couldn’t find it. That might actually be because there was no edition of that journal published on 15th September 2001. So that article is a ghost.
Secondly, I’ve gone onto the ‘Washington Post’ website (I don’t have their archive physically accessible, unfortunately, so I have to go online) and .. guess what … I can’t find it. The only sources that have it are hooky websites run by wierdos like you. So again, that sounds like something someone has made up.
Thirdly, the FBI didn’t issue an indictment for Bin Laden because they’d already indicted him for August 1998 Nairobi and Dar-e-Salaam bombings. As for all the Rex Tomb quotes, I can only find them on Prison Planet and other nut-job sites, not on any original source. Pardon me if I don’t automatically trust the ability of yourself and other fellow wingnuts to transcribe someone’s comments accurately.
Funnily enough, a search on the FBI’s own website showed no reference to an individual called ‘Rex Tomb’, or to any appointment listed as ‘Chief of Investigative Publicity’. So what’s the chance that that’s just a made-up name and a made-up post, and a made-up quote?
So contrary to what you’ve said, all you have proved is that you rely on a cyberspace equivalent of Chinese whispers.
As for the remaining websites. They’re just as shit and as ill-informed as your comments.
Just to be clear, I did (during my break) check the ‘Newsweek’ editions for the 17th and 24th September 2001, only to find no reference to your Pensacola story. My searches on the ‘Post’s own site involved variations on the keywords ‘9/11′, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘Hijackers’, ‘Training’, ‘US Military’ and ‘Pensacola’. No dice.
So the bottom line is someone made up the story, and you bastards are too lazy to check to see if there’s an original source. Says all that needs to be said about your kind, really.
Here are some more sources of the same information, I do hope this helps to clear the matter up.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — “Three of the men identified as the hijackers in the attacks on Tuesday have the same names as alumni of American military schools, the authorities said today. The men were identified as Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.
The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif. ”
(New York Times)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED7163BF935A2575AC0A9679C8B63
AFTER THE ATTACKS: MISSED CUES; Saudi May Have Been Suspected in Error, Officials Say – New York Times
“Perhaps coincidentally, two men with names identical to those of two hijackers had lived or studied at Lackland Air Force Base. Pentagon sources confirmed that a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland, and that both Saeed and Ahmed Alghamdi appeared on a list for foreign military housing. (Men with the same names as other hijackers turned up at other bases in the south.) Whether the hijackers stole the identities of these men is as yet unknown.”
(Time Oct 1st, 2001)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000899-2,00.html
The Plot Comes Into Focus – TIME
“There’s no mystery here,” said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″
S & A,
Yesterday I was your pal, but today I’m a “weirdo”, a “wingnut”, a “nutjob” and a “bastard”…….is it something I said ?
Oh, well, that’s really convincing. As if every Arab has a unique name which no one else may share. Do you think it’s unlikely that there may be more than one person called Mohamed Atta in Egypt, let alone the entire Moslem world? You must be one of those geniuses who says ‘Oh you come from London. Do you know my friend ‘John Smith’?’. Priceless.
The ‘Time’ article also hints at another possibility, namely identity theft, which happens quite a lot online. If you don’t know anything about this, then I suggest that you don’t answer any emails purporting to come from Nigerian bank managers asking for your account details.
Oh, and Rex Tomb does exist, I see, but he’s just a ’spokesman’, not the ‘Chief of Investigative Publicity’. But I notice the ‘Post’ source does not quote him as saying ‘The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11′. He’s quoted thus ‘They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it’. The article also states that ‘”The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice,” the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. “Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001″‘.
For those of us who employ logic, that means ‘We’ve got an indictment outstanding, we don’t need another’. If we followed your line of argument, we’d believe that Al Capone wasn’t a bootlegger or a murderer because he got busted for tax fraud.
You’ve got bog all evidence, so give it up.
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) have identified 19 individuals as those who
hijacked four commercial airliners September 11 in the worst terrorist
attack in U.S. history.
“I think we have a fairly high level of confidence,” that the
individuals are the people who were on the plane, said Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller who joined Attorney
General John Ashcroft in a press briefing September 14.
The FBI names the 19 suspected hijackers in a press release available
at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/09/mil-010914-usia09.htm
DOJ Officials Brief on Terrorist Investigation Sept. 14
I think by now we can safely rule-out identity theft, don’t you?
By the way, maybe you could apply your logic to this problem, if Bin Laden is,
” … wanted in connection with the August 7th, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya”.
How is it that he can receive medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai 2 months before 9/11, receive a visit from the CIA, and not be arrested ?
“CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July | World news | The Guardian
Er, no it doesn’t, you prong. Let’s put to one side the fact that your FBI statement deals with the hijackers, and the ‘Time’ and ‘NYT’ articles refer to the search for accomplices.
Firstly, there is a name on the FBI’s list – Abdulaziz (perhaps Abdul Aziz) Alomari. The innocent Saudi Arabian pilot in the ‘NYT’ piece is called Abdul Rahman Alomari. That doesn’t sound strange to me (we’ve got two Arabs in my college with the surnames Al-Amri and Alamri).
Secondly, Ahmed and Hamza Alghami (who according to your baroque account seem to have been trained by the US military as pilots) are not listed as the pilots for UA175. In any case, each team of hijackers worked with 2 to pilot the plane, with the rest working as the muscle. Why train two men to fly a plane when all they’re going to be doing is terrorising passengers into submission with Stanley knives?
Thirdly, if 9/11 was a collosal covert black op by the US government, then why were the hijackers trained in military institutions, when a more discreet means might have been found to give them flight training – such as sending them to a civilian flight school.
This is all I’ve got time for. Some of us have jobs to do and lives to live, you know.
Oh, and before I turn my computer off, this blows your Dubai story to shreds:
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html
Give. It. Up.
Get. A. Life.
Shame you’ve got to go, I was hoping you could explain why the hundreds of senior military ,intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, pilots, aviation professionals,engineers, architects, professors, 9/11 survivors and family members who also question the official account are “wingnuts” and “bastards” too.
And why we should take you seriously, but not them.
In case you’ve forgotten who they are, here they are again:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
core group @ pilotsfor911truth.org
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
Air Force Officer Suspended for Criticizing Bush
By Reuters | New York Times
Tuesday, 4 June, 2002
MONTEREY, Calif. (Reuters) -” A U.S. Air Force officer has been suspended from duty after he wrote a letter to a California newspaper accusing President Bush of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to happen “because he needed this war on terrorism,” a military official said on Tuesday.
Lt. Colonel Steve Butler was relieved of his duties as vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute pending an investigation into his letter, which was published in the Monterey County Herald on May 26, a military spokesman said.
Butler’s letter accused Bush — the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces — of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to occur for his own political ends.
“Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama,” Butler’s letter said. ”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.06E.butler.bush.htm
t r u t h o u t – Air Force Officer Suspended for Criticizing Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2025939.stm
BBC NEWS | Americas | US officer banned for Bush ‘joke’ jibe
I know I shouldn’t, but I can’t resist this …
Why should I take you seriously? Why should I take any of you so-called ‘truthers’ seriously. During the course of one day, I have addressed practically every piece of ‘evidence’ that you have forwarded here, and have shown you that it is at best highly circumstantial, but at worse you have quoted out of context, distorted evidence, failed to check the veracity or the feasibility of your claims, and you’ve even referred to evidence that doesn’t exist.
Every time I do this, rather than refute my arguments and defend your case, you just come back with other pieces of ‘evidence’ which are as flimsy as a whore’s nightie. Not only this, but you don’t even realise that you contradict yourself at every turn. For example, you claim that the FBI has ‘no evidence’ on Osama bin Laden (and I shoot that down in flames), and that this proves Al-Qaeda is innocent of 9/11. Then you come out with a cock-and-bull story about the CIA meeting OBL in Dubai, which (through innuendo) you hint suggests that he was involved, but with the US government’s connivance.
I mean, if you’re either too stupid or dishonest to stick to and defend one story, what makes you think you’re worth respect?
People like you are sick. You make a mockery of ‘truth’ and ‘evidence’ by twisting facts and reportage, and by cherry-picking small nuggets of information that supports your twisted theorising while ignoring the vast mountain of proof that shows your ‘theories’ are utter crap. You claim sympathy for the victims of this atrocity, and yet you turn their deaths into a disgusting on-line parlour game, little caring about whether this causes distress to their relatives and to survivors – the vast majority of whom are aware that 3,000 people were murdered by Al Qaeda, and who might not take kindly to claims that (for example) the United 93 passengers are actually still alive. And every time people like me punch holes in your arguments, you simply parrot the same crap ad nauseam. Or you just come up with completely irrelevant material.
(One example of this is your link to Lt-Col Butler, USAF, being suspended from duty for his accusations against Bush. What does that prove? He insulted his commander in chief which is never wise. If you had a job, you’d realise that publicly slagging off your boss doesn’t get you very far. The BBC story also made it clear that officers were disciplined, under Article 88, for trashing Bill Clinton. Learn to fucking read beyond the opening paragraph).
Regarding the ‘hundreds of senior military ,intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, pilots, aviation professionals,engineers, architects, professors, 9/11 survivors and family members’ you refer to, I sympathise with the handful of victims and relatives who feel that they have been deceived – grief can do strange things to the bereaved. But all these experts you cite are usually shown to be talking shit, or they’re less ‘eminent’ than you claim them to be. Some of them turn out to be openly batty, and are recognised as such.
You people are scientifically, logically and politically illiterate, and none of the ‘theories’ you come up with survives half an hour of critical scrutiny. So yes, you are all ‘wingnuts’, ‘bastards’ and various other unmentionables. You belong in a zoo.
It’s so nice that we can have mature, reasonable discussion
isn’t it ?
Since you evidently haven’t fully read and comprehended the material which I’ve presented, preferring instead to hurl childish insults and accuse me of things I haven’t done, (”distorted evidence”? All I’ve done is quote directly from the mainstream media.”Out of context” ? Where ? How ?) allow me to boil this down.
We have multiple reports in the mainstream press of statements from the Defense Department and the FBI saying that people with the same names as the 9/11 hijackers attended U.S Military training institutions in the 1990s.
Not just one, or even two, but as many as five.
Their identities are so similar to those of the hijackers, that we were told the possibility of identity theft was being investigated.
The FBI have stated that they have a “fairly high level of confidence” that they have correctly identified the hijackers and their entries on the FBI website remain unchanged, so it seems that identity theft is no longer a consideration.
The Military and the FBI have never conclusively denied that they are the same men.
No more is heard about the matter.
But you’re satisfied this doesn’t need to be investigated further?
It’s all just a big coincidence?
Presumably you think it’s “sick” to want to know more about this?
What I’m trying to show is that there is quite a lot of evidence which suggests that the US Military and the CIA have a closer, more co-operative relationship with Al Qaeda than we’re told.
And obviously this one example doesn’t conclusively prove this, but nevertheless, it is evidence, and taken together with all the other evidence of the CIA assisting and protecting Al Qaeda terrorists, it begins to paint a rather disturbing picture.
Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA after all.
Given that Western Intelligence services have a history of carrying out terrorist attacks and blaming them on others (yes, even our own trusted and beloved British Intelligence has done it) is it really so crazy to want to know more?
“I used to be in charge of the visa section at the CIA’s Consulate in Jeddah. … There for a year and a half I issued visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and its asset Osama Bin Laden. … Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah.”
(J. Michael Springmann – Former career Foreign Service Officer with the State Department and the International Foreign Trade Administration of the Commerce Department. Former Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he supervised the issuance of visas. 20-year Federal Government career.)
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
“A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress of fabricate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Circumstantial evidence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“…..you turn their deaths into a disgusting on-line parlour game, little caring about whether this causes distress to their relatives and to survivors….”
(Sackcloth and Ashes)
Another popular misconception is that people who express doubts about the official version of events are insulting or upsetting the families.
Allow me to introduce you to Bill Doyle:
“Bill Doyle – Father of Joseph Doyle, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC North Tower. Founder of the Bill Doyle 9/11 Support Group, a bi-partisan support group of more than 7,000 members of 2,573 families. His group merged with the Coalition of 9/11 Families in 2004 and is now know as the World Trade Center United Family Group.”
Bill Doyle: “If you want to believe the 9/11 Commission story, like a lot of us don’t, it almost looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, if you really look at all the facts — a lot of families now feel the same way. …”
Alex Jones: ” Bottom line, is 9/11 an inside job?”
Bill Doyle: “From everything that I look at I’m sure there was a lot of complicity, at least — in the least there had to be a lot of complicity. If you read and know all the facts of what I know or you might know, there’s no way in hell that nineteen of these hijackers carried out this mission. …
There’s just such a continuing coverup. And why don’t we just let the information about 9/11 be known? And then maybe this conspiracy type of thing would go away, but it’s never going to go away or I don’t think it can go away because they were complicit. …”
Alex Jones: “With your 7,000 members, I’m sure you’ve talked to most if not all of them. Run the gamut, what percentage, a guesstimation, would you say believe 9/11 is an inside job, to some extent?”
Bill Doyle: “Maybe half, maybe. It’s probably 50-50.”
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.wtcufg.org/about_board.html
WTC United Families Group ~ Board Members
The deprived and ignorant are always with us.
Some of the comments on this thread, as well as those London kids show us why.
Just a correction, the following should read ‘OK, we’ll willingly accept that nearly all of the hijackers were our own citizens’.
The rest still stands.
Well done Frazer for trying to shine some light into these murky minds.
As the post itself shows, no lie can live forever.
Daniele Ganser wrote a book entitled ‘NATO’s Secret Armies’ (on ‘Gladio’ and ’stay-behind operations’) which was generally panned by academic reviewers, who commented on his lack of historical rigour in using his sources. For example, Ganser used a purported US Army Field Manual (30-31B) to demonstrate his claims of a pan-NATO conspiracy to use armed right-wing terrorist groups to undermine democracy in Western Europe during the post-war period. What he failed to acknowledge was that FM30-31B was a KGB forgery produced during the early 1970s.
Ganser’s book is shown here – the Amazon listing of books bought alongside this crud tells you all you need to know:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/NATOs-Se…y/dp/ 0714685003
Incidentally, the latest edition of ‘The Journal of Strategic Studies’, a peer-reviewed journal with established and credible academic credentials, has a special edition on ‘Gladio’ and ‘Stay-Behind’ armies in NATO (namely, covert forces set up in the late 1940s to act as the focus for resistance in case the Soviets invaded Western Europe). Unfortunately, the journal is subscription-only and the contents are not easily available, but they are worth referring to.
The money-quote from this collection of essays comes from Leopoldo Nuti and Olav Riste, respectively two of the best Cold War history specialists in Italy and Norway, and again scholars of proven academic credibility. They both note that:
‘[A] young Swiss researcher, Daniele Ganser, has published what purports to be the most comprehensive assessment so far of the whole stay-behind organization, in a book whose ambitious conclusions do not seem to be entirely corroborated by a sound examination of the sources available’.
In academic-speak, that means ‘The man is a crank, and his scholarship sucks’. It is therefore no surprise that this discredited excuse for a historian has attached himself to the ‘truther’ movement.
Sackcloth,
If all academics criticised by their peers for incorrect readings of sources should properly be regarded as completely discredited professionally, we’d have to close down the universities. As you’re shown, disagreements over the meaning of sources is the very stuff of historical and political discourse.
Just for general information, Ganser’s had a few articles published in peer-reviewed journals, so it’s bogus to suggest he’s a substanceless hack.
What’s your view of the stay-behind organisations, Sackcloth?
Neil
Sackcloth, you’re wasting your time with these loons.
Also jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel but it sure as shit does get high enough for it to cause steel to lose it’s structural integrity and that’s all that matters.
No structural integrity = no building.
“We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
(National Institute of Standards and Technology, 27/9/2007)
http://www.ae911truth.org/
AE911Truth
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
pilotsfor911truth.org
Fraser, as well as being a wingnut you are also a quote miner.
If you read the whole of NIST’s letter
(http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf) it talks about the difficulty in making a detailed computer model of the collapse. It does not suggest or imply that the collapse was anomalous or unexpected, or that it supports the controlled demolition ‘theory’:
F. The Goal of the WTC Report and Its Overall Analysis.
The final section of your request asserts that the WTC Report’s stated goal and overal analysis violates the Data Quality Act and OMB/NIST Information Quality Standards. The basis given for this assertion is that NIST did not fulfill its responsibilities under the NCST Act because the focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. The NCST Act, as you note in your letter, requires NIST to “establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.” In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapse of the towers. This conclusion is supported by a large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.
Your letter contends that NIST’s report violates the Information Quality Standard of “utility.” NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.
“NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.”
But sadly, no further than this. The problem with the NIST analysis is that it does not explain what happened to the 47 massive central steel columns.
How did they all instantly disintegrate into little sections, all at the same time ?
Even the floors which were nowhere near the area of impact and jet fuel ?
In about 10 seconds ?
“NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.”
Yes, the point at which gravity took over.
There are no problems in the NIST report but there are problems with your ability to assimilate simple information and use logic.
You’ve asked a number of fairly imbecilic questions which have been answered numerous times, in simple terms for the hard of thinking, on numerous forums. Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?
“Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?”
The evidence for this is the fact that the Twin Towers both collapsed symmetrically in approx 10 seconds, as witnessed by a great many people.
It’s not enough just to say that “gravity took over”.
Please explain the mechanism by which this occurred.
Did they crumble?
Did they melt ?
How?
Can you precisely explain to me how gravity caused 47 huge vertical steel columns to collapse simultaneously in 10 seconds?
The collapse time of 10 seconds means that the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, which means that the steel columns offered virtually no resistance.
How could the remainder of the jet fuel weaken 80+ floors of steel columns to the point of total failure in 10 seconds?
You said:
“Can you precisely explain to me how gravity caused 47 huge vertical steel columns to collapse simultaneously in 10 seconds?”
I didn’t say that gravity was the cause.
I said:
“Why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?”
You said:
“The evidence for this is the fact that the Twin Towers both collapsed symmetrically in approx 10 seconds, as witnessed by a great many people.”
That’s not evidence. That’s you being a wingnut. Do you actually have any idea what actually happened? I quote from the NIST report FAQs:
“…the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.”
You said, re. the ‘47 massive central steel columns’:
“How did they all instantly disintegrate into little sections, all at the same time ?”
Again, where is your evidence that they did? I agree with the findings of the NIST report. You don’t. As you are the one with the alternative hypothesis and you disagree with the 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—who reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse, please explain a) what your alternative hypothesis is, b) what your evidence is for it and c) why your hypothesis and evidence is superior to the NIST report.
You see, in the real world that’s how science works. Not as easy as sitting around hating The Man and watching Loose Change is it?
You said:
“Why don’t you tell us why you think that the main central columns all ‘instantly disintegrated into little sections, all at the same time’. What evidence do you have for this?”
The evidence for this is the fact that one moment the huge 1000′+ central steel columns (which were largely unaffected by fire) were standing vertically, intact, and 10 seconds later they became a pile of short sections lying on the ground.
I don’t think anyone really disputes this.
Can you show me any photos of 1000′ long steel columns sticking out of the debris pile?
The towers fell straight down. not sideways.
This means that the columns failed simultaneously.
You said:
“As you are the one with the alternative hypothesis…..”
Alternative to what ?
My point is that NIST don’t have a hypothesis for the total collapse.
At all.
NIST themselves admit that they only carry their investigation to the point where the buildings are “poised for collapse” and no further, seemingly content to allow intuition to fill in the blanks.
“…we are unable to provide a full explanation
of the total collapse.”
(NIST Sept 2007)
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Architects and Engineers for 911Truth
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
Bentham Science Publishers
“Not as easy as sitting around hating The Man and watching Loose Change is it?”
Do you imagine that the following individuals sit around “hating The Man” ?
“It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume (”911 and American Empire” vol1) confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole ‘war on terror’ was based on a prior deception.”
( Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.)
“David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job – I’ve got to say I think that it was too. … I have since decided that….at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen. … The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. … All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions.”
( William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.)
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
pilotsfor911truth.org
Sackcloth and Ashes:
It was an independent journalist from the muckraker report who reported the FBI spokesman saying that they had no evidence of a UBL-9/11 connection. It’s a judgement call whether to accept his report.
But you do quote the FBI’s note added to their non-9/11-including indictment list for UBL:
“Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001″
They seem to say: as various investigations continue (i.e. more evidence is gathered), further indictments may be added.
I can only understand this as meaning ‘if and when we get enough evidence, we will add more indictments’.
Sackcloth and Ashes said:
“Firstly, I’m fortunate enough to have a well-stocked College library at hand, so I went looking for your ‘Newsweek’ source among the back issues, and I couldn’t find it. That might actually be because there was no edition of that journal published on 15th September 2001. So that article is a ghost.”
I can help there.
S&A, this paysite appears to reproduce the article which does indeed seem to be from Newsweek and published on 15th September 2001.
http://www.mywire.com/pubs/Newsweek/2001/09/15/316109?extID=10051
I fetched it by tapping the relevant dates source and phrase into Google News archive search. If you’re not familiar with that, you can just use google, e.g. enter a phrase and the site:
“Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base” site:washingtonpost.com
in the search box.
That example brings up http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38270-2001Sep15
which is the Post story that you couldn’t find – as I also couldn’t – by searching for that phrase on the Post site itself.
Don’t worry about it though mate it’s easily done, I suppose. Often if we are already fairly sure of something, we don’t explore the alternatives very thoroughly.
Which reminds me of this summary of the FEMA report on the 9/11 events:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf
There are a couple of puzzling bits from the account of WTC7 (which is very different from those of 3,4,5,6, which all had extensive fire and impact damage).
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, *the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence*. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
“Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and confirmed. How the collapse of an unknown number of gravity columns brought down the whole building must be explained.”
‘Often if we are already fairly sure of something, we don’t explore the alternatives very thoroughly.’
Which is as neat a summary of the 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement as anyone has ever offered. Cheers, dad.
S&A: well done for your brilliantly observed riposte. Glad that you get the point – if not the irony. The observation of course applies to many people: some ‘truthers’, and many sneerers like you and Thompson.
cheers, D
‘This weekend I found myself talking to a small group of teenagers in London, most of them from deprived backgrounds; all were from ethnic minorities. I asked: “How many of you think the US government had a hand in planning 9/11?”
They all put up their hands. ‘
==========================
Smart kids..It shows that id educated adults are unable to escape the mainstrean media brainwashing, these undereducated kids can. But then thats no suprise…the educted are the first to endorse the states own lies.
Yes Brian, but one day those kids will grow up, and as they do so they’ll develop their facilities for critical thinking, and realise that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on a mixture of conjecture, internet-based rumours and outright lies. They’ll see through ‘truthers’ like you given time.
Funnily enough, ‘Dad’, what you’ll find from critics of the 9/11 ‘Lies’ movement like me is that we subject the conspiracy theories to the same critical scrutiny as the established version of events, and this is why we find the theory that AQ was responsible to be the most plausible explanation. So we are actually being open-minded and sceptical. It is the ‘truthers’ who are adopting a superficial and doctrinaire view of events to which facts and evidence are either twisted or ignored to support what is essentially a dogma. They are the bigots and fanatics on this issue, not us.
‘we subject the conspiracy theories to the same critical scrutiny as the established version of events’
Runs both ways mate.
No it doesn’t, and you’re not my mate.
As is the case with others accused of debunking, we have consistently shown that the ‘truthers’ rely on fragments of ‘evidence’ which on closer inspection are shown to be either factual distortions, internet-based rumours, non-scientific twaddle (thermite etc) or outright lies. The evidence is on our side, which is why the ‘truth’ movement has made no progress whatsoever in pushing their case since 2001, and why its supporters are confined to the fringes of the extreme left and right.
I agree. I depair too, putting up with the bunch of thickos I go to school with.
I fear, had Ted Bundy investigated himself he would be running loose killing more people.
If the Gov, or portions of the Gov were involved then it would be impossible to get the truth.
The only truth we know for sure, is that for sure we don’t know the truth. A small handful of ‘truthers’ are probably closer to the truth than most, but certainly “good tax-payers”, “nine-to-fivers”, and anyone that watches TV too much are far, far away from it with their head in the clouds.
Can I have a word of advice? I’m confident youve obtained a thing fantastic through here. But suppose you provided some links to a web site which supports what you are? Or even you may provide you with us some added important information to investigate, a little something that will connect what you have been mentioning, a little something additional concrete?
