9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[RNK]

In my travels (chuckle, snort) I've discovered that there exists a large number of people in the United States who believe that in one way or another, 9/11 was engineered or allowed by the US government. This interests me quite a bit and I've come to support this assessment.

So the poll is self-explanatory.

1 - It was an inside job! Numerous reports, including one by Steven Jones, indicate that the only way in which three skyscrapers (one of which wasn't even hit by a plane) could have collapsed in such a manner is by controlled demolitions. Compare accidental partial collapses of large buildings with the complete and total destruction wrought on WTC 1, 2, and inparticular 7; they all show the telltail signs of a controlled demolition.

2 - The "Pearl Harbour" paradigm! The US government had prior warning of the attack from dozens of sources but allowed them to happen, a strategic move they believed would give them a public excusal for an upsurge in imperialist activities. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing military aggression in dozens of countries to suppress dissidents, and a crack-down on domestic civil liberties.

3 - Intelligence failure!! Failuire to prevent the attacks lies in gross incompetance on the part of US intelligence -- but they're sure as hell capitalized on the aftermath of the attacks.

[Psy]

It is suspicious how much time the US had to react, just because the transponder is turned off doesn't make the plane invisible to radar (they are actually easy to spot on radar), they claimed US air defence is doughnut but New York City is a coastal city that is the closest to Europe so any invasion of US airspace by Western European powers would be over New York City, it is also surprising the Pentagon didn't deploy any anti-air vehicles, a jet liner is a large slow moving object so any modern anti-air vehicle could easily take it down and they had 30 mins to deploy such anti-air divisions around strategic areas (with the Pentagon being a huge priority) after the second plane hit the WTC.

It is also pondering why the Pentagon didn't panic over such failures, those slow response times would mean the US could be decapitated by a surprise airborne attack on the Pentagon either through bombing or even dropping ground units near the Pentagon.

[RedAnarchist]

Either 2 or 3 in my opinion.

[queerpaganarchist]

I'd also say 2 or 3... there's really little doubt in my mind the government knew about it in some form before it happened, whether they let it happen on purpose or just failed to prevent it is up in the air for me. I do not believe it was an "inside-job."

[Pirate Utopian]

I voted 2.

[RNK]

Psy> It's actually very little to do with the time it took them to react. Originally they had no inclination to even investigate what occured. The evidence from the WTC was hurriedly cleaned up (they did not bother to investigate it thoroughly at all, unlike all other like attacks which they spent months investigating). It took pressure from certain sectors of congress and the victims' families for them to actually open up a wide-spread investigation (which Bush limited to only matters of intelligence).

The government has refused to release any of the dozen or so pieces of footage showing the plane crash into the Pentagon, leading many to believe it was a missile and not an aircraft that hit it.

The government has been trying to stop and stall the investigation since the day it happened.

[chimx]

Wow... just wow.

3

p.s.: I also believe Oswald was the sole assassin.

[Psy]

Psy> It's actually very little to do with the time it took them to react. Originally they had no inclination to even investigate what occured. The evidence from the WTC was hurriedly cleaned up (they did not bother to investigate it thoroughly at all, unlike all other like attacks which they spent months investigating). It took pressure from certain sectors of congress and the victims' families for them to actually open up a wide-spread investigation (which Bush limited to only matters of intelligence).

The government has refused to release any of the dozen or so pieces of footage showing the plane crash into the Pentagon, leading many to believe it was a missile and not an aircraft that hit it.

The government has been trying to stop and stall the investigation since the day it happened.
Actually the response time is very interesting, in 1987 a tiny Cessna landed in Red Square and many officers lost their post as the Russian military was totally embarrassed. Now you a large jet liner heading for the capital after two planes hit the WTC with a full half-hour for the US military to respond, are we to assume the US capital had no anti-air capabilities? Are we to assume the US military would rely totally on the ability of its interceptors (they were slow to react) and not try to take the airliner down from the ground?

[Luís Henrique]

I voted for 3, as it is the least crazed option. But in my opinion, the real issue is missing:

4. That's what you get when you mess with too much people at the same time, making more enemies than you are able to deal with.

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

I want to change my vote to 4

[RNK]

There Is No 4, There Is Only 3.

[Psy]

I think it far fetched that the US had the most humiliating failure of air defence in history without the branches of the US military blaming each other to save their own skin. Again we are talking a large slow moving object heading toward the capital for half an hour after the two planes hit the WTC.

If US air defence was really that bad then any world power could have easily decapitated the US by air dropping a large attack force to take the capital. As with such pathetic response times, by the time the US military was a threat to troop planes they would be empty and heading back.

[bcbm]

3. Think about it logically... the US government can't manage to kill the leader of a third-world country 90 miles from its shores, but they can pull off what would have to be the biggest conspiracy in modern history without a single leak? Pfft, yeah right.

[AGITprop]

Really, who did it, or who let it happen is irrelevant. What is important is to understand what this was. An excuse to go into the Middle-East, to wreak havoc and to return with oil in return for their "democratization". A bloody capitalist sham...

[FireFry]

You know what I think?? I think it was a mad mess. I think it's something that I'm sick of and something that I think that everybody should just get over.

It was a media trial of Osama Bin Laden, who isn't an American citizen, so technically he has zero rights, so that was legal. In fact, I bet there was nothing illegal that really happened on 9/11. What if it was all a mistake by pilots??

I mean, there was never any serious investigation into it, and since that day the media has been chaotic and mass confusion has reigned.

It gives me a headache just thinking about it, and I thought people would shut up about a week afterwards. But no, they're still *****ing about 8 years after.

Jesus christ.... :crying:

[nvm]

definately #1
hitler did the same thing by burning the parliament and blaming the communists
Nero a roman emperor burned rome and blamed the christians
and zeitgeist proves that #1 is the truth!

[AGITprop]

definately #1
hitler did the same thing by burning the parliament and blaming the communists
Nero a roman emperor burned rome and blamed the christians
and zeitgeist proves that #1 is the truth!

Well i havent seen Zeitgeist but i still agree wih you comrade. It is all in the name of profit. Lose a few billion one day, make a hundred times more in the future.

[nvm]

then look up zeitgeist and watch the movie on their site
its worth ur time

[last_angry_man]

what happened? #3

why did it happen? #4 (That's what you get when you mess with too much people at the same time, making more enemies than you are able to deal with.)

[Psy]

3. Think about it logically... the US government can't manage to kill the leader of a third-world country 90 miles from its shores, but they can pull off what would have to be the biggest conspiracy in modern history without a single leak? Pfft, yeah right.
That is the CIA, for 9/11 we are talking about NORAD, US Air Force, US Army and the Pentagon.

Are we to assume the US Army couldn't in half an hour deploy SAMs to protect the capital from a large slow moving air liner with no counter measures?

Are we to assume to the US Air Force couldn't intercept a slow moving air liner? That NORAD couldn't direct fighters large slow moving air liners? The official story was NORAD had no capabilities to track the planes and had to rely on the FAA for coordinates which is a lie NORAD has far better tracing capabilities then the FAA.

Are we to assume it was normal for the Pentagon to simply let a airliner hit it?

Think back to Korean liner that was shot down by the USSR, that is how modern militaries actually respond when threatened by slow moving airliners, it doesn't long for modern jet fighters that can move twice the speed of sound to intercept a airliner.

[bcbm]

That is the CIA, for 9/11 we are talking about NORAD, US Air Force, US Army and the Pentagon.


And they're much more coordinated and efficient? We're talking about a conspiracy that would involved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals acting in a highly coordinated and planned way. And nobody ever comes clean about this? Come on. This gives an almost sickening amount of coherence, precision and strength that, frankly, its members are just too fucking stupid for.

[Psy]

And they're much more coordinated and efficient? We're talking about a conspiracy that would involved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals acting in a highly coordinated and planned way. And nobody ever comes clean about this? Come on. This gives an almost sickening amount of coherence, precision and strength that, frankly, its members are just too fucking stupid for.

You talking the military, the military is far better at keeping secrets then the CIA. The near accidental nuclear launches during the cold war only came out after the cold war due to how well the military is at purging leaks, even the KGB had to be very inventive to get military secrets from the US military and had to get them through spies that worked legitimately in the Pentagon with high level clearance. Also for #2 where there was simply a stand down order to take advantage of the attacks, it would be very easy to cover up as all they have to cover up was the order and that is easy since any officer that leaks the order would wind up spending the life in a military prison if they lucky, a bullet in the head if they are not lucky.

[Red Blue Pen]

I voted 3. I don't think the government knew about 9/11.

[Psy]

Why 9/11 can't be simply incompetence.

Standard Operating Procedures were overruled, military officers don't goes against SOP without good cause (like being ordered to). SOP of a hi-jacking is for NORAD to track the airliner and send up fighters to interceptors ASAP to get in visual contact with the pilot of the airliner and report back the situation and await further orders. The average response time from the time a airliner turns off its transponder till it is intercepted by jet fighters is about 15 mins (that means in 15mins after the transponder is turned off the fighters are in visual contact with the airliner), during 9/11 it took more then 15 mins before the government claims fighters were even sent up.

The official story is a war game confused the dispatch of interceptors, this holds no water as it is simple a mater of telling the computer to filter out all the virtual contacts, they could have also stopped the war game.

More importantly is the people in charge for the failure of US air defence were promoted were historically such failure usually results in the commanding officers court marshaled.

[Red October]

The 9/11 myths have been debunked so many times...not to mention that a controlled demolition on the WTC (if that's what you believe happened) would take a fucking army of engineers inside the building wiring those towers from top to bottom. Someone ould have noticed that.

But really, all these people give the US government way too much credit. The government can't keep it secret when some whitehouse bureaucrat is cheating on his wife, but they're able to conceal the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind with absolutely no leaks from any of the thousands of people who would be involved?

[Invader Zim]

Considering that the US government can bearly organise a pissup in a brewery, I very much doubt their ability to plan and pull off any thing requiring on a scale to 9/11.

[Psy]

The 9/11 myths have been debunked so many times...not to mention that a controlled demolition on the WTC (if that's what you believe happened) would take a fucking army of engineers inside the building wiring those towers from top to bottom. Someone should have noticed that.

Never heard of hiding in plane sight, all it would taken is a army of engineers clothed as maintenance workers.

Also structural engineers have stated the way the WTC collapsed goes against the law of physics if they were caused by a impact of airliners as there would have been far more resistance, according to the laws of physics the collapse should have been much slower as there would have been far more resistance. The only logical explanation to the speed of the collapse is if the lower floors offered no resistance at all which makes no sense for a scientific standpoint if we are only talking fires and the impact of the planes.



But really, all these people give the US government way too much credit. The government can't keep it secret when some whitehouse bureaucrat is cheating on his wife, but they're able to conceal the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind with absolutely no leaks from any of the thousands of people who would be involved?

You assume the US military is as incompetent as the CIA. Many CIA covert actions are uncovered by reporters simply doing their job as the CIA sucks at keeping secrets. The US military mostly only is compromised by spies, the US military was able to keep the Manhattan Project a secret till they dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. For decades the US military was able to keep secret that US military intelligence during WWII cracked most of the Japanese codes and that the US military knew Japan was ready to surrender before the US dropped the nuclear bombs. The US military was able to cover up the Gulf of Token incident of 1964 for decades. The US Air Force was able to cover up that they had regular spy planes over USSR air space till the USSR shot one down and filmed the American pilot.

[Red October]

Never heard of hiding in plane sight, all it would taken is a army of engineers clothed as maintenance workers.


You would need to literally tear that building apart floor by floor, wall by wall to place the charges in the necessary places. Rigging a building for a controlled demolition is an enormous task that requies a huge amount of effort and time, especially buildings as large as the WTC.

[Psy]

You would need to literally tear that building apart floor by floor, wall by wall to place the charges in the necessary places. Rigging a building for a controlled demolition is an enormous task that requies a huge amount of effort and time, especially buildings as large as the WTC.

So what makes you think a airliner could take down the buildings that fast? Also we are talking about the military not the CIA. The military has tons of man power it can call on that doesn't ask any questions and blindly follow orders.

[last_angry_man]

Also structural engineers have stated the way the WTC collapsed goes against the law of physics if they were caused by a impact of airliners as there would have been far more resistance, according to the laws of physics the collapse should have been much slower as there would

Please provide links or reference. I have two structural engineers within spitting distance of my cube so I can probably access any industry trade magazine or other reference you can provide. While every profession has a handful of 'crackpots', I have seen NO mention of any alternative theories in ANY of the professional journals of any of the engineering societies. But I'd be happy to read any that you can provide...

[Psy]

Also structural engineers have stated the way the WTC collapsed goes against the law of physics if they were caused by a impact of airliners as there would have been far more resistance, according to the laws of physics the collapse should have been much slower as there would

Please provide links or reference. I have two structural engineers within spitting distance of my cube so I can probably access any industry trade magazine or other reference you can provide. While every profession has a handful of 'crackpots', I have seen NO mention of any alternative theories in ANY of the professional journals of any of the engineering societies. But I'd be happy to read any that you can provide...

There is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/)

I already have the alternative theory that the floors below gave zero resistance meaning they were not weakened by the collapse of the floor above else the speed of the collapse would vary as there would be more resistance when the falling floor came into contact with the floor below slowing the speed of the collapse greatly.

[last_angry_man]

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ae911truth.org/) - hardly a peer-review professional journal. I could throw up a website claiming the moon was actually a giant oatmeal cookie and probably find 282 wackos willing to sign on. Especially considering that the number of degreed A's & E's in the USA alone has got to be in the vicinity of 1,000,000 or more! (there are over 100,000 BS level engineering graduates every year in the USA) So 282 people who have not been vetted, just a web link sign up,.... that doesn't hold much weight. When the professional societies (and their official journals) start joining the fray, we'll all read about it on the news. Until then, ......*crackpots*


the floors below gave zero resistance meaning they were not weakened by the collapse of the floor above else the speed of the collapse would vary as there would be more resistance when the falling floor came into contact with the floor below slowing the speed of the collapse greatly.

Honestly, I really tried to follow that statement, but I couldn't figure out what the F you were trying to say....

[Psy]

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ae911truth.org/) - hardly a peer-review professional journal. I could throw up a website claiming the moon was actually a giant oatmeal cookie and probably find 282 wackos willing to sign on. Especially considering that the number of degreed A's & E's in the USA alone has got to be in the vicinity of 1,000,000 or more! (there are over 100,000 BS level engineering graduates every year in the USA) So 282 people who have not been vetted, just a web link sign up,.... that doesn't hold much weight. When the professional societies (and their official journals) start joining the fray, we'll all read about it on the news. Until then, ......*crackpots*

But it is led by Jeff King a MIT Engineer and have a number of other Engineers as part of the organization.



the floors below gave zero resistance meaning they were not weakened by the collapse of the floor above else the speed of the collapse would vary as there would be more resistance when the falling floor came into contact with the floor below slowing the speed of the collapse greatly.

Honestly, I really tried to follow that statement, but I couldn't figure out what the F you were trying to say....
If you look at the towers collapsing it started at the top and without slowing, collapsing at a very high rate of speed. Also if you look at tapes of the collapse most of the matter is being pulverizers into dust and pushed away from the building meaning as you get lower there is less and less matter falling onto the floors below. Thus if the buildings collapsed only due to the falling weight it should have slowed down at a rapid rate and probably stopped all together long before it reached half way down as the undamaged part below the impact zone would now have far less weight pushing down on it.

[bcbm]

The physics, etc of the airplanes hitting and causing the towers to collapse have been explained to death. All of the alternative theories have been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked by a number of legitimate and accepted scientific publications.

[Psy]

The physics, etc of the airplanes hitting and causing the towers to collapse have been explained to death. All of the alternative theories have been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked by a number of legitimate and accepted scientific publications.

Actually the opposite is true, the official story is full of contradictions and ignores physics.

Lets run down the problems.

Problem one:

The official story claims intense heat weakened the structure. Jet fuel does not produce enough heat long enough to weaken steel to the point you have total failure. Meaning the steel the came in contract with flames from jet fuel would still provide alot of resistance to the collapse.

Problem two:

The idea that impact of jets weakened the supports. That would only be true for the area above the impact area

Problem three:

The lower parts of the towers were totally undamaged, so there no reason for them to collapse.

Problem four:

NYC Fire Department recordings for crews in the building that fires were just smoldering officer furniture and no signs of any major fires still going and mostly just a huge problem of smoke.

Problem five:

The building collapsed at the top, far from were the airliners hit, that was weakest point of the entire building time.

Problem six:

NYC Fire Department recording state the lower parts of the towers were totally undamaged before the collapse, yet the lower parts also collapsed.

Problem seven:

Never in the history of human has a steel structure totally collapsed due to fires, there have been infernos in steel structures that burned longer and hotter then that in the WTC and while they had partial collapses there was never a total failure like what happened at the WTC.

Problem eight:

There has never been a reason for why the floors were pulverized in dust to such a extent. Even in controlled demolitions there is far more derby meaning there had to far more explosive power at each floor then during even a conventional controlled demolition.

[bcbm]

You're using tired crap from, what, six years ago, that has been (yes, really) thoroughly explained and debunked.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.jod911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://ae911truth.info/
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

And explaining the complete stupidity of the theory, all physics aside, both seriously and humorously:

http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons


Problem one:

The official story claims intense heat weakened the structure. Jet fuel does not produce enough heat long enough to weaken steel to the point you have total failure. Meaning the steel the came in contract with flames from jet fuel would still provide alot of resistance to the collapse.

Problem two:

The idea that impact of jets weakened the supports. That would only be true for the area above the impact area

Problem three:

The lower parts of the towers were totally undamaged, so there no reason for them to collapse.


I'm going (or rather Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is going) to deal with this one claim specifically, aside from the mountain of evidence above, to show that you don't even posses a basic understanding of what is going on here:

Steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, and jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. However, steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble.

[RNK]

lmao Popular Mechanics.

Anyway, what occured is not the issue.

The catching point comes when you realize that as the top of the building fell down on itself, it had to go through about 100 stories of support structure on its way down -- and it did so at nearly freefall speed. Such a speed of descent would require there be little to not resistence -- essentially, what you're surmising is that all of the support, not to mention the millions of tons of concrete and steel, essentially disintigrated instantaneously, in a uniform fashion.

It's all just too perfect; at no other point in history have all of the support structures of a building collapsed so "neatly". The arguement that "it would have taken an army of explosives efforts tearing the building apart" actually cements the arguement that the collapses were orchestrated -- how can the impact of an aircraft and half an hour of fire to the upper floors of a building cause such an extensive amount of damage as to reproduce the effects of an army of demolition experts? The odds are absolutely unimaginable -- especially when you take into account that it did not happen once, but three times in a single day, including one to a building which sustained no direct impact!

[Psy]

You're using tired crap from, what, six years ago, that has been (yes, really) thoroughly explained and debunked.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.jod911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://ae911truth.info/
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

And explaining the complete stupidity of the theory, all physics aside, both seriously and humorously:

http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons



I'm going (or rather Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is going) to deal with this one claim specifically, aside from the mountain of evidence above, to show that you don't even posses a basic understanding of what is going on here:

Steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, and jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. However, steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble.

Architects and Engineer for 9/11 Truth is actually growing in respectability as more engineers side with their view that the official story is scientifically impossible

As for steel, jet fuel burns fast in a uncontrolled environment meaning must of the fuel was ignited at impact and became the huge fire ball. Meaning most of the building was by unaffected by fire. Then the is problem is of the building falling near free fall speeds, when all building that collapse through pancaking fall at a increasing slower rate as the stronger base offers increasing more resistance, and they fall far slower then free fall speed.

The WTC pancaking would have taken no less then 1min and 30 second, the WTC fell in less then 10 seconds.

Then then the NYC Fire Department reporting rapid explosions before the collapse in the sub basement far from where the plane impacted and the strongest part of the towers.

Then there is the question of why did most of the debris shoot out with such a explosive force, why did more of the debris get pulverized into dust?

[bcbm]

I've already linked the thorough refutations of your arguments, and I trust the judgment of an MIT professor talking purely about science more than some random message board hack with an agenda to push. Read through all of the things I posted and refute them, then maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, its entirely pointless.

On a related note, if you believe the US government capable of this feat, then how do you expect us to be able to organize an effective resistance to what is clearly the most organized, efficient, ruthless and intelligent state apparatus on the planet? :rolleyes:

[Red October]

Of course there are erroneous reports of odd occurrences on that day...it would be even stranger had those erroneous reports not been made. This was one of the most chaotic, disastrous, and traumatic events in recent history for this country, and especially for the people who were directly involved. In any event of such confusion, there will always be strange, seemingly inexplicable occurrences. But a thorough scientific analysis shows that they don't amount to much at all.

And in terms of the government keeping this secret, this surpasses all other government lies in the history of America. this sort of plan would have required the active knowledge and participation of countless people, and the fact that not one of them has leaked even the slightest hint is remarkable, don't you think?

[Dystisis]

Probably something fishy happened. But that's nothing new, and quite frankly I am tired of the subject all together.

[Psy]

I've already linked the thorough refutations of your arguments, and I trust the judgment of an MIT professor talking purely about science more than some random message board hack with an agenda to push. Read through all of the things I posted and refute them, then maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, its entirely pointless.

Jeff King MIT on 911 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVIogawlmk)
Jeff King MIT on 911 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_P2JyU27sg)



On a related note, if you believe the US government capable of this feat, then how do you expect us to be able to organize an effective resistance to what is clearly the most organized, efficient, ruthless and intelligent state apparatus on the planet? :rolleyes:

The CIA doesn't have the means to take down the WTC, meaning neither did the terrorists, that leaves the US Army that have the means to do it and have shown a compete disregard for human life before hand and since, like slaughtering whole villages in Vietnam and shelling reporters on purpose in Iraq (notice how the US Army was able to paint the slaughtering of reporters by a US tank as just "friendly fire" pretty well even though footage shows the tanks fires at the hotel with the reporters in it when there is no signs of fighting anywhere)

Yet soldiers do switch sides, we seen the Venezuelan soldiers overthrow a US military coup so it is not far fetched for even US troops to eventually go against their dark masters.


And in terms of the government keeping this secret, this surpasses all other government lies in the history of America. this sort of plan would have required the active knowledge and participation of countless people, and the fact that not one of them has leaked even the slightest hint is remarkable, don't you think?Never heard of keeping things on a need to know basis? You don't need participation of countless people you just need people that do what they are ordered without asking questions. The military is known for having such people that do what they are told without asking what they are doing.

[Hexen]

I would suggest you people to look up PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) which sums up the true story whats happening in the 21st century
eversince 9/11/2001 and US Imperialism's masterplans. So I'll take 1 or 2 for that matter.

Another reason is that eversince the fall of the USSR, the US needs another enemy to function or else the people overtime will see their true nature which would lead into revolution which is the entire reason that the US lead us into these events in order to prevent another revolution from happening or which is they hope....

[Red October]

Never heard of keeping things on a need to know basis? You don't need participation of countless people you just need people that do what they are ordered without asking questions. The military is known for having such people that do what they are told without asking what they are doing.

That assumes the demolition experts and other involved personnel are too stupid to not guess why they would be wiring the world trade center with explosives. They would also have to be too dumb to connect the dots when the WTC went down...the government is incompetent, but not that incompetent.

[Psy]

That assumes the demolition experts and other involved personnel are too stupid to not guess why they would be wiring the world trade center with explosives. They would also have to be too dumb to connect the dots when the WTC went down...the government is incompetent, but not that incompetent.
Asking dangerous questions in the US military doesn't advance your military career and there was a terrorist war game during 9/11 so they could have simply told them it was all part of the war game and not real explosives and that if they knew what is good for them they would stop asking questions.

[bcbm]

Jeff King MIT on 911 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVIogawlmk)
Jeff King MIT on 911 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_P2JyU27sg)



Neat, one MIT person has your skepticism. Waiting now for refutations on:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)
http://www.jod911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://ae911truth.info/
http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html (http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html)
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html


The CIA doesn't have the means to take down the WTC, meaning neither did the terrorists

Assuming one accepts your version of events including the controlled demolition, right? Because both the CIA and the terrorists certainly have access to airplanes they would hijack. :rolleyes:

I wonder what sort of chauvinism is implied by thinking Arab terrorists too disorganized and dumb to carry this off and that it therefore could've only been done by the US itself.



that leaves the US Army that have the means to do it and have shown a compete disregard for human life before hand and since, like slaughtering whole villages in Vietnam and shelling reporters on purpose in Iraq (notice how the US Army was able to paint the slaughtering of reporters by a US tank as just "friendly fire" pretty well even though footage shows the tanks fires at the hotel with the reporters in it when there is no signs of fighting anywhere)

Odd that the army can't keep the wholesale massacre of civilians in an underdeveloped third world country like Iraq a secret for more than a few weeks, not to mention torture and incidents like you mention above, but they can still manage to orchestrate the biggest hoax in modern history.




Never heard of keeping things on a need to know basis? You don't need participation of countless people you just need people that do what they are ordered without asking questions. The military is known for having such people that do what they are told without asking what they are doing.

And I'm sure the team of soldiers who rigged the WTC with explosives didn't think it was odd when they went down in a terrorist attack immediately thereafter? :rolleyes: They probably wouldn't think to ask questions, since soldiers who are generally patriotic wouldn't think twice about being duped into murdering 3000 of the citizens they like to think they're protecting.

So who hijacked, piloted and suicided themselves in the airplanes?


there was a terrorist war game during 9/11

What was the name of the operation, who was conducting it and with what frequency do such drills occur?

[w0lf]

It is suspicious how much time the US had to react, just because the transponder is turned off doesn't make the plane invisible to radar (they are actually easy to spot on radar), they claimed US air defence is doughnut but New York City is a coastal city that is the closest to Europe so any invasion of US airspace by Western European powers would be over New York City, it is also surprising the Pentagon didn't deploy any anti-air vehicles, a jet liner is a large slow moving object so any modern anti-air vehicle could easily take it down and they had 30 mins to deploy such anti-air divisions around strategic areas (with the Pentagon being a huge priority) after the second plane hit the WTC.

It is also pondering why the Pentagon didn't panic over such failures, those slow response times would mean the US could be decapitated by a surprise airborne attack on the Pentagon either through bombing or even dropping ground units near the Pentagon.

says the guy who believes there is a hidden message in Disney movies..

[Psy]

Neat, one MIT person has your skepticism. Waiting now for refutations on:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)
http://www.jod911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://ae911truth.info/
http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html (http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html)
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

One MIT Engineer that leads a engineers group demanding a explication that is scientific plausible.

Also the links don't really debunk what Jeff King stated made the official story scientifically impossible.




Assuming one accepts your version of events including the controlled demolition, right? Because both the CIA and the terrorists certainly have access to airplanes they would hijack. :rolleyes:


I wonder what sort of chauvinism is implied by thinking Arab terrorists too disorganized and dumb to carry this off and that it therefore could've only been done by the US itself.

Like Jeff King proves it is scientifically impossible for an airliner to totally bring down the WTC, even if the airliner caused a complete failure it would have fallen in about 1 minute 30 second, since it fell in less then 10 is must mean the lower floors got out of the way before the falling derby even got to them, but that is illogical as why would the lower floors fail before the above floors collapsed onto them? Maybe one day we'll see a official time warp theory for the WTC where the top floors travelled through time to explain why the building fell in under 10 seconds.




Odd that the army can't keep the wholesale massacre of civilians in an underdeveloped third world country like Iraq a secret for more than a few weeks, not to mention torture and incidents like you mention above, but they can still manage to orchestrate the biggest hoax in modern history.

The prisons was run by the CIA, all the Army was doing was providing man power and security for the CIA at these prisons. Notice that the targeting of reporters that is totally organized by the US Army has been spin the story enough that anyone that see the targeting of reports as anything but a mass rash of unfortunate accidents are conspiracy theorists. The US Army did a good job covering up the massacre of civilians at Fallujah from mainstream media (that is only media that matters to the US Army).



And I'm sure the team of soldiers who rigged the WTC with explosives didn't think it was odd when they went down in a terrorist attack immediately thereafter? :rolleyes: They probably wouldn't think to ask questions, since soldiers who are generally patriotic wouldn't think twice about being duped into murdering 3000 of the citizens they like to think they're protecting.

Since we are talking about black ops, the troops probably understood if they came forward they would become scapegoats and the official story would simply change to rouge US Troops (that would be the Black Ops involved) were in the pay of terrorist and blew up the WTC of course following orders of Bin Laden and the US Pentagon was totally unaware of these traitors till they came forward with their story about a government plot.

Also you have prior to 9/11 security being disabled for renovation and reports of tons of maintenance workers working in the WTC many times on floors where there was no work order.




So who hijacked, piloted and suicided themselves in the airplanes?

They probably were terrorist pawns.



What was the name of the operation, who was conducting it and with what frequency do such drills occur?
Don't recall but it part of the official excuse of the US government as to why they took so long to intercept the planes.

[Psy]

says the guy who believes there is a hidden message in Disney movies..
I didn't say there was hidden messages in Disney movies but their stories seem to romanticize feudalism.

[bcbm]

One MIT Engineer that leads a engineers group demanding a explication that is scientific plausible.

Also the links don't really debunk what Jeff King stated made the official story scientifically impossible.

Well, Jeff King is actually an MIT graduate (from the 1970's), not an MIT engineer, with a degree in electrical engineering.

And yes, they do.



even if the airliner caused a complete failure it would have fallen in about 1 minute 30 second, since it fell in less then 10 is must mean the lower floors got out of the way before the falling derby even got to them, but that is illogical as why would the lower floors fail before the above floors collapsed onto them? Maybe one day we'll see a official time warp theory for the WTC where the top floors travelled through time to explain why the building fell in under 10 seconds. "A video taken of the collapse shows at 11 seconds that the collapse of the South Tower is still under way. The cameraman began running at that point, but the sound of the building collapsing continues for many more seconds. The elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated was 11 seconds for 1 WTC (North Tower) and 9 seconds for 2 WTC (South Tower). NIST also points out that significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of 1 WTC and 40 stories of 2 WTC) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.
"The buildings are 70 percent just air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel, they are steel boxes in which the thickness of the steel varies from 1/4 inch (at the top) to 1 1/2 inches (at the bottom). But they were properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, the occupants, the furnishings... those are all things that the structure can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it's moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied, and the building came down in essentially free fall." -- S. Shyam Sunder (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html)
Bazant and Zhou explain that once the collapse initiated on the one floor, the kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting on the floor beneath was 8.4 times larger than the plastic energy absorption capability. At that point, the subsequent progressive collapse was inevitable. The amount of resistance or absorption capability that each floor beneath could provide was minuscule in comparison to the amount of kinetic energy from the above structure collapsing. This explains why the collapse happened as quick as it did -- not free fall speed, but perhaps twice the amount of time than free fall."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html



The prisons was run by the CIA, all the Army was doing was providing man power and security for the CIA at these prisons. Notice that the targeting of reporters that is totally organized by the US Army has been spin the story enough that anyone that see the targeting of reports as anything but a mass rash of unfortunate accidents are conspiracy theorists. The US Army did a good job covering up the massacre of civilians at Fallujah from mainstream media (that is only media that matters to the US Army).Interestingly enough, you missed the point completely. The US Army can't fire a rocket on civilians or reporters without everyone fucking knowing. You've acknowledged that. But they can pull off the biggest hoax ever?!



Since we are talking about black ops, the troops probably understood if they came forward they would become scapegoats and the official story would simply change to rouge US Troops (that would be the Black Ops involved) were in the pay of terrorist and blew up the WTC of course following orders of Bin Laden and the US Pentagon was totally unaware of these traitors till they came forward with their story about a government plot.That's a fanciful scenario.:rolleyes:


Also you have prior to 9/11 security being disabled for renovation and reports of tons of maintenance workers working in the WTC many times on floors where there was no work order.

Sources? Let me rephrase: Non-hearsay sources?




They probably were terrorist pawns.So the US Army infiltrated the highest levels of the Al Qaeda network, came up with the plan to attack the World Trade Centers and various other major targets (in 1994), orchestrated the training of the terrorists and kept up with their plans so they would know the specific date and then rigged the WTC to explode and fall... because planes hitting the WTC, the Pentagon and some other national monument wouldn't be enough of a reason to go to war?

And it had to be the US Army doing all of this infiltrating and orchestrating because the CIA and the terrorists are too dumb to do it on their own?

Your theory has more holes than a golf course.



Don't recall but it part of the official excuse of the US government as to why they took so long to intercept the planes.Maybe before you start babbling about bullshit you should find out all of the details.

[Psy]

Well, Jeff King is actually an MIT graduate (from the 1970's), not an MIT engineer, with a degree in electrical engineering.

And yes, they do.


"A video taken of the collapse shows at 11 seconds that the collapse of the South Tower is still under way. The cameraman began running at that point, but the sound of the building collapsing continues for many more seconds. The elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated was 11 seconds for 1 WTC (North Tower) and 9 seconds for 2 WTC (South Tower). NIST also points out that significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of 1 WTC and 40 stories of 2 WTC) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.
"The buildings are 70 percent just air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel, they are steel boxes in which the thickness of the steel varies from 1/4 inch (at the top) to 1 1/2 inches (at the bottom). But they were properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, the occupants, the furnishings... those are all things that the structure can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it's moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied, and the building came down in essentially free fall." -- S. Shyam Sunder (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html)
Bazant and Zhou explain that once the collapse initiated on the one floor, the kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting on the floor beneath was 8.4 times larger than the plastic energy absorption capability. At that point, the subsequent progressive collapse was inevitable. The amount of resistance or absorption capability that each floor beneath could provide was minuscule in comparison to the amount of kinetic energy from the above structure collapsing. This explains why the collapse happened as quick as it did -- not free fall speed, but perhaps twice the amount of time than free fall."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

The last one is laughable,

That doesn't make sense in physics, every other sky scrapper that has pancaked has slowed down quickly as they fell onto the stronger lower parts of the building and as derby falls outside the building (that happened during WTC), also the fact most is air makes no sense, the reason why every other sky scrapper that has pancaked is much slower is the floor moves through air then collides with the floor blow that momentarily holds the weight before failing.

None of your links explain why the WTC is unique to every collapse except those caused by militaries (the WTC collapse is even unique to conventional demolition). Or that the WTC were meant to withstand the impact of airliners and far stronger then the average sky scraper, yet sky scrapers with much hotter infernos raging for much long only have had partial collapses and they collapsed much slower.




Interestingly enough, you missed the point completely. The US Army can't fire a rocket on civilians or reporters without everyone fucking knowing. You've acknowledged that. But they can pull off the biggest hoax ever?!

The US Army has been able to keep massacres and war crimes secret for up to 10 years meaning going by their average the US Army if responsible would be keep it a secret till about 2011.




That's a fanciful scenario.:rolleyes:

The US army still sacrifices its troops to radiation poisoning, even claiming DU is harmless while officer training videos for DU says DU are very deadly and officers and non-expendable workers should be wearing a MOP suit when within 20 meters were a DU round went off. The Army also destroyed radio logs during Desert Strom to cover up officers being warned of the danger of contamination by DU.

So if they are willing to sacrifice their regular troops as standard operating procedure to radiation poisoning what makes you think they care about the lives of their special ops?



Sources? Let me rephrase: Non-hearsay sources?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001)



So the US Army infiltrated the highest levels of the Al Qaeda network, came up with the plan to attack the World Trade Centers and various other major targets (in 1994), orchestrated the training of the terrorists and kept up with their plans so they would know the specific date and then rigged the WTC to explode and fall... because planes hitting the WTC, the Pentagon and some other national monument wouldn't be enough of a reason to go to war?

Look up the FBI's COINTELPRO, same idea. We know the FBI infiltrated of left organizations to get them to violent act so the FBI could violently crush them.

[bcbm]

If they were going to hit the buildings, why bother to demolish them with explosives and add an extra, completely unnecessary and extremely complicated layer to the plot?

[bcbm]

very other sky scrapper that has pancaked

For example?

More:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.




… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

[Psy]

If they were going to hit the buildings, why bother to demolish them with explosives and add an extra, completely unnecessary and extremely complicated layer to the plot?
Remember Goebbels strategy, tell a big lie keep telling it, ignore the facts and it becomes the truth. Meaning in the eyes of fascists the bigger the tragedy the better.



"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Then what caused the core to collapse? Why didn't we see the core still standing up to about around were the plane hit? The core was heavily over built far beyond specs. There was little in the core to fuel a fire that could have weakened the steel meaning the core could only be compromised where the plane hit. The core area also had a very high density of steel columns.



NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
What about reports of explosions before the building collapsed?

Why about the fact that the building was designed to withstand the impact of an airliner and buildings with far hotter inferno's raging for longer only suffered partial collapses?



… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

Again we have the problem of physics. Think of water, you jump into water with little problem, the water simply is pushed out of the way. At higher speed (remeber you accelerate at 9.81 m/s2) the water simply can't move out of the way and offers resistance.

Same with a building, it doesn't matter how weak the floors are they will offer resistance even if just the resistance of not getting pushed out of the way fast enough as they are not falling while till impacted by the falling floors.

[bcbm]

Remember Goebbels strategy, tell a big lie keep telling it, ignore the facts and it becomes the truth. Meaning in the eyes of fascists the bigger the tragedy the better.

Except that four jetliners crashing into major US targets is plenty of tragedy for starting a war. Adding in a bunch of Army men running around setting up explosives in buildings just adds another layer where the conspiracy can fall apart. Without that nonsense, there is not really any angle where it can become a gaping hole except one or two operatives in the field.

Occam's razor, doooood.



Then what caused the core to collapse? Why didn't we see the core still standing up to about around were the plane hit? The core was heavily over built far beyond specs. There was little in the core to fuel a fire that could have weakened the steel meaning the core could only be compromised where the plane hit. The core area also had a very high density of steel columns.

The core collapsed when the top half of the building came down on it.


What about reports of explosions before the building collapsed?

Some dipshit without a clue hearing a loud noise doesn't qualify as proof of anything, especially when there's no physical evidence at all to back it up.


Why about the fact that the building was designed to withstand the impact of an airliner

"As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…” The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces."


and buildings with far hotter inferno's raging for longer only suffered partial collapses?

Perhaps the difference was the giant fucking jet that had just plowed into the trade centers?



Again we have the problem of physics. Think of water, you jump into water with little problem, the water simply is pushed out of the way. At higher speed (remeber you accelerate at 9.81 m/s2) the water simply can't move out of the way and offers resistance.

Same with a building, it doesn't matter how weak the floors are they will offer resistance even if just the resistance of not getting pushed out of the way fast enough as they are not falling while till impacted by the falling floors.

I think the NIST understands physics, given that their explanation explains the fucking physics. If you could comprehend that, you might understand that what they're explaining is the answer to precisely the problem you keep seeing, ie the quick collapse times. They accept those collapse times and offer a thoroughly researched explanation of the physics involved!

[Psy]

Except that four jetliners crashing into major US targets is plenty of tragedy for starting a war. Adding in a bunch of Army men running around setting up explosives in buildings just adds another layer where the conspiracy can fall apart. Without that nonsense, there is not really any angle where it can become a gaping hole except one or two operatives in the field.

Occam's razor, doooood.

[/size]

The larger the scale the more believable the official story, there people that still don't believe in the Nazi genocide of jews as they think it is impossible the Nazi SS could have kept such a large secret from the German people till the end of war thus conclude the holocaust must be jewish propaganda. Same with the purges by Pinochet, they say it is impossible for Pinochet to secretly murder so many leftists as the scale is too grand to believe possible for Pinochet to have pulled off.



The core collapsed when the top half of the building came down on it.

The core supported the flooring not the other way, if trusses gave way all that would happen is the floors falling away from the core as the core is supported from the sub-basement through the steel columns of the core.



Some dipshit without a clue hearing a loud noise doesn't qualify as proof of anything, especially when there's no physical evidence at all to back it up.

We are talking to NYC Fire Department hearing explosions.



"As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…” The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces."

Yet the core is a ring of many thick steel columns.



Perhaps the difference was the giant fucking jet that had just plowed into the trade centers?

That only took out the support beams in the crash area, meaning it only would have explained a partial collapse.




I think the NIST understands physics, given that their explanation explains the fucking physics. If you could comprehend that, you might understand that what they're explaining is the answer to precisely the problem you keep seeing, ie the quick collapse times. They accept those collapse times and offer a thoroughly researched explanation of the physics involved!

Energy from the falling the falling object would be transfered to the non-falling object, causing the falling object to slow even if the lower floor starts to fall the nano-second it comes into contact with the falling floor. Really this is high school physics that NITS is getting wrong.

Also what about building #7 that wasn't hit?

[bcbm]

The larger the scale the more believable the official story, there people that still don't believe in the Nazi genocide of jews as they think it is impossible the Nazi SS could have kept such a large secret from the German people till the end of war thus conclude the holocaust must be jewish propaganda

Yeah, four airplanes simultaneously hijacked and rammed in to buildings isn't (ie, the biggest terrorist attack in modern history) isn't a very big event at all. Your logic is made of lose. And funny you should make that comparison. :rolleyes:

I'm done with this garbage. If you can't accept the mountain of evidence (how many links did you read thoroughly), but will take the words of some electrical engineer as pure gold, there is no point in this discussion. Have fun in la-la land.

[Psy]

Yeah, four airplanes simultaneously hijacked and rammed in to buildings isn't (ie, the biggest terrorist attack in modern history) isn't a very big event at all. Your logic is made of lose. And funny you should make that comparison. :rolleyes:

I'm done with this garbage. If you can't accept the mountain of evidence (how many links did you read thoroughly), but will take the words of some electrical engineer as pure gold, there is no point in this discussion. Have fun in la-la land.
How about http://www.ae911truth.org/ and click on Part 1: WTC Building #7 - A controlled demolition?

How did building #7 that was not hit by any plane, collapse the exact same way?

[Psy]

Yeah, four airplanes simultaneously hijacked and rammed in to buildings isn't (ie, the biggest terrorist attack in modern history) isn't a very big event at all. Your logic is made of lose. And funny you should make that comparison. :rolleyes:

I'm done with this garbage. If you can't accept the mountain of evidence (how many links did you read thoroughly), but will take the words of some electrical engineer as pure gold, there is no point in this discussion. Have fun in la-la land.

I already said I listened to the last link and laughed at how badly the guy understood physics. They already been de-bunked by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. NITS ignored huge pieces evidence like molten metal found in the sub-basement.

[Red Flag Rising]

I want to change my vote to 4

Me too.

This bullshit is THICK!

[bcbm]

already said I listened to the last link

I posted like what, 20? FAIL.


NITS ignored huge pieces evidence

NIST. Damn those hundreds of engineers, etc who work for them and the numerous private individuals and companies hired to help that missed all the damning evidence.:rolleyes:

[Psy]

I posted like what, 20? FAIL.

Yhea I skimmed through them and heard those excuses before. You still haven't explained why building #7 that was never hit by a airliner collapsed the same way, it even had a totally different design yet still collapsed fast yet NIST mostly ignores building #7 in their reports.



NIST. Damn those hundreds of engineers, etc who work for them and the numerous private individuals and companies hired to help that missed all the damning evidence.:rolleyes:
Do you know what NIST is? It is part of the US Department of Commerce. Remember the Communist manifesto? "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage labourers" Meaning NIST engineers are simply paid wage labourers of the US government. We have not seen a independent scientific body investigate 9/11, the government made that impossible as they destroyed most of the physical evidence, now ask if the US government is innocent why did the US government destroy physical evidence that would prove their innocence?

[Lord Testicles]

now ask if the US government is innocent why did the US government destroy physical evidence that would prove their innocence?

Proof that the destroyed evidence that would prove their innocence.

Place it here:

[bcbm]

So they also paid off the NIST to report complete lies, and nobody in the NIST thought that strange or news worthy, since they too apparently have the discipline of the US Army? :rolleyes: Your story is the biggest load of mashed together bullshit I've ever heard and makes absolutely no sense from both a logical standpoint and a physical standpoint. All of your scientists are faced with the exact same problems as holocaust deniers, that is, they have to argue their views IN SPITE of the evidence, not because of it. Every single argument that has been raised has been completely and utterly dismantled by far, far more qualified individuals than those who've been jumping on the 9/11 bandwagon in numerous exhaustive studies that were peer-reviewed. Your "scientists" are only strung along by the fucking mouth-breathing conspiracy theorists and closet chauvinists who can't believe that a bunch of Arabs could pull something like this off so it HAD to be the US government. The sort of almost back-door patriotism this implies is disgusting, not to mention completely at odds with materialism and our goals as communists.

7 World Trade Center (a building nobody even knew about, let alone would give a fuck about, why demolish it?):

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html (scroll down)
etc, etc, etc. The NIST examination of WTC 7 is still going on.

Not that it matters of course. IN SPITE of all the physical and logical evidence, you're going to continue keeping your head in the sand and believe the US government pulled off something that, frankly, its far too fucking dumb to have even considered. Furthermore, if it did pull this off it would be in its interests to make sure it was kept completely under wraps, so why would any of the people "exposing" the lies still be able to ***** about it on the internet? The US government can murder 3000 individuals without batting an eyelash but it can't dissapear a bunch of meaningless hacks?

[Psy]

Proof that the destroyed evidence that would prove their innocence.

Place it here:
The Pentagon confiscated security camera footage of buildings surrounding the Pentagon during 9/11. Wreckage from the plane that hit the Pentagon was recycled instead of being rebuilt like most investigations of plane crashes. The Government raced to melt down the remains of the WTC, instead of shipping the remains to say Death Vally where you have lots cheap land to spread the derby out for forensic teams to go through every piece so instead of guessing what happened like NITS, you work backwards (like real scientists) and create computer models of every possible scenario to get the same remains, then calculate the probability for each scenario based on how likely you'd get similar results. Then you build scale models and test your computer models and see how many times you get similar results.

This is how real investigations of building collapse are conducted.

[Lord Testicles]

This is how real investigations of building collapse are conducted.

I guess you missed the part when the planes flew into them?

I mean adverts are there so you can make a cup of tea, no need to go miss the news.

[Psy]

So they also paid off the NIST to report complete lies, and nobody in the NIST thought that strange or news worthy, since they too apparently have the discipline of the US Army? :rolleyes: Your story is the biggest load of mashed together bullshit I've ever heard and makes absolutely no sense from both a logical standpoint and a physical standpoint.

They don't have to pay off NITS, NITS is part of the US government. NIST engineers can lose their job for not saying what the Bush admin wants them say, the Bush admin purged government bodies for less.

By your logic it is unthinkable the EPA (again scientists) would lie, but we have proof the Bush admin told EPA scientists to go by the script or they would be fired.



All of your scientists are faced with the exact same problems as holocaust deniers, that is, they have to argue their views IN SPITE of the evidence, not because of it. Every single argument that has been raised has been completely and utterly dismantled by far, far more qualified individuals than those who've been jumping on the 9/11 bandwagon in numerous exhaustive studies that were peer-reviewed. Your "scientists" are only strung along by the fucking mouth-breathing conspiracy theorists and closet chauvinists who can't believe that a bunch of Arabs could pull something like this off so it HAD to be the US government. The sort of almost back-door patriotism this implies is disgusting, not to mention completely at odds with materialism and our goals as communists.

7 World Trade Center (a building nobody even knew about, let alone would give a fuck about, why demolish it?):

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html (scroll down)
etc, etc, etc. The NIST examination of WTC 7 is still going on.

Why did the US government hire itself to investigate?

Why did the US government leave NITS so underfunded there was no way thew go through all the derby?

And what evidence? Most of the evidence was melted down, all NITS is doing is creating models and saying their models is probable enough, that they claim them true.

If they don't know how #7 collapsed then how do they know how #1 and #2 collapsed?



Not that it matters of course. IN SPITE of all the physical and logical evidence, you're going to continue keeping your head in the sand and believe the US government pulled off something that, frankly, its far too fucking dumb to have even considered. Furthermore, if it did pull this off it would be in its interests to make sure it was kept completely under wraps, so why would any of the people "exposing" the lies still be able to ***** about it on the internet? The US government can murder 3000 individuals without batting an eyelash but it can't dissapear a bunch of meaningless hacks?
Remember COINTELPRO, did the purging of leftist make people stop being leftist?

[Psy]

I guess you missed the part when the planes flew into them?

I mean adverts are there so you can make a cup of tea, no need to go miss the news.

Scientists try not to assume anything, meaning even though we seen a plane crash into the building, a scientific analyst into why the building crashes shouldn't jump to conclusion that the plane caused the collapse.

[Kropotesta]

rumours are that the US are gonna stage an alien attack at the London 2012 Olympics as an excuse for further advancement for the plans for weapons in space. No bullshit.

[STI]

I was going to post this:

"If anything proves that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, it's this:

In March 2001, Fox aired the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen", a spinoff of the X-Files wherein a team of hackers seeks to uncover the truth, however dubious that "truth" may actually be.

In the episode, the Gunmen foil a government plot to bring down the World Trade Center by hitting it with an airplane.

If any of you can't see that the government just got the idea from the TV show, spent the spring and summer planning it, then pulled it off on a convenient, memorable date (hello, 9-11 like the ambulance number!) so they could take away our freedoms FTW, then you're a bunch of deluded dumbshits. Fuckin' sheeple, I thought this was the Revolutionary Left, we're supposed to see through government lies like this."

On second thought: 3.

[Psy]

Fascists of the 1930's got away with mass genocide till they lost to foreign armies yet some how it is unthinkable for modern fascists in power are even capable of doing a fraction of what the Nazi's did. Before you say bourgeois, Bush core is fascist elements within the ruling class, that are disciples of Leo Strauss that stated the ruling class must provide a powerful myth to rally the ignorant mass around (that happened through 9/11) and vision of utopia was a pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule and of pure fascism.

So core people in the Bush admin are fascist theoreticians that want to put Leo Strauss modern fascists theories into practise.

So we again why are modern are to assume modern fascists can't do what the racists of the 30's did?

[Red October]

The Nazis did not "get away" with the holocaust without people knowing about it. Certainly all Germans didn't know the full extent of it, but you would have to be a complete fucking idiot to not have some idea of what was happening. And the people who lived near the camps knew for damn sure what was going down. Nothing the Nazis could do could keep people from leaking out information about it, so what makes you think the US government could? Your explanations for why there are no leaks get increasing implausible and stupid every time.

[Psy]

The Nazis did not "get away" with the holocaust without people knowing about it. Certainly all Germans didn't know the full extent of it, but you would have to be a complete fucking idiot to not have some idea of what was happening. And the people who lived near the camps knew for damn sure what was going down. Nothing the Nazis could do could keep people from leaking out information about it, so what makes you think the US government could? Your explanations for why there are no leaks get increasing implausible and stupid every time.

For one the US government destroyed most of the evidence (why did the US government destroy evidence if they were victims of terrorists) and put NITS (a government agency) in charge of the investigating collapse of 9/11 and friends of the Bush admin as head of the 9/11 commission.

The whole state apparatus has been highly reactionary for calls for a larger a independent investigation, again if the US government is the victim why are they so hostile to a large independent investigation to prove their innocence?

There are many engineers (over 200 engineers have signed a petition calling for a large independent investigation into the collapse of the WTC) that question the story NITS gave.

So you don't have crack pots objecting to the evidence, you have people asking were is the evidence to back up NITS theories, all they did was create mathematical models to prove the theories of the US Government which is highly unscientific. Why does NITS drag their feet on all new evidence? Like workers finding heat under the derby 6 weeks at 1500 degrees (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFNgI7GF_L4), why does NITS always try to take all the new evidence and try to instantly work it into their official theory?

[Jazzratt]

rumours are that the US are gonna stage an alien attack at the London 2012 Olympics as an excuse for further advancement for the plans for weapons in space. No bullshit.

Yes bullshit. Yes heaping fucking piles of fresh, steaming bullshit.

[Jazzratt]

Scientists try not to assume anything, meaning even though we seen a plane crash into the building, a scientific analyst into why the building crashes shouldn't jump to conclusion that the plane caused the collapse.

Given all empirical data that's what happened. Any other shit is just a load of unnecessary garbage. Occam's Razor is there for a reason, start shaving your pet theory.

[Psy]

Given all empirical data that's what happened. Any other shit is just a load of unnecessary garbage. Occam's Razor is there for a reason, start shaving your pet theory.

Given all empirical data, there is insufficient data. Occam's Razor works against the NITS story, as there were many abnormalities in the collapses, meaning for NITS to be true a rapid succession of improbable events had to happen in a short period of time. Occam Razor doesn't work for any theory as there is no simple way to explain the abnormalities.

[Red October]

Fact: Two large jets hit the world trade center, causing it to collapse.

Speculative theory with no tangible evidence: OMFG Secret Conspiracy!!!!1!1

I'll go with the most plausible.

By the way, why haven't you mentioned the Masons yet? :D

[Psy]

Fact: Two large jets hit the world trade center, causing it to collapse.

Speculative theory with no tangible evidence: OMFG Secret Conspiracy!!!!1!1

I'll go with the most plausible.

By the way, why haven't you mentioned the Masons yet? :D
That is a over simplification of events.

I run do what happened according to the official story, and ask if it is the simplest reason.

Two large jets hit the WTC, after the buildings re-stabilizes the building is only effected by fires near the top. Suddenly there is a total building failure causing 400 meters of matter to come crashing down and not even significantly slowed by the undamaged lower parts of the building, building #7 only getting hit by derby and having a normal fire collapses the same way (quickly with no resistance).

Weeks afterwords intense heat still rage down under the derby with no known energy source.

The government wanting to prove their innocence appoints a government body to investigate. In the official 9/11 commission they moved up the time when Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC (this is basically asking when Cheney would have taken control of the US military) from when Cheney (and others) originally stated. The official 9/11 commission (again trying to get the truth) never bothers to investigate when Cheney first arrives at the PEOC (they would be easy since there would security logs) and simply takes his new story as the truth. Either way we are to assume the US military is totally defenceless against the 3rd slow airliner that takes 30mins after the second plane hit the WTC to hit the Pentagon. Which would mean we are to assume US air defence is far worse then the USSR's during the 80's, the USSR just let a tiny Cessna land in Red Square where the US air defence let a plane hit the Pentagon when given tons of warning.

I could go on, like the 9/11 commission throwing out all testimony that countered Cheney's (of course we are to assume the 9/11 commission did this to find the truth)

Basically the official story is as convoluted as any conspiracy theory.

[last_angry_man]

There are many engineers (over 200 engineers have signed a petition calling for a large independent investigation into the collapse of the WTC) that question the story NITS gave.


And as I stated earlier, the USA alone has +/- 1 MILLION practicing engineers with the American universities minting nearly another 100,000 BS level engineers every year. So in any population of that size, you can find 282 lunatics willing to believe just about any ridiculous nonsense you throw at them.

The number 282 is so laughably low..... My company (will go unnamed for obvious reasons...) has 30,000 engineers on staff (yeah, I work for a multi-national). 282 is something like one out of every four thousand engineers in the USA. One more time; in a population of 4,000 you can find 1 person who believes ANYTHING; it is statistically INSIGNIFICANT.

The other 3,999 engineers (me included) think this is all crazy talk. Having spent the fall of '01 listening to my co-workers discussing this situation to death, two general conclusions were drawn. 1 - they (the hijackers) had a daring, borderline brilliant plan, they executed it reasonably well and they got very lucky. 2 - none of the alternate theories are anything less than laughable.

You'd think a 'revolutionary forum' would be more interested in discussing and taking notes concerning the planning and execution of an audacious and remarkably succesful attack, instead of positing crazy conspiracy theories.

[Psy]

There are many engineers (over 200 engineers have signed a petition calling for a large independent investigation into the collapse of the WTC) that question the story NITS gave.


And as I stated earlier, the USA alone has +/- 1 MILLION practicing engineers with the American universities minting nearly another 100,000 BS level engineers every year. So in any population of that size, you can find 282 lunatics willing to believe just about any ridiculous nonsense you throw at them.

The number 282 is so laughably low..... My company (will go unnamed for obvious reasons...) has 30,000 engineers on staff (yeah, I work for a multi-national). 282 is something like one out of every four thousand engineers in the USA. One more time; in a population of 4,000 you can find 1 person who believes ANYTHING; it is statistically INSIGNIFICANT.

The other 3,999 engineers (me included) think this is all crazy talk. Having spent the fall of '01 listening to my co-workers discussing this situation to death, two general conclusions were drawn. 1 - they (the hijackers) had a daring, borderline brilliant plan, they executed it reasonably well and they got very lucky. 2 - none of the alternate theories are anything less than laughable.

You'd think a 'revolutionary forum' would be more interested in discussing and taking notes concerning the planning and execution of an audacious and remarkably succesful attack, instead of positing crazy conspiracy theories.
How many engineers have bothered to even check the official story?

And why is the government opposed to a larger investigation this time not by a government body?

Why did 9/11 investigation throw out all testimony of military officers that countered the testimony of Dick Cheney about when he arrived in PEOC and when the US Air Force knew about the flight heading at the Pentagon and the capabilities of the US Air Force at the time? Why is the call Dick Cheney made to Bush and Rumsfeld during 9/11 missing from the phone logs in the 9/11 investigation?

Even if you don't think the US took down the WTC you have to admit the Bush admin is hiding something.

As for notes, only how not to plan an attack. It is highely improbable for the airliners to not have been intercepted long before they reached their targets, if this happened in the USSR we in the forums probably have no problem assuming someone within the Russian military let the planes hit and the USSR had far less control over its skies then the US.

Edit: If the US military was really as incompetence as 9/11 official story suggests then all the USSR had to was invade during one of the war games (like Able Archer), given the official story of 9/11, Russian airborne troops would easily be drinking vodka in the White House before the US military even knew the US was under attack.

[Kropotesta]

Yes bullshit. Yes heaping fucking piles of fresh, steaming bullshit.
shut up twat. I meant that this is a actual rumour going around the conspriacist circles.

[manoj8788]

i will go with the second choice.Pearl Harbour II.

But a slight change.. It was not empowered with the negligence of US govt, but with the negligence of CIA which i believe it to be true...

Whats your comment??

[LeftWillDo]

Did I just join a left-wing website, or one run by the Illuminati?

[Lord Testicles]

Did I just join a left-wing website, or one run by the Illuminati?

The illuminati doesn't exist.

[LeftWillDo]

That's what I thought too, until I got here.

[last_angry_man]

How many engineers have bothered to even check the official story?

If my office is typical, which it is, we spent the fall of '01 discussing NOTHING else. We drew sketches on 'whiteboards', we ran simulations, we did 'back of napkin' calcs; in other words, we studied it to death. We're engineers, that's what we do.

And why is the government opposed to a larger investigation this time not by a government body?

I think the '911 Commission' did what they were supposed to do. You want larger than that? (It was friggin' huge!)


Why did 9/11 investigation throw out all testimony of military officers that countered the testimony of Dick Cheney about when he arrived in PEOC and when the US Air Force knew about the flight heading at the Pentagon and the capabilities of the US Air Force at the time? Why is the call Dick Cheney made to Bush and Rumsfeld during 9/11 missing from the phone logs in the 9/11 investigation?

I will never defend the truthfullness of Cheney or Rumsfeld; they are both scum-sucking liars, but their involvement with 911 was strictly 'after the fact.' If they were trying to cover up anything, it was only their incompetence or the way that they proved themselves to be pussies by running and hiding until they were sure it was safe to come out.

Even if you don't think the US took down the WTC you have to admit the Bush admin is hiding something.

See above.....they are hiding all sorts of shit. But primarily, they are hiding the fact that the big tough Republicans couldn't keep America safe from a small band of amateurs holding box cutters. (not saying that the senior planners weren't pros, but most of the 19 "do-ers" were expendable drones.)

As for notes, only how not to plan an attack. It is highely improbable for the airliners to not have been intercepted long before they reached their targets, if this happened in the USSR we in the forums probably have no problem assuming someone within the Russian military let the planes hit and the USSR had far less control over its skies then the US.

While I might almost agree that we should have expected better from the USAF, other aspects of the overall plan were remarkable and will be talked about in the same hushed tones now reserved for "the art of war" and other core texts.

Edit: If the US military was really as incompetence as 9/11 official story suggests then all the USSR had to was invade during one of the war games (like Able Archer), given the official story of 9/11, Russian airborne troops would easily be drinking vodka in the White House before the US military even knew the US was under attack.

Who's to say that it wouldn't have gone that way? I believe the USA might have bluffed their way through the Cold War based on pure technology (of questionable reliability)

[RNK]

That's kind of half the point.

All of the investigation into what specifically happened to the WTC, to the steel superstructure, was done on whiteboards and spreadsheets and computer simulations because after the attack the government refused to allow scientists and engineers to study the disaster site, a first for such a fucking large-scale disaster (in the original WTC bombings investigators spent months combing over every piece of evidence). Instead, all of the debris was immediately carted away and smelted or pulverised.

So by and large all "evidence" is really speculation based on analysis and theory, much of which was approached with the attitude "alright, how can we scientifically justify planes destroying the buildings? rather than a more open-ended and unconfined approach.

[Psy]

i will go with the second choice.Pearl Harbour II.

But a slight change.. It was not empowered with the negligence of US govt, but with the negligence of CIA which i believe it to be true...

Whats your comment??
Pearl Harbour II means the US government saw it coming and let it happen on purpose.

It can't just be that stand down, as during 9/11 it was like US air defence was untrained personal.

Lets put 9/11 in the USSR then ask if you'll think it was simply a tragedy of incompetence.

So here is your scenario (only using two airliners for simplicity), I use Plast der Republik as it is the only building being close to being as importance as the WTC other then the Kremlin. Logically in this scenario the two hijacking would be taking far from each other, due greater distance from targets.

Islamic terrorist mad at the USSR occupation of Afganistan hijack two passenger planes in the soviet block, shortly after the pilot of the hijacked airliner opens the mic and starts transmitting the hijacking. Shy of half an hour later the first plane slams into the Palast der Republik in the DDR then half an hour later the second into the Kremlin, Air Defense and unable to intercept any planes, no mobile SAM batteries are deployed and interceptors are send all over the place the official story being they were confused. During the investigation it is uncovered the KGB knew there was a high probably of a hijacking and even suspected the hijackers before they bordered the planes. That after math is hard liners overthrow Gorbachev.

Now if that happened you say, there is no possibility of a conspiracy from within the USSR state and the terrorist just got lucky?

Since the hard liners actually tried a military coup (that could be a conspiracy) to overthrow Gorbachev you would have been wrong, so why is the US ruling class so unlikely to act like the ruling class of the old USSR when it comes to getting rid their way in the state?

[Red October]

Pearl Harbour II means the US government saw it coming and let it happen on purpose.

It can't just be that stand down of the CIA as during 9/11 it was like US air defence was untrained personal.

Lets put 9/11 in the USSR then ask if you'll think it was simply a tragedy of incompetence.

So here is your scenario (only using two airliners for simplicity), I use Plast der Republik as it is the only building being close to being as importance as the WTC other then the Kremlin. Logically in this scenario the two hijacking would be taking far from each other, due greater distance from targets.

Islamic terrorist mad at the USSR occupation of Afganistan hijack two passenger planes in the soviet block, shortly after the pilot of the hijacked airliner opens the mic and starts transmitting the hijacking. Shy of half an hour later the first plane slams into the Palast der Republik in the DDR then half an hour later the second into the Kremlin, Air Defense and unable to intercept any planes, no mobile SAM batteries are deployed and interceptors are send all over the place the official story being they were confused. During the investigation it is uncovered the KGB knew there was a high probably of a hijacking and even suspected the hijackers before they bordered the planes. That after math is hard liners overthrow Gorbachev.

Now if that happened you say, there is no possibility of a conspiracy from within the USSR state and the terrorist just got lucky?

Since the hard liners actually tried a military coup (that could be a conspiracy) to overthrow Gorbachev you would have been wrong, so why is the US ruling class so unlikely to act like the ruling class of the old USSR when it comes to getting rid their way in the state?

Both the USSR and USA had much tighter air defenses during the cold war, and even then a German teenager was able to fly into the USSR and land his plane in fucking Red Square. After the USSR fell the American military's focus shifted away from large scale warfare designed for use and defense against the Soviet Union, to smaller scale wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. With no USSR, there was no real threat of massive Soviet bombers flying into America and nuking us, so Air Defenses were scaled down considerably. Now, because the Bush Administration was so incompetent in dealing with 9/11, of course they would try to disrupt investigations into it. They didn't want to be caught with their pants down in the middle of the largest terrorist attack in American history. Does that mean they did it themselves? That would just be jumping to conclusions. 9/11 was a totally different kind of attack than what the US Military was prepared to handle.

[Psy]

Both the USSR and USA had much tighter air defenses during the cold war, and even then a German teenager was able to fly into the USSR and land his plane in fucking Red Square.


It was a small Cessna and it was during a holiday so there was fewer people watching the skies and those that were probably were having an office party (that is normal), It was well known the best time to invade the USSR was during a holiday as the Russian defences were a total mess during holidays, due to only a skeleton crew on duty and usually those on duty not paying much attention to their job.

We don't have any signs that the US military having such issues during 9/11. We actually have the opposite were the military was playing war games meaning the US military already had workers at their posts with workers paying attention to their jobs.



After the USSR fell the American military's focus shifted away from large scale warfare designed for use and defense against the Soviet Union, to smaller scale wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. With no USSR, there was no real threat of massive Soviet bombers flying into America and nuking us, so Air Defenses were scaled down considerably.

Russia never stopped being a military threat, Russian and US ICBMs are still pointed at each other as neither military stopped seeing the other as the enemy.



Now, because the Bush Administration was so incompetent in dealing with 9/11, of course they would try to disrupt investigations into it. They didn't want to be caught with their pants down in the middle of the largest terrorist attack in American history.

It goes beyond the Bush Admin, it raises the question why didn't the US military defend itself without the Bush admin? If like Cheney claims the US military was decapitated as they couldn't find people of authority in time didn't they run down the chain of command? They were playing a war game so there had to be some officer that could have taken command of US defences.

If he Cheney was in charge of US defence during 9/11 why was there still confusion?

They knew way in advance there was plane heading for the capital but did nothing. If the US military really thought Cheney was incompetent why wasn't there a military coup during 9/11 were the military generals simply arrested Cheney (if he in the PEOC that would be very easy for the military to do) and assume full command? If they really thought their lives was at risk why would they remain loyal to the state, that we are to assume was preventing the military from defending itself?



Does that mean they did it themselves? That would just be jumping to conclusions. 9/11 was a totally different kind of attack than what the US Military was prepared to handle.
We are talking large slow moving objects.

[Psy]

And why is the government opposed to a larger investigation this time not by a government body?

I think the '911 Commission' did what they were supposed to do. You want larger than that? (It was friggin' huge!)

Your talking about the same commission where its steering committee stated the 9/11 commission raised for more questions then it answered, and was offended by the fact the 9/11 commission refused to dig any deeper.

More money was spent investing Clinton's sex habits then spent on investigating 9/11

[Janus]

I actually talked with a guy who believed in the controlled demolitions conspiracy theory recently (not by choice) and I would wager that the majority of people on here have as well. Ignoring the problems with the concept of conspiracy theories in general, I have to say that it's almost pointless to argue with advocates of such theories as they essentially ignore anything that doesn't support or relate to their bizarre theories. As far as the proponents of the "advanced knowledge" theories are concerned, the problem is that they can't be proved or disproved either way right now and only seek to divert energies and focus on injustices and oppression/suppression committed by the US government that are blatantly clear.

[Psy]

I actually talked with a guy who believed in the controlled demolitions conspiracy theory recently (not by choice) and I would wager that the majority of people on here have as well. Ignoring the problems with the concept of conspiracy theories in general, I have to say that it's almost pointless to argue with advocates of such theories as they essentially ignore anything that doesn't support or relate to their bizarre theories. As far as the proponents of the "advanced knowledge" theories are concerned, the problem is that they can't be proved or disproved either way right now and only seek to divert energies and focus on injustices and oppression/suppression committed by the US government that are blatantly clear.
So how is the official story falsifiable, what evidence would prove the official story wrong, or at least call it into question? There are those (me included) that while have theories welcome a investigation into 9/11. The problem is the official 9/11 investigation even by the co-chair of the official 9/11 investigation Lee Hamiton said the Bush administration stone walled the investigation, greatly limiting its scope.

The official flight recorder of for flight 77 (the one that hit the Pentagon), makes the plane too high to hit the light poles, also the rate of decline is too steep to fly across the lawn like in the few frames the Pentagon released. The NTSB refuses to comment on these, you would think the National Transportation Safety Board would be very interested that the very flight data they released to prove the official story of flight 77 debunks the official story.

Then the question why the hijacker of 77 would circle around to hit the Pentagon in a very awkward position, to hit where the accountants in the Pentagon were, when he could have dived strait in and hit the military commanders?

Then you have Norman Mineta saying there was a conversation between Dick Cheney and a officer, the officer is telling Cheney how far out flight 77 is from the Pentagon and at 10 miles the officer asked Cheney if the orders still stand, Cheney snapped that of course the orders still stood (calming later he leaned the order was to shoot 77 down). If they were orders to shoot, Andrews Airbase could have shot them down since flight 77 was still 10 miles away and according to the official story the hijacker circled around giving more time to intercept. Also why would the officer ask if Cheney already given a green light to shoot flight 77 down, wouldn't the officer be too busy commanding the interception?

Next is the question is where was the US Army? I recall a 9/11 conspiracy debunker said the US Army has no self-propelled anti-air, this is wrong. The US Army had the M163 VADS that was deployed to the first Iraq war, while retired they were not retired that long ago so they would still have been still in service at military bases that didn't have yet have a M107 Avenger. Although you would think the capital would have had priority for getting M107 Avengers since just a few years earlier they had a war game where hijackers flew airliners into the Pentagon.

The biggest question was why did they change the official story 3 times, each totally different from the last. They started with no fighters being sent up, to fighters being sent up but not enough time, to the war games confusing the process of shooting them down.

[Luís Henrique]

There Is No 4, There Is Only 3.

Are you trying to tell us you are not a Trotskyist?!

Luís Henrique

[RNK]

:D

[LondonProgressiveJournal]

The following article is from this week's London Progressive Journal (londonprogressivejournal dot com)

_____________________



Thousands again marched for peace on Saturday to mark five years since the start of the ground invasion stage of the war in Iraq, and to show solidarity with the victims of Israel's brutal siege of Gaza. One disappointing aspect of the demonstration was the surprising prevalence of a certain type of banner, whose general tone can best be conveyed by direct quotation: "Jew Sharon Crashes Twin Towers (sic)", "9/11 Google Building 7 Smoking Gun", "9/11 Was An Inside Job". This, it would seem, is the downside of the peace movement's much-celebrated heterogeneity - the total absence of a party line allows certain mindless elements a disproportionate influence in terms of shaping the visible messages of the demonstration, with potentially disastrous consequences with regard to public perception of the peace movement.


Leaving aside for one moment the merits of the case - in this writer's view, the conspiracy theories are at best implausible - it is reasonably clear that the overwhelming majority of anti-war campaigners do not believe that the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 were carried out directly by the United States government, and accordingly these banners had no place in the peace demonstration. It is regrettable enough that the demonstration, though well-attended and highly significant, has predictably received relatively little coverage in the mainstream press. There is absolutely no need to compound this by providing the enemies of the peace movement with the opportunity to forge, with regard to such coverage as is afforded, a link in the public conscience between the peace movement as a whole and the childish paranoia of ill-conceived conspiracy theories.
In any case the conspiracy theorists, clouded in their judgement by a mixture of fear and admiration for big government, have rather missed the point. For there is, with regard to the present wars in the Middle East, a quite plain conspiracy in place, the truth of which is attested to by an overwhelming mountain of evidence.


The vast conspiracy of imperialism - the collusion between government, financiers, big business and arms manufacturers, alongside a jingoistic press financed by key vested interests - is evidenced beyond any hint of a doubt, and is far greater in scope and menace than any one-off act of state sponsored domestic terrorism. It is all too easily capable of effecting its destructive purpose without recourse to "inside jobs". The contribution of these conspiracy theorists, whose ill-considered and largely unsubstantiated bleatings are all the more offensive for being, from time to time, tinged with shades of racial hatred, serves only to discredit a peace movement which, though powerful, has quite enough enemies and obstacles to deal with at present.

[Psy]

Well everyone believes there was a conspiracy, no one thinks that each hijacking was done by lone individuals with no ties to each other. Therefore 9/11 is a battle of conspiracy theories with one being the official conspiracy theory where a band of terrorist carried out a poorly planed terrorist attack were the US state just happened to provide zero resistance even though they already had everything needed to defend the capital already deployed for war games.

And while being so incompetent they couldn't fire off a single shot in defence, the FBI was able to quickly link the hijackers to Al Qaeda that prior to 9/11 was a CIA paramilitary force yet suppose turned rouge and no longer taking orders from the CIA.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^^
THANK YOU! even tho i dont agree with everything u said nobody can explain how all military airplanes and all commercial airplanes were forced to land and how an airplane got THAT CLOSE TO THE PENTAGON! with out a shot at it the united states was open for attack thos cuople of ours! the list go's on i dont ge how people on the left are so quick to accept the media and let alone the Govemerments story! ETC.............

[bootleg42]

^^^^
THANK YOU! even tho i dont agree with everything u said nobody can explain how all military airplanes and all commercial airplanes were forced to land and how an airplane got THAT CLOSE TO THE PENTAGON! with out a shot at it the united states was open for attack thos cuople of ours! the list go's on i dont ge how people on the left are so quick to accept the media and let alone the Govemerments story! ETC.............

Easy, just look at who's saying and pushing the conspiracy theories and what's their alternative.

You'd be shocked. Some others would not be. Look them up and then post back and tell us what you think.

[DrFreeman09]

Why does the left feel like it needs to see 9/11 as a giant conspiracy? It makes us look stupid.

The biggest thing with 9/11 is that there's really no such thing as "al-Qaeda." Essentially, the organization was invented by the US after the WTC attack in '93 for this reason: they knew bin Laden was behind it, but they couldn't actually try him for his crimes in his absence unless they could prove he was the head of an organization (this rule was created during the prohibition era to stop Mafia leaders, etc.). They had a source supposedly connected to bin Laden who came up with this bullshit "al-Qaeda" story.

It was later found that this source was completely unreliable and that he had simply told the government what they wanted to hear. But the "al-Qaeda" myth stuck, and it's even found its way into our history books.

Yes, bin Laden funded the attacks on 9/11, but there's no "international terrorist organization." It was all just a bunch of people who came to bin Laden for funding, and there wasn't some giant network with sleeper cells everywhere.

That's really the biggest thing and there's actually evidence to support those claims.

The truth is that the government took advantage of 9/11, but they weren't "in on it." Afterword, they let members of the bin Laden family leave the US because the Bush family has connections with the Saudis, who wouldn't be too happy about the bin Ladens being questioned, but it doesn't mean that the government was "in" on the attacks themselves.

All in all, this is just childish. Why is it so important that you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? It's not. Either way, there's no "al-Qaeda," the terrorist threat has been almost complete fabricated, and the US has no business in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

There's evidence for all of those positions. But there is no evidence for 9/11 being an "inside job," Claiming it to be so makes us look stupid, and I don't really see why we need to.

[Dros]

Why does the left feel like it needs to see 9/11 as a giant conspiracy? It makes us look stupid.

The biggest thing with 9/11 is that there's really no such thing as "al-Qaeda." Essentially, the organization was invented by the US after the WTC attack in '93 for this reason: they knew bin Laden was behind it, but they couldn't actually try him for his crimes in his absence unless they could prove he was the head of an organization (this rule was created during the prohibition era to stop Mafia leaders, etc.). They had a source supposedly connected to bin Laden who came up with this bullshit "al-Qaeda" story.

It was later found that this source was completely unreliable and that he had simply told the government what they wanted to hear. But the "al-Qaeda" myth stuck, and it's even found its way into our history books.

Yes, bin Laden funded the attacks on 9/11, but there's no "international terrorist organization." It was all just a bunch of people who came to bin Laden for funding, and there wasn't some giant network with sleeper cells everywhere.

That's really the biggest thing and there's actually evidence to support those claims.

The truth is that the government took advantage of 9/11, but they weren't "in on it." Afterword, they let members of the bin Laden family leave the US because the Bush family has connections with the Saudis, who wouldn't be too happy about the bin Ladens being questioned, but it doesn't mean that the government was "in" on the attacks themselves.

All in all, this is just childish. Why is it so important that you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? It's not. Either way, there's no "al-Qaeda," the terrorist threat has been almost complete fabricated, and the US has no business in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

There's evidence for all of those positions. But there is no evidence for 9/11 being an "inside job," Claiming it to be so makes us look stupid, and I don't really see why we need to.

I agree and disagree. Bin Laden did have an "orginization". Certainly, al-Qaeda is not what people think. It is not a highly sophisticated, organized, and disciplined group of international jihadists. It is a loose coalition of "Islamists" from all over the world who occassionally share funds and collaborate. But basically, being part of al-Qaeda means calling yourself part of al-Qaeda.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Why does the left feel like it needs to see 9/11 as a giant conspiracy? It makes us look stupid.

I would agree. Even if any of you personally choose to swallow such rubbish, please, please don't make the rest of us look like conspiracy theorists lunatics. All supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories does is isolate our movement making us appear as "out-there" wackos.

[oujiQualm]

Who do you think is pushing 'all the conspiracy theories" I bet you mean they are all right wing idiots like alex jones. Know something. RIGHT NOW you may well be right.

But is that a result of what happened on 9/11 or might seven years of left-gatekeeping (fact free) have something to do with how foundation funded "leftists" have been tought to make their eyebrows do the wave whenever the topic of 9/11 is mentioned.

No way this " the're all rightists" argument could have been made before around mid 2005. Read about the history of Encounter Magazine. Left-liberal entirely funded by the CIA. Or do """""good leftists"""""" think that the CIA a "conspiracy theory" by now!

[oujiQualm]

There is no evidence for the governments conspiracy theory. SO are you suggesting that we just shrug our shoulders and assume Bush is telling the truth about the core event that was used to legitimate the unbelivable right wing rush that occurs unchecked month after month. Well sure there are a lot of left -liberal people who call people who simply want a real investigation names.

I have read their articles, and have admired much of their work. But their arguments about 9/11 have simply left me scratching my head every single time: they cannot make sense to me. I read the NYT cover to cover during 2001 and 2002 I live in nYC and the smoke blew in my window. I smelt the bodies on the way to work on the rainier days. Sir Alex COckburn would have us believe that all David Ray gGriffins s facts come from the internet. Thats pure crap. THey are from the NYT that I read every day for two years. He takes a fragment of the looniest YES CONSPIRACY THEORY and uses it to suggest to people who have never read a real book on the topic, look good leftists this is what these wacky people believe. His pieces in Counterpunch leave me stunned. Never have I seen such an articlate persone so quickly reduced to second grade namecalling.

Then I began reading historical works on Communications Research. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE BOOK NERVOUS LIBERALS: PROPAGANDA ANXIETIES BETWEEN WWI AND THE COLD WAR. It was published by Columbia University Press in 1999 by Brett Gary . Aphd student at NYU school of journalism recommended to me and I found it quite interesting that it would be tought there. I also recommend a book by University of Pennsylvania COmmunications reasearch Professor Barbi Zelizer. You will be stunned at what this journalism professor says about the COrporate Media's coverage of the JFK assassination.

I have come to be profoundly suspicious of the good tweedy leftists dichotomy between structural analysis and ""COnspiracy theory"" Are there idiotic conspiracy theories about things, sure. A lot about 9/11 and JFK , a heck of a lot. But the more you learn about communications research the closer you learn to look. Conspiracy theory and structural analysis have one thing in common: they are words. As such they are subject to contorted and contested meanings. Sometimes they are misapplied. In some ways this has become the essence of politics, much more than elections, for example.

[oujiQualm]

I would agree. Even if any of you personally choose to swallow such rubbish, please, please don't make the rest of us look like conspiracy theorists lunatics. All supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories does is isolate our movement making us appear as "out-there" wackos.
________

Interesting response. Notice how there wasnt single thing that reflected on the governemtns report. It was about HOW IT MAKES US LOOK. The writer has probably read nothing at all on the subject but dismissive reports focussing on admittedly crazy conspiracy thoeries. Again, please read the history of the left-liberal CIA funded magazine Encounter. Please read around and get your own sources on this one, But I strongly recommend book The Cultural COld War: The CIA and the world of Arts and letters by Frances Stonor Saunders.

I am of the postion that there needs to be a real 9/11 investigation, as 9/11 is the touchstone of and legitimating event of virtually every single extreme rightist action that this bipartisan National Security State has done since.

THis does not mean that I agree with what you may have in your mind as "what all those 9/11 people think" If you read one of David Ray Griffin Books you will not be so easily dismissive, but then you would be " one of those 9/11 people" so you wont. Gee im so glad we are all so open minded! THe New York Times would never shrink from the truth would they GOOD LEFTISTS! Oh I forgot , for the left -gatekeeper left THIS IS THE ONE TIME THEY DID TELL THE TRUTH. AND SO DID GEORGE. JEEZE Transubsantiation is somehow more scientific. But then I have read a lot and a lot of the history of the national security state. Why do that when one can grow a beard and become a cliche leftist!

OH WAIT A MINUTE Once there was a time when leftists were alowd to read about the CIA without being called "conspiracy thoerists" Ah if you ever knew youngsters how much your life has been effected by the x-files!

[Philosophical Materialist]

I actually talked with a guy who believed in the controlled demolitions conspiracy theory recently (not by choice) and I would wager that the majority of people on here have as well. Ignoring the problems with the concept of conspiracy theories in general, I have to say that it's almost pointless to argue with advocates of such theories as they essentially ignore anything that doesn't support or relate to their bizarre theories. As far as the proponents of the "advanced knowledge" theories are concerned, the problem is that they can't be proved or disproved either way right now and only seek to divert energies and focus on injustices and oppression/suppression committed by the US government that are blatantly clear.

This has been my experience as well. Believers in 9/11 "Truth" are akin to religious believers. The very fact that very few scientists and engineers agree with them is put down to "they're in on it" and "they were silenced", is comparable to when religionists blame the devil for science being against them.

We also must realise where these conspiracy theories originated: Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones, Stormfront/Far-right. The former three are proponents of the "there's no political spectrum" argument and put the 9/11 conspiracy into the narrative of the "us versus the illuminati". The latter just see 9/11 as the work of the Jews.

These conspiracy theorists are short-sighted about history and fail to see 9/11 as the result of imperialist policies pursued by the United States and its proxies over the last sixty years.

[Partisano]

Sort of unimportant to me, but I believe it was incompetence or that they let it happen. If they knew there was a plan for it to happen and they wanted some tragic event to happen to shock the populace into a xenophobic rage, why get your hands dirty if you can let the "bad" guys do it? Them actively conspiring to do it is bordering insanity. Surely a conspiracy of such grand magnitude would have caused some of the thousands of govt. conspirators to come out and tell all.

[Crest]

There's too many suspicious circumstances. When things are looked at carefully, it makes absolutely no sense that the government had nothing to do with it. It was very certainly a controlled demolition... And anyway, it's is a SERIOUSLY freaky "coincidence" that Building 7 went tumbling to the ground because of an EXTREMELY SMALL SCALE FIRE at the EXACT SAME TIME as the main 9/11 event.

[Black Dagger]

I voted '3' - and IMO '2' sounds just as 'conspiracy nut' as '1' - just wrapped in a red flag.

[Partisano]

There were many strange circumstances, however, who can anyone prove it? I say that if it were true, why would anyone be surprised that those vicious bastards would kill a few thousand people to achieve a political goal, and to scare the public into a paralysis and then get them foaming at the mouth for a war? In any case, for leftists, it should not distract us from going about our business of organizing and building the movement for revolutionary change. Most 11/9 truthers are nuts closed in waiting for the jackbooted UN troops to come in and smash their doors down and put them in concentration camps.


There's too many suspicious circumstances. When things are looked at carefully, it makes absolutely no sense that the government had nothing to do with it. It was very certainly a controlled demolition... And anyway, it's is a SERIOUSLY freaky "coincidence" that Building 7 went tumbling to the ground because of an EXTREMELY SMALL SCALE FIRE at the EXACT SAME TIME as the main 9/11 event.

[abrupt]

I know of a few fairly conservative Christians that believe 911 was an inside job.

It's becoming more and more obvious of how US played a role more devastating then commonly told.

I don't think it's even neccesary to say it, but I believe the US knew about the attack and even helped organize it. You can draw paralles with Nazi Germany's tactics and USA's current tactics all day, and in this case it is the same as Nazi's attacked themselves to have a growing support base.

It is a fear tactic, check on the shock doctrine. You scare your people until they will basically have blind support for you because they mad scared.

[Partisano]

Its a false flag operation that you're talking about if I am correct. I could have been a modern day Reichstag fire, but once again, who would be surprised?


I know of a few fairly conservative Christians that believe 911 was an inside job.

It's becoming more and more obvious of how US played a role more devastating then commonly told.

I don't think it's even neccesary to say it, but I believe the US knew about the attack and even helped organize it. You can draw paralles with Nazi Germany's tactics and USA's current tactics all day, and in this case it is the same as Nazi's attacked themselves to have a growing support base.

It is a fear tactic, check on the shock doctrine. You scare your people until they will basically have blind support for you because they mad scared.

[ckaihatsu]

Hi, all, I've been around the YFIS discussion board for awhile, and around 9-11 truth stuff in particular, especially on the ground. I came around 9-11 as an issue because it's been so neglected and shunned by the left, in general.

Here's my take on it -- I wrote it to read like the inside of a book's dust cover -- nothing too heavy, just an argument as to why the issue is worth examining in its details:



> [link omitted due to RevLeft board rules -- please do a search]

> At the Chicago Conference, my colleague Chris Kaihatsu and I
distributed a few hundred copies of a pamphlet written by Chris,
titled:

> "9-11: Why the Details Matter".

> The experience provided us with excellent opportunities to meet new
people and to discuss the direction of this grass-roots movement with
persons from all sorts of cultural and political roots and origins who
were in attendance.

> The article has been published in the pages of the Chicago IndyMedia
site, and is available there for reading and printing out for
distribution.



If you want to skip ahead to the current state of things, I'd highly recommend the following video for a succinct, laying-out of the case itself:



> 9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA

> [...] and [...]
> 1 hr 59 min 38 sec - Oct 31, 2007
> [link omitted due to RevLeft board rules -- please do a search]

> 9/11 Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction

> Commercial architect Richard Gage (founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) presents a watertight case for controlled demolition of the three steel-building collapses at the World Trade Center, New York on 9/11/01. Includes physicist Steven Jones' updated evidence of thermite. Gage's website, [link omitted due to RevLeft board rules -- please do a search], is rapidly drawing building and engineering professionals to the 9/11 movement.

> [link omitted due to RevLeft board rules -- please do a search]





Chris





--
___

YFIS Discussion Board
[...]

Favorite web sites: [...]

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
[...]

MySpace:
[...]

CouchSurfing:
[...]

[Partisano]

Damn, looks like when i post on a topic everyone leaves it hight and dry.

[RedAnarchist]

You only posted a day ago, give it a chance.

[Ultra-Violence]

Easy, just look at who's saying and pushing the conspiracy theories and what's their alternative.

You'd be shocked. Some others would not be. Look them up and then post back and tell us what you think.


Trust me i know whos "PUSHING" the issue most about 80% id say are right-winger etc.. BUT THATS THE THING! i dont get how the left just brushes this off like no big deal THIS IS THE BIGGEST CON OF THE 21st century I mean look at was has happend sense 9/11! we got 1# the Iraq war #2 Govemerment gone LOCO! #3 Elimination of what little rights we had etc.. not to mention all the people who have died from 9/11 to now the present! and FUTURE! etc....

[Sendo]

I think the most likely, is not a wide conspiracy, but a suspicious level of inaction. Being that once it happened, let it play out, let Western civilization quake its boots as wonders where its rulers are, and when they arrive they will be hailed. Let the level of devastation continue and have everyone watch "the reporting" (read: replaying the same wide angle view of thousands of people dying) and then fume and demand revenge on the behalf of the dead. The 9/11 commission is suspicious enough, but I don't think the govt actually made it as a false flag operation.

Science makes it clear why the planes hit and the towers fell (time bombs my ass). There also would have been some leak SOMEWHERE if it was engineered by the neocon clique (as JFK's death showed the connections that top people had to his death). However, any conspiracy thoery, like Chomsky, says is a distraction and a waste of time. Let's say you finally PROVE that JFK was an inside job and 9/11 was too. Doesn't change the fact that JFK was himself fairly shitty and doesn't change the fact we have a disgruntled populace which is all too ignorant and unorganized. It's a distraction and the White House loves to see people waste time in their basements studying archive footage.

"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied."

--someone


The White House has never bothered to deny orchestrating 9/11 and likely, therefore, does not see 9/11 truthers as a plausible threat that must be fought.

[Psy]

I think the most likely, is not a wide conspiracy, but a suspicious level of inaction. Being that once it happened, let it play out, let Western civilization quake its boots as wonders where its rulers are, and when they arrive they will be hailed. Let the level of devastation continue and have everyone watch "the reporting" (read: replaying the same wide angle view of thousands of people dying) and then fume and demand revenge on the behalf of the dead. The 9/11 commission is suspicious enough, but I don't think the govt actually made it as a false flag operation.

Science makes it clear why the planes hit and the towers fell (time bombs my ass). There also would have been some leak SOMEWHERE if it was engineered by the neocon clique (as JFK's death showed the connections that top people had to his death). However, any conspiracy thoery, like Chomsky, says is a distraction and a waste of time. Let's say you finally PROVE that JFK was an inside job and 9/11 was too. Doesn't change the fact that JFK was himself fairly shitty and doesn't change the fact we have a disgruntled populace which is all too ignorant and unorganized. It's a distraction and the White House loves to see people waste time in their basements studying archive footage.

"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied."

--someone


The White House has never bothered to deny orchestrating 9/11 and likely, therefore, does not see 9/11 truthers as a plausible threat that must be fought.
The White House bothered to derail the investigation and to steer the investigation away from asking any hard hitting questions.

Also the ruling class cares deeply what the public thinks, if they didn't they wouldn't speed so much resources on propaganda. If 9/11 was a inside job and got out, the state could kiss the loyalty of its troops goodbye, it could result in another Petrograd 1917 were the ruling class has to fight its own troops as they rampage against the state.

[PRC-UTE]

I voted for 3, as it is the least crazed option. But in my opinion, the real issue is missing:

4. That's what you get when you mess with too much people at the same time, making more enemies than you are able to deal with.

Luís Henrique

That's my vote.

[PRC-UTE]

Wow... just wow.



Precisely. Wow.

[Sendo]

The White House bothered to derail the investigation and to steer the investigation away from asking any hard hitting questions.

Also the ruling class cares deeply what the public thinks, if they didn't they wouldn't speed so much resources on propaganda. If 9/11 was a inside job and got out, the state could kiss the loyalty of its troops goodbye, it could result in another Petrograd 1917 were the ruling class has to fight its own troops as they rampage against the state.


You could never find total and damning evidence--if it ever existed it's been destroyed, the most you could hope for is an extremely convincing case. The govt does care what its people think, I know, but you'll never get everyone to believe you. What's the plan: viral videos or going to the local cnn station? Good luck with that.

My main argument is that our time is better invested elsewhere.

[Psy]

You could never find total and damning evidence--if it ever existed it's been destroyed, the most you could hope for is an extremely convincing case. The govt does care what its people think, I know, but you'll never get everyone to believe you. What's the plan: viral videos or going to the local cnn station? Good luck with that.

My main argument is that our time is better invested elsewhere.
The military is known for having paper work on the paper work. This is why the Nuremberg trials went so smoothly as they Allies had access to the military records, where every last atrocity was a signed order. If Cheney ordered a stand down there would be a mountain of logs in the Pentegon, most importantly would be the communication logs, this would put to rest what Cheney said as they would be archived in the massive mainframes of the Pentegon. Also on their mainframes would be what NORAD radar systems saw during 9/11. This could be a very good reason the Bush admin blocked the 9/11 commission from getting a warrant to search the militaries records relevant to 9/11.

So supporting the 9/11 commission to have full access to military records while a long shot could uncover some of what the White House is hiding.

[Sendo]

The military is known for having paper work on the paper work. This is why the Nuremberg trials went so smoothly as they Allies had access to the military records, where every last atrocity was a signed order. If Cheney ordered a stand down there would be a mountain of logs in the Pentegon, most importantly would be the communication logs, this would put to rest what Cheney said as they would be archived in the massive mainframes of the Pentegon.

Good point

[Janus]

Merged.

[RNK]

There does not have to be a signed order directly causing this or that to happen. Infact, using the same example of the Nuremberg trials and the Nazi documentation, most of the documentation was semi-coded, referring vaguely to the atrocities being committed with terms like "Final Solution" and "Chemical treatment".

It's entirely plausible that a few key orders within the government effectively nullified the US military's ability to stop the attacks. Infact, during the attacks, many key fighter pilots, iirc, were away on an "exercise", leaving only two F-16 fighters available to defend the entire US eastern coast.

[Psy]

There does not have to be a signed order directly causing this or that to happen. Infact, using the same example of the Nuremberg trials and the Nazi documentation, most of the documentation was semi-coded, referring vaguely to the atrocities being committed with terms like "Final Solution" and "Chemical treatment".

It's entirely plausible that a few key orders within the government effectively nullified the US military's ability to stop the attacks. Infact, during the attacks, many key fighter pilots, iirc, were away on an "exercise", leaving only two F-16 fighters available to defend the entire US eastern coast.
The thing is the US military is far more bureaucratic then the Nazi military. The US military's massive mainframes act like a sponge sucking in tons of data about military daily operations, this is because after World War II the US military wanted to adopt Taylorism (scientific management) and when it failed in Vietnam the Pentegon thought the problem was inaccurate data for their models thus thought the solution to greater efficiency was even more bureaucracy to ensure the numbers they input into their models are accurate.

This means the militaries computers during 9/11 would have been recording the entire event from the point of view of the US military automatically. Where ever fighter was, when they moved, their pay load, the communication traffic, the radar information, everything as the computers were programed to record everything so the bureaucracy could better manage its workers.

[oujiQualm]

obviously you have not read anything about the Kennedey assassination, as to do so would be a waste of time, because Counterpunch* said so! Also it is LOW STATUS KNOWLEDGE! gee, now how did THAT happen!?


Actually, this is an overgeneralization. The most informed writer Douglass Valentine and many others think that there was a conspiracy.

[oujiQualm]

I wonder how we tell the difference between choice 1 and 2. I mean HOW WOULD WE KNOW? For those who have read anything about CIA history this question is not so simple!

[Psy]

obviously you have not read anything about the Kennedey assassination, as to do so would be a waste of time, because Counterpunch* said so! Also it is LOW STATUS KNOWLEDGE! gee, now how did THAT happen!?


Actually, this is an overgeneralization. The most informed writer Douglass Valentine and many others think that there was a conspiracy.You obviously understand how bureaucracies work, even Stalin couldn't purge people without the Russian bureaucracy leaving a paper trail a mile long.

See bureaucracies justifies themselves through the process. Solders in Iraq commit war crimes because the US military bureaucracy makes it legal by making the atrocities official orders, thus in the US military logic only official orders are legal and everything else is a court-marshalable offence. Meaning there a stand down order could only happen via going through the official channels as no general would risk their ass and can only hind behind the bureaucracy if they only follow orders that come down through the bureaucracy.

[Comrade J]

People who advocate these conspiracy theories just embarass themselves, and whatever organisation they claim to represent. :rolleyes:

It's easy for some leftists to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, particularly regarding 9/11, as of course we seek to further discredit the American government (and the concept of government as a whole), but it seems some of us occasionally avoid rational thought to achieve these aims.

However, by not perpetuating this 'inside job' myth, it actually gives credence to our other leftist sentiments and arguments, as you've essentially proven you're not just using any rhetoric you can to discredit the government, but are using rational thought and are weighing up the evidence.

They have done enough shit that we're certain of that people ought to be aware of - why waste time lecturing people on an outlandish and uneducated theory? And for anyone who sources their arguments from 'Loose Change', let it be known that you're a twat of epic proportions.

[UberYuber]

No conspiracy here.
Like Napoleon said, everyone fights the last war. The gov. only had plans to stop someone who would make demands in exchange for the hostages.
If the Pres, CIA, Mossad, or the like would have planned the attacks, they would have destroyed the Statue of Liberty or a Golden Gate Bridge type monument, not something the gov. finds meaningless, like office buildings and human lives.

[RNK]

Love that this thread has gone on for so very, very long.

[ckaihatsu]

The White House bothered to derail the investigation and to steer the investigation away from asking any hard hitting questions.

Also the ruling class cares deeply what the public thinks, if they didn't they wouldn't speed so much resources on propaganda. If 9/11 was a inside job and got out, the state could kiss the loyalty of its troops goodbye, it could result in another Petrograd 1917 were the ruling class has to fight its own troops as they rampage against the state.


Yeah, I gotta agree with Psy here -- the reason I decided to focus on the 9/11 issue is because it does have tremendous implications, both for history, and for revolution. Please see my essay, from a web search -- it's "9-11: Why the Details Matter".



People who advocate these conspiracy theories just embarass themselves, and whatever organisation they claim to represent.


ComradeJ,

Many operations that affect people's lives don't come from formal institutions -- any action(s) committed by a self-organizing bunch of people may be termed a 'conspiracy', or I prefer "group". And until a theory is proven, it's termed a 'hypothesis' -- so as social scientists we, as revolutionaries, are group-hypothesists.



It's easy for some leftists to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, particularly regarding 9/11, as of course we seek to further discredit the American government (and the concept of government as a whole), but it seems some of us occasionally avoid rational thought to achieve these aims.


You and other leftists have pointed out that 9-11 isn't even needed for us to make and prove our case that the capitalist U.S. government (and all bourgeois governments) have to go -- I agree with that. In practice, though, it helps to keep up with what events in the larger world are going on, and also where people's consciousness is -- as much as one might like to set the pace of political events oneself, part of building consciousness is taking people where they're at, which may be on a different issue from the cut-to-the-chase approach we would prefer to use.



However, by not perpetuating this 'inside job' myth, it actually gives credence to our other leftist sentiments and arguments, as you've essentially proven you're not just using any rhetoric you can to discredit the government, but are using rational thought and are weighing up the evidence.


Well, perhaps you should give some time to looking at the material evidence around 9-11 -- since you're starting from the premise that the 9-11 case for truth is based on a shared delusion, it follows that all 9-11 activists are merely employing rhetoric, or bluster -- that's not the case at all.

One quick fact here: how can you explain the fact that the World Trade Center 7 building collapsed on its own, on the day of 9-11, without being hit by an airplane?



They have done enough shit that we're certain of that people ought to be aware of - why waste time lecturing people on an outlandish and uneducated theory? And for anyone who sources their arguments from 'Loose Change', let it be known that you're a twat of epic proportions.


So what should people be aware of, then, exactly? When it comes to uncovering history I'll take my sunlight from wherever I can get it. I credit those brave, risk-taking individuals, whoever they are, and wherever they are on the political spectrum, who made the effort to collect evidence and information to build the case for 9-11 truth.

And you're not doing much for the leftist cause by using a term that invokes female genitalia...!



No conspiracy here.
Like Napoleon said, everyone fights the last war. The gov. only had plans to stop someone who would make demands in exchange for the hostages.
If the Pres, CIA, Mossad, or the like would have planned the attacks, they would have destroyed the Statue of Liberty or a Golden Gate Bridge type monument, not something the gov. finds meaningless, like office buildings and human lives.


Well, UberYuber, the U.S. certainly got plenty of political capital out of the destruction of the WTC towers and the damage to the Pentagon -- we could split hairs about which would be better targets in New York, but that's beside the larger point, that the U.S. immediately enacted existing neoconservative (PNAC) plans and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

The WTC buildings were white elephants, too, and very costly to maintain with insufficient rental revenue coming in -- Silverstein made a bundle off insurance, and many Enron, Worldcom, and SEC records were destroyed, too (among others). Looks pretty win-win to me...(!)


All,

I posted a movie review of "Zeitgeist" yesterday, which deals with 9-11, at this link:

"Zeitgeist": Not a sign of the times, but a definite must-see documentary nonetheless

A review by Chris Kaihatsu, ck aihat [email protected] gm ail. co m, 3-31-08

htt p: // www . re vlef t . co m/v b/ zeit geis t-t66 457 /ind ex . html?p=1111 197#po st1 111197


Chris




--
___

YFI S Dis cussion B oard
ht tp:// discussion. newy outh .com

Fa vor ite we b si tes: chica go.indym edia. org, wsw s. org, ma rxist. com, rwor .org, lab ourstart .or g, fightba ckne ws .org, lab oraction. org, ifam ericansknew .org, subst ancenews . com, soci alismandliberation .o rg, wh atreally hap pened .co m, ple nglis h. com, moneyfile s.o rg/temp .h tml, inform ationcl earingho use .i nfo, blac kcom menta to r. com, na rconew s. com, tru tho ut. org, ra ven1 .n et

Ph otoi llustr atio ns, P oliti cal Di ag rams by Ch ris K ai hatsu
h ttp :/ /co mmunit y.w ebsho ts. co m/u ser /ck aihatsu/

M ySp ace:
ww w. mys pace .co m/ck aihatsu

[Psy]

No conspiracy here.
Like Napoleon said, everyone fights the last war. The gov. only had plans to stop someone who would make demands in exchange for the hostages.
If the Pres, CIA, Mossad, or the like would have planned the attacks, they would have destroyed the Statue of Liberty or a Golden Gate Bridge type monument, not something the gov. finds meaningless, like office buildings and human lives.
That doesn't explain the capital, as for decades the US has planned on stopping Russian supersonic bombers taking off from Cuba and bombing the capital with nuclear bombs that the American war games supposed Russias snuck into Cuba. The airliners that were hijacked were much slower then the TU-144 and TU-160 the US air force planned on intercepting in their war games during the cold war and the hijackers didn't have any fighter escorts either.

Meaning the hijackers were a much easier target then the USA was planning for.

Then you have the fact that on 9/11 the Pentagon had a war game where terrorists hijack a airliners and run it into the capital. According to the military this was just a command level exercise but a full exercise meaning the US already had real units deployed to take down the virtual terrorists before the real hijackers took off.

[crimsonzephyr]

definately #1
hitler did the same thing by burning the parliament and blaming the communists
Nero a roman emperor burned rome and blamed the christians
and zeitgeist proves that #1 is the truth!

couldnt be more true. zeitgeist did a good job explaining and ive seen other videos. It was defiantly an inside job, although i think bush is a puppet. btw, what does everyone think about JFK's assassination? I think the mafia and cia teamed up.

[bugsy]

I actually thought you might have a bit of a clue, until your wrote this load of bollocks:


"The buildings are 70 percent just air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel, they are steel boxes in which the thickness of the steel varies from 1/4 inch (at the top) to 1 1/2 inches (at the bottom). But they were properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, the occupants, the furnishings... those are all things that the structure can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below.
It appears obvious that you’re determined to accept the “official version”, and that certainly is your right, but at least get your facts right.

The inner core consisted of 47 hollow sections. At the bottom, these sections were 22 x 55 inches, with walls 5 inches thick and a middle fillet 6.5 inches thick. These reached up to the 66th floor, after which the sections became progressively narrower and the middle fillet was dispensed with. From the 100th floor until the top, the hollow sections were replaced by RSJs. All of these supports were interconnected with I-beams 36 inches deep. If the towers had pancaked, which even the NIST report says did NOT happen, then these immensely strong structures would have remained standing. They didn’t.[/quote]

Maybe before you start babbling about bullshit you should find out all of the details.
So maybe you should take your own advice, eh?

MsG

[Knight of Cydonia]

i think it's the inside job, and then the US government blame Osama and when George can't catch Osama, then he blame other moslem government in the middle east (Saddam, which George obviously have some kind of family grudge on him) so the US have some reason to invade Iraq and steal their oil.:cool:

that's on my opinion. am i right?or am i right? correct me if i'm wrong, please..

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, as much as I distrust the state, I've got to come down on the side of "no conspiracy" regarding this issue. Why? Because it would require unbelievable planning and logistics, an amount of pure ruthlessness that would make Hitler blush, and a large amount of people planning the conspiracy who's loyalty would make the Imperial Army of Japan look like slackers in comparison. Being that this administration cannot even keep the most banal of scandals from getting leaked, I don't see how they could keep a secret of such magnitude contained.

I'm somewhat open to the idea that they may have known about an impending attack and chose to do nothing, however.

[Coggeh]

2 ... i dont believe they would have done it themselves , i think they just used it opportunistically

[UberYuber]

i think it's the inside job, and then the US government blame Osama and when George can't catch Osama, then he blame other moslem government in the middle east (Saddam, which George obviously have some kind of family grudge on him) so the US have some reason to invade Iraq and steal their oil.:cool:

that's on my opinion. am i right?or am i right? correct me if i'm wrong, please..

Doesn't the U.S. own all the oil anyway, sinceit is traded as a commodity in US$, and as a result, every country needs to hold US$ in reserve??

[There is No God!]

I recommend anyone wih any questions regarding 9/11 to youtube: History Channel - 9/11 Myths.

[Psy]

Doesn't the U.S. own all the oil anyway, sinceit is traded as a commodity in US$, and as a result, every country needs to hold US$ in reserve??

Iraq converted to Euros before the US invasion as Saddam wanted to engage in economic warfare against the US.

[Psy]

I recommend anyone wih any questions regarding 9/11 to youtube: History Channel - 9/11 Myths.
At the start they ignore that Oswald by unclassified documents was proven to be a double agent for the FBI and CIA, for the CIA he was part of the support mechanism for terrorist campaigns against Cuba and for the FBI he was spying on the CIA.

[Forward Union]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=82iQeHCabJU

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=82iQeHCabJU

Reptilians! :scared:

[TheLuddite]

One of the best things the U$ government has going for it, is that the citizens doubt its competence and ability.


The U$ government does not fail on accident ... when they fail ... it is on purpose.

[oujiQualm]

Of Course David Ray Griffin Debunking 9/11 Debunking tears this to shreads. But for people who dont want to read anything and just bleet conpiracy like their Encounter magazine-like 'betters' tell them it should do well enough.

[Sickle of Justice]

i voted for two, because it is the most plausible. #1 is likely, but i have no concrete evidence to prove it. #3 is all but impossible.

[Raúl Duke]

2-3-4 seem ok.

I like 3 and 4 best since a #2 could/would have been done with less monetary lost (like a Gulf of Tonkin incident.)

[shuuk]

1 and 2 for me just because both of them can possibly link.

also i agree that the U.S's biggest weapon is that a huge ratio of citizens beleves every word of the government says as if it were some holy text i mean damn americans are ignerent :glare:

[ckaihatsu]

http://9-11.meetup.com/340/messages/archive/


All,

I've been involved with a local 9-11 Truth group in Chicago for over 2 years now. Politically it's predominantly libertarians (left-nationalists), but around the 9-11 issue itself they're very good. We had an excellent speaker, Richard Gage, a veteran architect, who gave a stellar presentation which laid out the voluminous evidence available that shows conclusively that the towers were *not* brought down by the impact or fires of the jet airplanes.

Our email list archives are at the link above, and if you want to see the presentation for yourself, the torrent file is here:


911 Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction

http://www.btmon.com/Video/Movies_DVDR/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_The_Architecture_of_Destru ction.torrent.html


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[chimx]

why is this in the history forum?????

[Raúl Duke]

Personally, while I may not be as well informed, I'm more inclined to think it's either 2 or 3. Anyway, the real case is in answer # 4.

However, I do agree that this event was used for the purposes of justification of imperialism (Invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and to scapegoat people, whether a whole group (Middle Easterners) or individuals (Saddam Hussein mostly).

EDIT: Oh I already posted before here...

[Jordi-FCB]

With America's history it's not surpriseing, but I seriously don't think the States would murder it's own citizens in the 21st centuary.

[Comrade Rage]

Incompetence.
Although the Pearl Harbor 2 angle is plausible, given the P.N.A.C.

The 'inside job' truth stuff is bull, BTW.

[Sir Comradical]

There are so many holes in the official government explanation of 9/11 that alternate explanations should not only be considered but explored. I'm personally convinced it was an inside job, a false flag operation, a self inflicted wound.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

the FBI and CIA knew something was going down but 'failed' to tell each other.

the BBC said so it must be true!

[ckaihatsu]

http://9-11.meetup.com/398/messages/3323321/
http://9-11.meetup.com/340/messages/archive/


planes don't melt through steel Re: [9-11-398] RE: greater chicago 9/11 truth meetup-shutting


From: Chris Kaihatsu
Sent on: Sunday, July 6, 2008 8:06 AM


Malcolm, Rich,

I still can't accept that planes would simply glide right through a
steel exterior and noiselessly slip into the WTC towers without parts
of the plane(s) being repelled and falling down the exterior.

I'll admit that I'm attracted to the hologram, or doctored-video
hypotheses, but I can't be definitive about either of these.

Take care all,


Chris






--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Foldered]

1 and 2 for me just because both of them can possibly link.

also i agree that the U.S's biggest weapon is that a huge ratio of citizens beleves every word of the government says as if it were some holy text i mean damn americans are ignerent :glare:
I'd say some/most, but you can't really generalize that much. :P

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to just remind everyone that the term 'conspiracy theory' is a political slur. If you want to determine if conclusions are sound or not, you have to do your homework and come to your own conclusions -- that goes for every one of us.

I do *not* defend nationalists or libertarians of any sort, but at the same time, I don't discriminate on *where* I get information from -- I have enough sense to sift through things and determine what's useful and what's not.


Beware of conspiracy theory sites
http://www.revleft.com/vb/beware-conspiracy-theory-t83112/index.html

[ChristianV777]

Pearl Harbor II.
Gore Vidal did a very good job of presenting why he feels it was allowed to happen by the U.S. govt.
Now, letting it happen doesn't mean that the government actually knew how major an event it was going to be.
This is George W. Bush we're talking about. Mr. Egomania.
I think that all the Left can rally around, no matter what happened, it's disgusting that the American govt. used a tragic event to rally even more death and destruction against innocent people in "revenge" (really for Imperialism, of course) for an attack that was meant as revenge!

As far as the United States not letting their people die....yeah, they've done a good job of that with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and then there was Hurricane Katrina. We're expendable, us "little people". Only the rich are actual human beings to people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

As far as the United States citizens trusting the govt., that's a really contradictory question. The United States was born out of a distrust of "big government", and there's still a lot of (free market) Libertarian ideology in this country.
I think the people can be pretty easily fooled, because of the myth of "the innate goodness of the United States", that is really national mythology here.
It's easy to get a lot of the people riled up around Nationalist issues (a lot of people are scared to death that the UN or Israel will be running the govt. for example), but I'd say that by and large we actually distrust our govt. more than a lot of people in Western Europe.
Our govt. never gave in to our demands for much social services, like Western Europe's governments did (national health care and etc.), so we don't have that much reason to be loyal to our government, except when they stir up Nationalist sympathies, like with wars.

I'd say the U.S.'s biggest weapon is that most Americans worship Capitalism.

[Decolonize The Left]

I voted one. Not because I know it was a conspiracy theory, but because there were way too many coincidences on that date for me to reasonably believe that what the government tells me is true. :confused:

Furthermore, no one has raised the question of why explosions occurred in the inside of the building prior to the plane hitting and if fact explosions reached out and engulfed the plane. Just watch the video in slow motion or Psy will post a link to it I'm sure.

No one has raised the question of why the tactical fighters which were supposed to be defending the country were relocated at such a precarious time.

No one has raised the question of why, before the 'attacks', there were numerous 'maintenance crews' operating on the WTC.

No one has raised the question of who tends to benefit monetarily from these attacks...

I'm not saying it's certain. But I am saying that all you defending option 3 are making me a bit uneasy... it's the government. You know, the central authority which legitimates the capitalist economic system which exploits millions... You know, the institution which acts in the name of the state seizing the legitimate use of force and then promptly directs that force at its own citizens and at foreign (usually poor) people... You know, that government.

But hey, just suck up their words like its holy water and we can invade Iran.

- August

[Kami]

I voted one. Not because I know it was a conspiracy theory, but because there were way too many coincidences on that date for me to reasonably believe that what the government tells me is true. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif
Then ignore the government and trust in authorities on the subject - every myth has been thoroughly debunked by people with no interest in that being the case.


No one has raised the question of why the tactical fighters which were supposed to be defending the country were relocated at such a precarious time.
Perhaps teh perpetrators had info on this, and that's why it happened that day. Just a theory, but a hell of a lot more likely than the alternative you imply.



No one has raised the question of why, before the 'attacks', there were numerous 'maintenance crews' operating on the WTC.

Because it need maintenance would be the obvious answer



I'm not saying it's certain. But I am saying that all you defending option 3 are making me a bit uneasy... it's the government. You know, the central authority which legitimates the capitalist economic system which exploits millions... You know, the institution which acts in the name of the state seizing the legitimate use of force and then promptly directs that force at its own citizens and at foreign (usually poor) people... You know, that government.
Believe it or not, the government isn't some objective evil entity. It's definately not a good thing, but accusations like this based on nothing more than mistrust and debunked theories? give me a break.

[Comrade B]

The things that make me suspicious that the US wanted the attacks to happen.
1. The rush to get Bin Laden's family out of the country immediately after the attacks
2. The totally faked Bin Laden confession video.
3. The immediate speak of invading middle eastern countries.

[Kami]

1. The rush to get Bin Laden's family out of the country immediately after the attacks
That's a pretty damn sensible precaution. Don't you think they'd have been lynched if they had remained?

2. The totally faked Bin Laden confession video.

3. The immediate speak of invading middle eastern countries.
So, the US are opportunists. tell us something we don't know. Now, why should we believe they were responsible?

[Decolonize The Left]

Believe it or not, the government isn't some objective evil entity. It's definately not a good thing, but accusations like this based on nothing more than mistrust and debunked theories? give me a break.

Actually, I find mistrust in the government extremely healthy.

- August

[Kami]

Actually, I find mistrust in the government extremely healthy.

Well, yes, I was more getting at accusing the US government of this based solely on mistrust (and a few oft-debunked theories) is foolish.

[There is No God!]

Actually, I find mistrust in the government extremely healthy.

- August


It is, but so is objective thinking, something which is definitely lacking from the ‘9/11 truth' movement.



Furthermore, no one has raised the question of why explosions occurred in the inside of the building prior to the plane hitting and if fact explosions reached out and engulfed the plane. Just watch the video in slow motion or Psy will post a link to it I'm sure.


I presume you are referring to this?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io (http://www.anonym.to/?http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io)

It's obvious by the way that you immediately presume that there was an "explosion” that you are not looking at the evidence objectively. Contrary to what the narrator says, you can see the shadow of the plane on the building before the apparent explosion.



No one has raised the question of why, before the 'attacks', there were numerous 'maintenance crews' operating on the WTC.

You're going to extreme lengths to legitimise your 'theories'. Why bend over backwards to try and convince yourself this is evidence 9/11 'was an inside job' when in all probability any maintenance crews where there for *drum roll* MAINTENANCE!


I'm not saying it's certain. But I am saying that all you defending option 3 are making me a bit uneasy... it's the government. You know, the central authority which legitimates the capitalist economic system which exploits millions...

The Nixon government couldn't cover up 5 guys breaking into an office, what makes you think the current administration would be able to cover up something on the scale of 9/11 only 30 or so years later?

[ckaihatsu]

I'd say the U.S.'s biggest weapon is that most Americans worship Capitalism.


This is an excellent point -- it probably comes from the country's basis in anti-colonial uprisings, which fed into the American Revolution against England -- in the early days there was nothing _but_ natural resources to exploit, and the American mythology still harkens back to those days of milk and honey (through frontier- and Wild West-type movies), for those who followed on the heels of the initial white settlers.

So while the polarization of wealth widens ever further, with markets of real growth shriveling ever-faster, the American mythology lives on. Yes, plenty of people make fortunes all the time, but overall it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

Instead of individuals punching holes through the ceiling the point should be to raise the floor for everyone, which automatically raises the ceiling for everyone.

---

On the subject of 9-11 Truth, here is a very good thread of discussion between myself and the libertarians in the local 9/11 group here in Chicago -- it's quite instructive for anyone who's not familiar with dealing with them:

http://9-11.meetup.com/340/messages/boards/thread/5037666


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[RedAnarchist]

You know, the government which couldn't cover up Watergate, let alone something of the magnitude of 9/11.


Not taking sides, but wasn't Watergate in the 1970's? That would have been a different government to the one America has now.

[There is No God!]

Not taking sides, but wasn't Watergate in the 1970's? That would have been a different government to the one America has now.

My post was poorly worded (it was 1:30 when I posted it).

I'll edit it.

[Comrade B]

That's a pretty damn sensible precaution. Don't you think they'd have been lynched if they had remained?Nope. Rich people don't get lynched. They can buy security. Bush could have just as well sent plenty of FBI agents to protect them


So, the US are opportunists. tell us something we don't know. Now, why should we believe they were responsible?

I don't think the US did it, I think they let it happen. Especially with that lovely report that was titled something like "Bin Laden to strike US" that I consistanly hear people talking about

[ChristianV777]

Well, the government covered up what happened at Pearl Harbor for years.
And what about Roswell?! :lol:No, kidding....
You can argue this is the internet age and the 1940s, technology was very different, so it'd probably be easier. That's true.
But, we have seen evidence leak out that something fishy was happening. Not all the pieces add up. It may be a very, very minute number who know the real truth. People at high levels of power who will not talk. As someone else said, we are talking about covering up allowing it to happen and making it look like incompetence, rather than actually planning the whole thing. That's far easier to cover up.
After all, the majority of people in America are still trying to figure out if W. Bush really thought Iraq had WMDs....
I'd say the truth would come out at some point, and if in another 10 years or so, there hasn't been any evidence to implicate the Bush administration, I'd probably decide to doubt it being another Pearl Harbor.

[disobey]

In the words of Mike Ruppert:

"Let one happen, stop the rest."

For these capitalists, thousands of dead citizens are a small price to pay for oil, profit and no limits on social control at home. And is it not the case that many Americans really could care less about such incidents provided it means they can keep their SUVs?

To quote the movie, 3 Days of the Condor:

Turner: Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?

Higgins: Are you crazy?

T: Am I? ........

H: Look Turner....

T: Do we have plans?

H: ..... The plan was all right. The plan would have worked.

T: What is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same
thing as telling the truth?

H: No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years -- food, plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

T: Ask them.

H: Not now -- then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them.

[Trystan]

Where's the "I don't believe in any of this hog wash" option?

[ckaihatsu]

For these capitalists, thousands of dead citizens are a small price to pay for oil, profit and no limits on social control at home. And is it not the case that many Americans really could care less about such incidents provided it means they can keep their SUVs?


This is rather disingenuous -- you make it sound like most people have their fingers on the 'trap-door switch' which would send capitalists and politicians hurtling down to their doom, but they're deciding not to push the switch because then no one would get them gasoline for their SUVs.

So in just two sentences you're expressing a sense of triple-defeat: 1. That people will forever choose to be dependent on capitalists for their own personal daily needs for gas, 2. That people will not give a shit about what goes on in the Middle East for the procurement of oil, 3. That people are merely overlooking some unmentioned option in order to sustain their standard of living.

I agree with you that the imperialists don't care about human life if it interferes with their hegemonic plans, whether for oil or anything else. However, it's not very comradely to just write off the potential of people living in the U.S., no matter what they're driving. This country has a history of militancy, and we're currently heading into a period of severe financial instability.

This means that these concerns you express are on everybody's minds, not just a select group of non-SUV-driving, holier-than-most, people.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Abluegreen7]

I wouldnt go as far as say the goverment pulled off the attack themselves but. The fact is that the goverment trained terrorists to fight the Soviets. These terrorists got powerful and trained more terrorists and came US. The US got warnings from Putin and they didnt listen. They thought the Casualties wouldnt be that bad and they let the terrorists go through with the attack. By the way theres an intresting story on Mohammed Atta visiting the WTC before 9/11. However the WTC was supposed to take atleast one boeing suspicously it was said months before the attack. Thats just my theory though. I think it was relised in the end that the attack turned out a lot worse than they planned.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he WTC was supposed to take atleast one boeing suspicously it was said months before the attack.


This is the crux of the matter. It the WTC buildings were constructed to withstand jet airplanes crashing into it -- and they were, like pencils through a screen mesh -- then it could not have been the weight of the airplane that brought down each tower.

Also, we know that regular fires do *not* melt steel -- a blast furnace is required to do that -- so we know that it could *not* have been the fires from the jet fuel that brought down each tower.

That leaves us with the question of what caused the WTC towers to collapse? Also, there was a third WTC tower, called WTC 7, that was not even hit by an airplane and yet collapsed later in the evening on 9-11.

All of these collapses are consistent with the method of controlled demolition, which leaves us with the question of who planned the controlled demolitions then, and how did NORAD keep the Air Force from intercepting the wayward jets?

Food for thought!


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Dust Bunnies]

I believe in the U.S. did it theories, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do 100% believe the U.S. let it happen. I voted #2.

[chegitz guevara]

I voted for incompetence, but actually the poll should have been multiple choice. My argument was they knew there were going to be attacks, thought they would help make the administration's case for war on Iraq, but didn't know what was involved, and so was caught flat-footed by 9/11.

[Wake Up]

I reckon that a lot more went on that day than we are told. But I don't believe it was a neo-con job.

The theorists make lots of good points but then make an outlandish jump and blame Cheney and co.

So if there were explosives planted in the building, how does that mean the government were involved? If they were they would have to have used many specialists to plant the explosives none of which have blown the whistle. Please...

I do believe that the 14 highjackers named was the biggest load of bull. Many of them are still alive!! The passport in teh rubble is obviously a load of crap as well. That then casts doubt on Bin laden and the taliban being behind it.

Something majorly wrong with the building 7 affair as well, although that does not mean we should jump to a government conspiracy.


Then theirs the curious case of the 5 dancing israelis.....

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

Now that is much clearer line of enquiry, leading to a few possible conclusions.

1. Mossad did it and made it look like Bin Laden
Mossad are certainly capable of it, however it would be a very risky move as if they were caught then the they would probably cause an instant war with the US or at the very least loose their greatest ally, leading to muslim/arab ascendency in the middle east.

2. Mossad new about it and did nothing.

Much more likely. Low risk for the Israelis while gaining hugely from the US retaliation.
This conclusion may also include Mossad assisting the bombers invisibly.

[Pirate Utopian]

OMFG!!! It was the j00z!?!!!

Gimme a break...

[Wake Up]

OMFG!!! It was the j00z!?!!!

Gimme a break...

Classic.

Read my post again and you will see that I say the word 'possible'.

My point was that the evidence of the 5 israelis captured in 9/11 could point to Mossad having prior-knowledge of the attacks.

Obviously I'm an anti-semite for even suggesting that the worlds best secret service with a very violent history could be involved at all.

I personally think it's a more plausible explanation that the US government doing it. But it's only a possible conclusion.

[Pirate Utopian]

Or... just maybe... terrorists did it.

[Wake Up]

Or... just maybe... terrorists did it.

Obviously you misread my post again.

I suggest you reread and take notice of the words in italics. After all I did that for a reason.

Also reread my first post were I said the most likely Mossad involvement (itself just a theory) was one were they knew about it and did nothing.

If you read the link I posted you will find out that 5 Israelis linked to Mossad had prior knowledge of 911...

[ckaihatsu]

I just saw this mini-documentary the other day -- it does a good job of making a few good points about the video and audio portions of what we saw when we saw 9-11 coverage on TV. Definitely thought-provoking -- it feels like being taken behind the curtain to see the little man pulling levers in the control room...!


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Norseman]

I don't doubt that Muslim terrorists hijacked and flew the planes, there's pretty good evidence to support that. I don't think Bush or Cheney were personally involved; simply put, it's a gigantic fucking risk with little personal gain for them. If it had backfired, they might have been put in front of a firing squad. The most they could possibly have gained is, if they were involved, whatever they've gained in the last 7 years. That amounts to about 30 million dollars for Cheney, and a ranch the size of a small city in Paraguay for Bush. Considering that both of them were doing pretty well before 9/11, and that both of them have made plenty of money just from their salaries as POTUS/VP, I don't think the incentive is there.

I think it's possible that there were explosives in the towers, but if there were, I assume they were planted by the same people who flew the planes, or by accomplices. The presence of thermite could be the result of the plane's aluminium burning with the iron in the tower, or it could be the result of thermite bombs. IMO, there's not really any good way to know, and I don't think it matters anyway.

Building 7 is definitely interesting. I've got no idea how that just collapsed all by itself.

I think the most crucial peice of evidence in the whole thing is when that CIA agent spoke with Osama in a hospital a few months before 9/11. Osama was already charged with terrorism at the time, so you'd expect that the CIA would have gone and arrested or assassinated him if they knew where he was. This shows that there apparently was some cooperation with the CIA and Osama bin Laden up to a few months before 9/11. Maybe it was semi-innocent; the CIA was just going easy on him because he helped them during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Maybe the CIA agent delivered a message to him.

Another kind of crucial thing to remember is the anthrax attacks which originated from Fort Detrick, and the fact that government and media officials had been instructed to take the vaccination immediately prior to the anthrax attacks. Someone working with the US military was involved there, obviously. Now, again, maybe it was semi-innocent, maybe the person involved was just an opportunist who wanted to make a bad thing worse, to push the case for war or whatever. Or, maybe it was planned out in advance.

I certainly don't know, there's just not enough information, but I suspect that the government was at least involved. Maybe it was a few rogue individuals, maybe it was a corporate plot, maybe Bush is crazier than I think. I don't know. But I know there's enough evidence to hang quite a few people in the CIA and military for their actions and inactions which were wrong no matter what their ultimate goal or intention was.

[Dimentio]

Rather, it is a sign that the trust of the people towards their elected representatives is very low.

[ckaihatsu]

http://9-11.meetup.com/340/messages/3529380/

[...]

Along the same lines I'd like to add that I find myself using the
following approach when I speak to people about 9/11 (like in front of
Chicago Theater, at the recent Bill Maher show):

THEM: So what's this all about?

ME: Well, we just find it suspicious that on the day of 9-11 *two*
airplanes brought down *three* buildings in New York City. (pause)

THEM: What was the third building?

ME: There was the World Trade Center 7 building -- *not* hit by any
airplane, yet it fell *straight down* just like the first two, but
later in the evening.

THEM: Really? I haven't heard about that!

ME: Yeah, there's video. You can find it through a web search. And the
way all three buildings came down -- you know, *straight down* -- that
means there was *zero* resistance under all the floors, right? (wave
hand like a fishtail, indicating no resistance)

Buildings don't just do that -- maybe you heard about the earthquake
in China about half a year ago? The buildings there fell flat, *on
their sides* -- they toppled. But on the day of 9-11 these buildings
fell *straight down*, into their own footprints, at free-fall speed.
So if you threw a ball off the roof it would've landed at the same
time as the entire building!

THEM: So what are you saying, then?

ME: Well, that's indicative of controlled demolition. Just look at any
building that's imploded, and that's exactly what happened to the
World Trade Center buildings.

[ -- EXCHANGE CONTACT INFO -- ]

[freakazoid]

I'm more into thinking that it was more likely that it was allowed to happen. I have yet to hear any reasoning about why the third building collapsed. Also if it was actually done by the government why would it have to be thousands of people? Really I think it would only need to be a few people, if it was done by the government. And if it was an inside job I would more believe that it would be some rogue group than the government itself.


You'd think a 'revolutionary forum' would be more interested in discussing and taking notes concerning the planning and execution of an audacious and remarkably succesful attack, instead of positing crazy conspiracy theories.

lol :)

[Black Sheep]

I voted 1, i would vote 1 or 2.
Considering the results of the attack,it would be foolish and naive to say that the US was so god damn lucky to receive such a gift of terrorist "bait", on which to base the excuse for suppression of civil liberties,war on iraq, mass military spending, and so on.

[oujiQualm]

Except that four jetliners crashing into major US targets is plenty of tragedy for starting a war. Adding in a bunch of Army men running around setting up explosives in buildings just adds another layer where the conspiracy can fall apart. Without that nonsense, there is not really any angle where it can become a gaping hole except one or two operatives in the field.
---------


"abunch of men running around".... This person has read very little about CIA history. Look up compartmentalization in that context. compartmentalization dooooood

[progressive_lefty]

For me, Chomsky's statements on the conspiracy theory were enough to make me believe that there is no way in hell, the government could keep a secret like that.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4

[alice]

watch zeitgeist

[Dharma]

I don't know what happened. I do know that we don't know the truth.

[AAFCE]

Meh, I've never been to NY.

I have no proof that it even happened.

YOU FOLKS COULD BE LYING TO ME!

[LOLseph Stalin]

9/11 was an inside job. Anybody who has watched Zeitgeist would know that.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Tatarin]

What I don't see in the conspiracy is the question why WTC had to have been demolished. Why? If there was a conspiracy, why plant bombs and detonate the buildings?

As soon as the terrorists hijacked the airplanes, the US had all the reasons in the world to attack Afghanistan. If Americans were about to die, then that was all the reason they would have needed.

Hell, if I was a conspiracy planner, sending jets to shoot down supposed or real hijacked planes, then blaming it on Afghanistan, would have been enough. The destruction of the WTC was completely uneccesary. It would have involved alot of people who would have known "the truth", thus more responsibility for the conspirators.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Of course they destroyed the buildings. It would get the public on their side even more so it would be easier to invade innocent Middle Eastern Countries. New World Order: very scary thought... btw, like half my family believes 9/11 was an inside job.

[Red_Dialectics]

What I don't see in the conspiracy is the question why WTC had to have been demolished. Why? If there was a conspiracy, why plant bombs and detonate the buildings?

Because if the US succeeded in preventing the "attack", then there would be a much lower body count, so less justification for a retaliation. Also if they prevented it they couldn't say that the military-industrial complex needed a total retrofit and bigger budget to "keep us safe". Also, americans are catalyzed by dramatic visuals. The whole day looked like something out of one of those "anti-terrorist" movies so common in the 80s and 90s. Plus, if the buildings HADN'T been demolished, they would be easy to repair and the event would soon be forgotten, therefore the whole point of creating an "enemy image" to drive a new era of imperialism would be lost quickly.

[oujiQualm]

Odd that the army can't keep the wholesale massacre of civilians in an underdeveloped third world country like Iraq a secret for more than a few weeks, not to mention torture and incidents like you mention above, but they can still manage to orchestrate the biggest hoax in modern history.
--------

This statement is naive about how intelligence works to maintain "secrets". It does not matter if the "secret" gets out. Disinformation is the science of making sure that no alternative narrative of events gains engough critical mass to challenge the view of the governments narrative.

This is why it helps the gov that is funding the disinformation to have many different false "conspiracy thoeries" out there, guaranteeing that say and 80% audience who do not trust the governments narrative are all dividied and fighting among themselves. This can whittle each subgroup down to 7% including one shrill parakeet.

And no this does not mean that all allternative narratives are produced with a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Some are some are not. Ambiguity is the best friend of those who seek to challenge the government narrative.

And hey whatabout that narrative! 4 million on the 9/11 investigation which now even the leaders admit is basically useless. Meanwhile 60 million spent on Lewinsky. But who cares, the left has been trained to listen to their Encounter Magazines.*

* Encounter magazine-- an entirely CIA funded faux left publications during the Cold War that was meant to fragment opposition to overarching Cold War foreign policy objectives. Please research this one!!:)

[oujiQualm]

It is not irrelevent. You cannot continue to let the cornerstone of a governments lie-narrative go unchallenged in the public sphere, just because you have been socialized to believe that questing these lies are low status knowledge and will make 'educated' middle class readers of the New Yorker roll thier eyes at cocktail parties.

If you believe in reason, you cannot allow such cynical contempt for the public sphere.

I think it would be good to read some history of the evolution of US propaganda corporate media history. Rondald Steeles bio of Wlater Lippman is old but very good. ALso PLEASE read the book called Nervous Liberals. ITs about Intelligence funding of left liberal magazines from World War i into the Cold War. Columbia University modern history searies published I think in 2000..

[Tatarin]

Of course they destroyed the buildings. It would get the public on their side even more so it would be easier to invade innocent Middle Eastern Countries.

And what great staged attack did they create before they invaded Kuwait in the 1990's? Or what about the US involvement in Latin America? They can already do all these things without any need for staged attacks.


New World Order: very scary thought... btw, like half my family believes 9/11 was an inside job.

Yet, after 8 long years, not a single "counter-proof" has been found. The evidence is open to everybody, in all countries. The US government and private sector might be powerful, but they're not that powerful.


Because if the US succeeded in preventing the "attack", then there would be a much lower body count, so less justification for a retaliation.

How do you know that? Four planes, being blown up by the terrorists or shot down to protect other Americans out of the dear governments hard decision to do so doesn't sound enough?


Also if they prevented it they couldn't say that the military-industrial complex needed a total retrofit and bigger budget to "keep us safe".

Why not? "No, but if they had smashed some buildings, maybe we would consider increasing the already huge military spending"?


Also, americans are catalyzed by dramatic visuals. The whole day looked like something out of one of those "anti-terrorist" movies so common in the 80s and 90s.

So? Already in 2003, millions went out to protest the invasion of Iraq.


Plus, if the buildings HADN'T been demolished, they would be easy to repair and the event would soon be forgotten, therefore the whole point of creating an "enemy image" to drive a new era of imperialism would be lost quickly.

And many people already "forgot" about 9/11. They're concerned with getting out of Iraq, and have more people demonstrating for withdrawal than the "truth seekers" during the last 8 years. No one wants war anymore, so the imperialists apparently failed.

[Killfacer]

This is not even worth discussing because in reality none of you will ever have the slightest clue what happened. Unless you have access to secret files, which is a tiny bit unlikely consdering your a revolutionary leftist.

All the theories are just stupid and people at "middle class cocktail parties" are right to "roll their eyes". Its fully possible that the US government had some knowledge but it's like arguing about 2 shades of black.

[Wild_Fire]

I think it was an inside job. From all that I have read, viewed and discussed with other people, that is the only conclusion for me that it could be. Too little evidence to confirm the 'Official Story', and too many witnesses saying contrary.

Another Tonkin bay really, to justify attacking Afghanistan for its oil fields and taking away more civil liberties from its people.:mad:

[Killfacer]

I think it was an inside job. From all that I have read, viewed and discussed with other people, that is the only conclusion for me that it could be. Too little evidence to confirm the 'Official Story', and too many witnesses saying contrary.

Another Tonkin bay really, to justify attacking Afghanistan for its oil fields and taking away more civil liberties from its people.:mad:

Oh yeah, i forgot to mention that elvis lives on an island with bruce lee in the middle of the atlantic and i was abducted by aliens yesterday.

[Wild_Fire]

Oh yeah, i forgot to mention that elvis lives on an island with bruce lee in the middle of the atlantic and i was abducted by aliens yesterday.

Wow man even I don't believe that shit!:thumbdown:

[Mister X]

This thread is full of speculation. We will never know in our lifetimes with certainty if it was an inside job or not. Why waste time on it? Besides the working class movement has another direction right now. That class struggle. It is not like if 9/11 was proved to be an inside job there would be a revolution or a change in the US. Change will come with the intensification of class struggle and with mass action. Communists should be there to give a class-independent prespective to it and not waste time with trifles.

[scarletghoul]

It is not like if 9/11 was proved to be an inside job there would be a revolution or a change in the US.
What? It would provoke a huge reaction from americans.

Anyway there should be a 'I dont know' option

[ckaihatsu]

This thread is full of speculation. We will never know in our lifetimes with certainty if it was an inside job or not. Why waste time on it? Besides the working class movement has another direction right now. That class struggle. It is not like if 9/11 was proved to be an inside job there would be a revolution or a change in the US. Change will come with the intensification of class struggle and with mass action. Communists should be there to give a class-independent prespective to it and not waste time with trifles.


I agree with you overall, Mister X, * but * -- just for the historical record -- it's important to know * exactly * what went on on that day. Many people have devoted substantial amounts of money, resources, and their own lives to digging up valuable, unignorable evidence, and * everyone * needs to be cognizant of that evidence, if nothing else.

These days it's not as topical as, say, the bailout bubble, and the politics around the issue don't tend to go in a revolutionary direction, but it's still an excellent example, like Hurricane Katrina, of how the U.S.-capitalist government is * not * on our side, and only looks to capitalize on the fear of the moment.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Revy]

I think that, it's possible and even likely. However, if 9/11 happened the way they say it happened, the war in Afghanistan was still wrong. It's been proven that the U.S. was already planning to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. The government of Afghanistan did not have anything to do with the attacks despite a lot of propaganda toward that position. I read Khaled Hosseini's book A Thousand Splendid Suns, a really good book, but the end was really not so good because he tried to connect Afghanistan's gov't with 9/11 and that really annoyed me because it looked like he was supporting the war with that.

[Yazman]

I think that there are some threads that may point to number one but there is not yet sufficient evidence in the form of a "smoking gun" so to speak.

I voted for number two because the very idea proposed in number three is absolute folly to me. The US government runs a system that is meticulous in its detailing of every little event and is extremely quick to remove dissent and indeed has done so many times in the past. This ability reaches far into the past and into the world overseas and the idea that they were simply "too incompetent" or "didn't know" is ridiculous beyond belief.

There were many credible sources that indicated specific details of what was at the time an impending event, and they simply let it happen. There was not only a precedent for this, but also a clear motive and inaction.

[Glorious Union]

1 or 2, voted on 2.

I am 100% sure they could have stopped the attack dead in its tracks, but I am not as sure that the US government planned it themselves. What was it, four planes? And not one of them was detected before the attack or even shot down?

If it really wasn't known about or planned by the US then they are really vulnerable to foreign invasion. If so, then on 9/11 they could have paradropped and army on Washington D.C with nothing to stop them.

[darthtony]

I voted one.
The strongest evidence about it is WTC7 there is no way it could have collapsed in that way!
And the cops and the secret organasations are not so stupid as you think.If they want to achieve something they WILL do it. I am not American,(i am from greece) but the CIA, NSA and the military are very powerful. I consider them fully capable of achieving that.

And even if it wasn't an inside job, they surely wanted it to happen.

[Comrade Anarchist]

incompetence the govnt failed to prevent. They had the memo Bin ladin likely to attack new york possible target and with planes. They knew it was likely but ignored it.

[NecroCommie]

One answer: WTC 7! I really want to know how can a totally undamaged building just collapse without a reason? And so completely too! There is no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, anyone who disagrees havn't been thinking and digging enough. There are numerous other proofs, but WTC 7 alone can prove it was an inside job. Only explosives can do such a damage. Then there are the destruction time of the twin towers compared to freefall speed, the fact that numerous supposed hijackers of these planes are still alive, the perfect fall of the towers (they did not tilt an inch, thus not falling unto nearby buildings), the fact that no building ever has collapsed due to fire, or an aircraft collision and then there are the obvious motives of the Bush administration and so on and so on...

[Labor Shall Rule]

Conspiracy theorists are idealists, in that they reproduce leaflets and literature that point out that certain social and political ills (i.e. imperialism, poverty, hunger, high oil and fuel prices) are products of humans acting in evil, secret ways. Nothing is systematic—History is just a tale of a few blood-thirsty men trying to sabotage everything to them.

This way of thinking is dangerous, in that it doesn't recognize that humans are conscious constructors of historic events.

[Rjevan]

I voted for "the government let it happen".
As far as I know they were informed about an attack but did nothing to prevent it. I think they let it happen to reach "higher goals" (e.g. oil in Iraq).

[Vahanian]

the was somthing on this on wned a few days ago.

Quouted From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/about.html


NOVA chronicles the NSA's role in eavesdropping both before and after 9/11. Drawing on dozens of interviews with agency insiders and probing publicly available sources as well as transcripts of terrorist trials and an FBI chronology of the terrorists' movements, NOVA assembles a detailed picture of events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.
The program sheds light on the vital data known inside the NSA but only partly relayed to other agencies. The trove of information the NSA had access to in advance included Osama bin Laden's now-disconnected direct satellite phone, which the NSA tapped starting in 1996. Exclusive footage shows the three-story house in Yemen that served as Al Qaeda's communications and logistics headquarters. The NSA was listening in on phone communications to and from the house for years prior to the 9/11 attack.
Three times the size of the CIA and far more secret, the NSA is comprised of top linguists, mathematicians, and technologists trained to decipher all kinds of communications—epitomizing the hidden world of high-tech, 21st-century surveillance. To show how this eavesdropping operates, NOVA follows the trail of just one typical e-mail sent from Asia to the U.S. Streaming as pulses of light into a fiber-optic cable, it travels across the Pacific Ocean, coming ashore in California, and finally reaching an AT&T facility in San Francisco, where the cable is split and the data sent to a secret NSA monitoring room on the floor below. This enables the NSA to intercept not only most Asian e-mail messages but also the entire U.S. internal Internet traffic.
Thus, since 9/11, the agency has turned its giant ear inward to monitor the communications of ordinary Americans, many of whom are on the government's secret watch list, now more than half-a-million names long.
But how effective is this monumental monitoring effort in countering security threats? The NSA is faced with an enormous and ever-expanding archive of phone calls and e-mail messages. Many experts in data mining and analysis are skeptical about the value of collecting so much information without the ability to understand it, as it may lead to critical clues being lost in the static. (Listen to a podcast (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/deco-flash.html) about the challenge even powerful computers have in decoding human speech.)
Among those interviewed on "The Spy Factory" are former NSA, CIA, and FBI analysts and officials, many speaking publicly for the first time. Among these is Mark Rossini, the senior FBI agent in the CIA's Osama bin Laden tracking unit. For the first time, Rossini tells how intelligence agency turf wars prevented him from notifying his FBI superiors that Al Qaeda terrorists were heading for the U.S. with valid visas in early 2000.
Surprisingly, the 9/11 Commission never looked closely into the NSA's role in the broad intelligence breakdown behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. If they had, they would have understood the full extent to which the agency had major pieces of the puzzle but never put them together or disclosed their entire body of knowledge to the CIA and FBI. Traditionally, the NSA didn't share its raw data with those other agencies, an institutionalized reluctance that played a critical role in the failure to stop the 9/11 plotters. (Hear from Eleanor Hill (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/hill.html), a former Staff Director of the House Intelligence Committee, on the myriad dangers inherent in such a tradition.)
In what Bamford calls "one of the largest ironies in the history of American intelligence," he notes that weeks before the attacks, the terrorists were staying in a hotel near NSA headquarters in Maryland, almost within sight of the office of then-NSA Director Michael Hayden. Hayden, who was later appointed director of the CIA by President Bush, was never held accountable for his agency's failure, and after 9/11 he spearheaded the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping activities in the name of making the nation safe from terrorists.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

I can't answer the pole, neither answer sufficiently encompasses my views. I don't want to spend time debating the specifics of the actual incident ( and if I wanted to I could go on for a while since the 9/11 conspiracy theory was a big part of my introduction to radical politics).

The problem is one of methodology. What is gained from debating whether the U.S knew of the attack or planned it? Absolutely nothing.

The only thing I see coming out of it is the somewhat naive argument that if the people know they will revolt. Which is why I guess the 9/11 was an inside job people stand tirelessly on busy streets on weekday afternoons holding signs to that effect.

The reality is that whether the U.S. planned the attacks, looked the other way or were caught unawares, they used it as a pretext for wars, and this is what revolutionaries should be focusing on I think.

Lastly the 9/11 truth people seemingly operate on a distorted world view where wars occur not because of the system's intrinsic drives, but because bad men set and conspire to start them because the masses of people are "sheeple".

[The Intransigent Faction]

I think the U.S. government didn't commit the attack on the World Trade Centre, but that they did cause it to happen. It was "blowback" that was the inevitable result of hostile and manipulative U.S. policies in the Middle East.

[Killfacer]

I think the U.S. government didn't commit the attack on the World Trade Centre, but that they did cause it to happen. It was "blowback" that was the inevitable result of hostile and manipulative U.S. policies in the Middle East.

Are you saying that 9/11 was the fault of the Americans and not the terrorists?

[Cumannach]

Are you saying that 9/11 was the fault of the Americans and not the terrorists?

Are you deliberately trying to sound like Fox News?

[Killfacer]

(edit)

flame

[alhop10]

Of course 9/11 is the fault of the American government (not americans!!!) and who are "the terrorists"?

Decades of terror against other countries by a few idiots in the name of the American people was bound to end in something big sooner or later. It had been building for years.


Of course we have to have sympathy with the victims of 9/11, but they are victims of their own governments' agressive foreign policy in pursuit of glabal hegemony.

And anyone who thinks that the American government has the competence to carry out such a well planned, coordinated attack without it leaking really fast is seriously deluded. Bill Clinton couldn't even keep a blowjob under wraps!

[alpharowe3]

I put #3 but I could argue for #2, "failed to prevent" and "let it happen" is virtually the same thing.

[alhop10]

not really, 'let it happen' suggests that they knew about it and consciously let it happen because they knew that they could use it to their advantage but 'failed to prevent it' just suggests that they are crap.

[butterfly]

This gets a little repetative after, what is it? 8 or 9 years?:blink:

[alhop10]

yes, i think eight years and five months exactly

[Che_Guevara_]

#1 , #2 or #3 ..it doesnt make a difference to me. I wouldnt be surprised that Bush would blow up his own people i mean look at the friendly fire rate in american military history.
nor would i be surprised that Bush wasnt organized enough to mobilize the USA SAM's but it is unlikely.
and lastly i have come to expect incompetence from the USA government so that is not a surprise...
all we can learn is well nothing, the american government is incompetent and stupid... about the only thing to take from it is dont get many enemies but im afraid most of us are communists so screw that we will always have enemies :cool:

[Some Red Guy]

Have you guys heard about Operation Northwoods? It might have been mentioned somewhere on these 12 pages but anyways, it was the plan of using false flag terrorism in Miami and Washington, using it as an excuse to invade Cuba. It became known and couldn't be put into action. How can anyone say they "wouldn't do something like that"? Do not forget that the Tokin Bay incident that started the Vietnam War never happened. They admitted it. And there are a lot of fishy details about the whole 9/11 thing suggesting (but not proving beyond doubt however) an inside job. I voted option #1.

[Ben Chaser]

I'd like to point out something I've noticed in this thread and just about all other discussions about 911...those who support the inside job hypothesis offer evidence and those who accept the mainstream media mythology say that a conspiracy theory is "crazy" without explaining why. Just because something sounds "crazy" doesn't mean it's not true. After all, everything we know about the machinations of corporatism is fucking insane and we would never seek to implement such a system ourselves, and yet there it is. Any critical thinker who pays attention to even the mainstream media realizes that the people in charge are not exactly honest or straightforward and it seems obvious that WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE DOING IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING. And believe me, they love when shit is dismissed by labelling it a conspiracy theory.

[Qayin]

From what i researched I think it was an inside job.I think wtc7 is the smoking gun for that one,and all the hijackers with all these intelligence ties

Id watch Loose Change Final Cut and also Fabled Enemies.

[Tatarin]

all we can learn is well nothing, the american government is incompetent and stupid...

I'd like Michael Parenti's take on this - the US government isn't stupid, after all, they did get to Afghanistan and Iraq. They did set up the Patriot Act.

However, this doesn't mean that they are stupid in everything, or smart in everything.


Have you guys heard about Operation Northwoods? It might have been mentioned somewhere on these 12 pages but anyways, it was the plan of using false flag terrorism in Miami and Washington, using it as an excuse to invade Cuba. It became known and couldn't be put into action.

But it didn't come into action, which shows that there are internal conflicts in the government too.


How can anyone say they "wouldn't do something like that"?

It's more about "them" having recourses to "do it", as well as their chances of getting away with it.


Do not forget that the Tokin Bay incident that started the Vietnam War never happened. They admitted it.

That's different. It happened outside the US, and it was a military target. The US still went to war. North Vietnam didn't even have to attack the US. In contrast, instead of just blowing up the planes when they were in the air, or shooting them down, they just had spend a little extra money on an impossible mission to blow up the towers?


I'd like to point out something I've noticed in this thread and just about all other discussions about 911...those who support the inside job hypothesis offer evidence and those who accept the mainstream media mythology say that a conspiracy theory is "crazy" without explaining why.

There are already a dozen pages of debate on why 911 was or wasn't an inside job. I'd like to counter your statement, because I've noted that 911:ers will shout something, call it evidence, and wait for the answer. When someone does take his or her time on, and actually answers the question, the 911:er will hold fast to his or her "evidence". That's why most people continues to call the 911:ers "crazy", because any evidence posted that contradicts the conspiracy is disregarded no matter what.

And besides, if there is so much evidence on a conspiracy, why post it on an internet forum? Why not send it to respectable scientists and other people within the construction department, and let them confirm it's value? You can even send it to scientists in other countries.


Just because something sounds "crazy" doesn't mean it's not true.

But it doesn't mean that it is true either. It all comes down to evidence that can be tested by the scientific method. It's not like we're debating the beginning of the universe where we can theorize about this and that mathematical inconsistency, we're debating a physical building, built by humans.


After all, everything we know about the machinations of corporatism is fucking insane and we would never seek to implement such a system ourselves, and yet there it is.

That's about history. The system evolved over time, and just like with other societies before it, it was "the way of life". There is tons of information about the ins and outs of the system, and that is also why we have all sorts of regulation, most recent the global warming and environmental debate.


Any critical thinker who pays attention to even the mainstream media realizes that the people in charge are not exactly honest or straightforward and it seems obvious that WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE DOING IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING.

What are they actually doing?


And believe me, they love when shit is dismissed by labelling it a conspiracy theory.

So why don't you send the "evidence" to someone who can properly analyze it?


From what i researched I think it was an inside job.

What's the research that lead you to conclude this?


I think wtc7 is the smoking gun for that one,and all the hijackers with all these intelligence ties

Please, explain why you think WTC-7 is the smoking gun, and what intelligence ties did these hijackers have?


Id watch Loose Change Final Cut and also Fabled Enemies.

How many versions of the truth is there? First we have LC1, then 2nd edition, then 2nd edition recut, final cut, and now Fabled Enemies?

[ckaihatsu]

Drive a Stake Through Cheney's Heart?

Petros Evdokas <[email protected]> Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Reply-To: [email protected]

To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], mayday2000 <[email protected]>
.


Drive a Stake Through Cheney's Heart?


A new article by Kevin Barrett has just come out that includes elements of analysis and political thinking that are rare - and much needed! - in order to help the almost defunct and barely breathing now 9/11 Truth movement to regain relevance in the world of US politics.

Despite Kevin's political and ideological mistakes in recent years he still remains a valuable critical thinker and a person whose work is guided by values that are well compatible and harmonious with the broader Peace and Justice movement, itself a branch of the even broader global Liberation Movement.

The article, with the brilliant title "Will the Dumbocrats Wise Up and Drive a Stake Through Cheney's Heart?", is republished below.

In the years 2006 and 2007 a massive organizational and propaganda campaign launched by the extreme Right succeeded in bringing a large section of the 9/11 Truth movement, perhaps the largest, under its domination. Authoritarian politics of all sorts, including racist, fascist, neo-nazi, zion-nazi, jew-hating, red-scare McCarthyist blind anti-communist, white supremacist and christian supremacist politics, all securely based on woman-hating and anti-gay ideologies became the dominant political "normalcy" within many of the folds and branches of the 9/11 Truth movement, both on the local and on the US national levels.

This state of hegemony reached a peak in 2007/8 when the Right wingers succeeded in developing a tremendous schism between 9/11 Truthers and the US anti-war movement, rapidly followed by another Right wing victory: the achievement of a total absence of any Truthers in the two main political battles of 2008: the two Republocrat party national conventions in Denver and St. Paul. At those national conventions illegal branches of the State and the para-State fought in the streets against thousands of people who were protesting the wars abroad and destruction of democracy at home; the battles resulted in thousands of injuries, more than a thousand people arrested, massive trials and solidly contributed to the phenomenal historical event where ...tens of millions of white americans voted for a Black presidential candidate!

The Truth movement under Right wing domination was mainly absent and even hostile to participation in these developments. Right wing domination of the 9/11 Truth movement led first to blinded, foggy and confused thought-process among Truthers, and then rapidly succeeded in neutralizing that movement as a viable and promising section of the Peace and Justice movement.

And yet, as Kevin shows in the article below, the politics of 9/11 Truth still hold the potential for being a guide to significant and very desirable changes in the US Empire; both within the existing institutions and outside of them.

Kevin's article shows a roadmap that anyone who is involved in State and Corporate administration can follow for reorienting society's main institutions toward Peace and Justice. 9/11 Truth is a key component of that.

Please read below.
Petros Evdokas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


To: [email protected]
From: Kevin Barrett <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009

My latest: feel free to distribute and re-post.

* * *


Will the Dumbocrats Wise Up
and Drive a Stake Through Cheney's Heart?
Why Their Only Hope Is a War Crimes Tribunal

By Kevin Barrett, http://www.truthjihad.blogspot.com/


There are many good reasons to drive a stake through Dick Cheney's heart, assuming he has one.

First, Cheney's hypothetical heart is so black and oily that the penetration of a sharpened stake-tip might release a spurting gusher of oil sufficient to meet America's energy needs for the rest of the century.

But more importantly, busting Cheney for war crimes, including the 9/11 inside job, would help Obama avoid the mistake John F. Kennedy made in the early years of his presidency.

Obama--whose Irish-American heritage, youthful good looks, and vapidly inspirational speechifying make him seem the second coming of Kennedy--is already clashing with the same forces that removed JFK from office with extreme prejudice. Those forces, of course, are the extremist wing of the military-industrial complex and its representatives in the military and intelligence communities.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy fired CIA chief Allan Dulles, who had lied to Kennedy about the real objective of the Bay of Pigs operation. Outraged by such duplicity, JFK threatened to tear up the CIA and scatter it to the winds--a project he was working on at the time of his assassination. Then in 1962, JFK fired another imperial extremist, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Lemnitzer had drafted a document, subsequently signed by every member of the Joint Chiefs, calling for U.S. forces to covertly murder hundreds of Americans in false-flag "terrorist" bombings, including the sinking of a U.S. ship, to be blamed on Cuba. That plan, called Operation Northwoods,
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
was intended to prepare the American public for an invasion of Cuba. As this official document put it, casualty lists published in American newspapers would create "a helpful wave of indignation." The plan was rejected by President Kennedy.

Kennedy's mistake was to simply fire Dulles and Lemnitzer, without publicly revealing their crimes and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law. Even out of office, Dulles and Lemnitzer were able to work with their fellow psychopaths
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/02/02073.html
in the secret government of the National Security State and effect the removal of an elected president. Had JFK revealed that the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff was conspiring to murder hundreds of innocent American citizens in a false-flag war-trigger event, and demanded the prosecution of the conspirators, history might have unfolded in a different and more positive direction.

Fast-forward half a century: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Obama is currently taking heat from today's version of Lemnitzer -- a nasty little man named Richard Cheney.

Since the FBI cleared Osama Bin Laden,
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
Cheney has become the leading suspect in the 9/11 attacks. Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11, the first 9/11 truth book published by a top-shelf American university press, shows, by way of meticulous scholarship, that the 9/11 Commission Report systematically distorted its findings in order to conceal evidence suggestive of Cheney's complicity; and that Cheney has, since the 1970s, been at the heart of a secret government that has been undermining American democratic institutions and carefully preparing for the State of Emergency that was declared on 9/11 and never rescinded.

Cheney, the top suspect in the 9/11 crimes against humanity, has a disturbing habit of threatening to commit even bigger crimes. In the final phase of the 2004 presidential election, you may recall, Cheney announced that if John Kerry won, the U.S. would be in danger of another, bigger 9/11. Ironically, the satirical newspaper The Onion ("Cheney Vows To Attack U.S. If Kerry Elected"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30742 )
was the only American newspaper that got it right.

And now Cheney is predicting (threatening?) more catastrophic terrorism. In an article headlined "Cheney warns of new attacks," we learn: "Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a 'high probability' that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed."

As long as Dick Cheney is on the loose, and the rogue network responsible for 9/11 is still at large, there will indeed be a "high probability" of another massive false-flag attack. Such an attack could, as Tommy Franks predicted, lead to martial law, with the President and Congress sidelined in favor of the secret government of military and intelligence hardliners that Peter Dale Scott describes in The Road to 9/11
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peter+dale+scott+road+to+9%2F11&btnG=Search .

What makes this even more likely is the dispute between Obama and his top military chiefs about the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. One of my favorite radio guests, Dave Lindorff, recently published a warning headlined "Generals' Revolt Threatens Obama Presidency."
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/194
According to Lindorff, the Pentagon pushback against a quick Iraq withdrawal represents a "dangerous act of insubordination" that could doom Obama's presidency. The best way to nip the military hardliners' revolt in the bud, as Lindorff advocates, would be to prosecute former Bush Administration officials and top military commanders for war crimes, including the supreme war crime of aggression as well as the act of mass murder on 9/11 that triggered the aggression.

Alongside the foreign-policy pushback by military hardliners and Cheniacs, Obama is facing a wave of deceptive attacks by Republicans out to make political hay from the economic collapse they created with their insanely expensive, criminal wars. Since the Democrats are in power, they are in a position to be blamed for the coming years of continuously unfolding economic doom. Obama, who was elected on a platform of "hope" for a "change" in the terrible economic situation, will not be able to fulfill his implicit promises, and the Democrats will be massacred in the 2010 midterm elections--assuming that those elections have not been cancelled due to martial law--unless they expose and prosecute the worst crimes of the Bush Administration.

For their own survival--political and perhaps even physical--Obama and the Democrats must re-open the 9/11 investigation,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-rossi/obama-reopen-the-911-inve_b_165849.html
instigate war crimes tribunals, and prosecute the Bush Administration war criminals.

Kevin Barrett
~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GracchusBabeuf]

Someone may have already pointed this out, but the US government would like 9/11 conspiracy theories to be believed by the general population, because this would increase the fear of the power and might of the US government. If the US government could actually do this to their people, imagine how awesome their power must be! This is the kind of thinking that they want to encourage.

In reality, the government is scared out of their wits of the awesome power of the people and this is one of the ways that allows them to hold us down.

[ckaihatsu]

Someone may have already pointed this out, but the US government would like 9/11 conspiracy theories to be believed by the general population, because this would increase the fear of the power and might of the US government. If the US government could actually do this to their people, imagine how awesome their power must be! This is the kind of thinking that they want to encourage.

In reality, the government is scared out of their wits of the awesome power of the people and this is one of the ways that allows them to hold us down.


This is a supposition, or a particular take, or spin-off. You're advancing a hypothesis and asking for followers, basically, for your particular line of reasoning.

I think we both know that in the political arena -- the domain to which you're forwarding this hypothesis -- the U.S. got *plenty* of political mileage, * no matter the perpetrators *, whipping up imperialist jingoism and immediately invading Afghanistan, and then later, Iraq.

My only difference with the revolutionary left -- in fact, my *only* disagreement *ever* with the revolutionary left -- is about the facts of the *day itself*. The details may not be needed from a political point of view, but I think they're still important for historical reasons.


Chris




--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[ibn Bruce]

I honestly think its immaterial. The oppression that gave Al Qa'eda justification to commit such an act was real.

I believe that there is more than enough scary stuff in the systems that surround us, without us creating conspiratorial theories of shadows in the dark. So many of the people I know that believe such theories are happy to accept them, yet oh so hesitant to accept the realities of the oppressive nature of world systems of power. In that it is possible that such ideas serve Capitalism more than harming it. If we believe that the US government did it as justification, it removes any impetus people might have to look into why groups like Al Qa'eda would want to do such things.


In terms of consequences, the United States provides a training ground for Saudi 'Mujahideen' in Afghanistan. They fund the Saudi State, channelling money through them into the Wahhabist movement, itself virulently anti-everything. They aid Egypt and Jordan in torturing and imprisoning the formerly fairly harmless Salafist revolutionary movement, prompting Sayyid Qutb to pen the justification for Al Qa'eda's ideas of Jihad.. then they act suprised when it turns around and bites them, its fine as long as the terrorism happens to other people I guess.


No doubt Zarqawi is annoyed at all these people taking the credit away from him :P

[ckaihatsu]

I honestly think its immaterial. The oppression that gave Al Qa'eda justification to commit such an act was real.





Al-Qaeda has allegedly[7] attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda



I believe that there is more than enough scary stuff in the systems that surround us, without us creating conspiratorial theories of shadows in the dark. So many of the people I know that believe such theories are happy to accept them, yet oh so hesitant to accept the realities of the oppressive nature of world systems of power. In that it is possible that such ideas serve Capitalism more than harming it. If we believe that the US government did it as justification, it removes any impetus people might have to look into why groups like Al Qa'eda would want to do such things.


Accepting the official, White House storyline that "Al Qaeda did it" doesn't help things, either. Again, from a working-class point of view, it *doesn't matter* who the perpetrator was, because *nothing* has improved for working people (wages, etc.) as a result of 9-11 or since. Virtually all wars are the settling of bourgeois (ruling class) disputes while the shrapnel rains down on all of us.





Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent.

In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.[56]

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan.

On April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.[57] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.[58]



In terms of consequences, the United States provides a training ground for Saudi 'Mujahideen' in Afghanistan. They fund the Saudi State, channelling money through them into the Wahhabist movement, itself virulently anti-everything. They aid Egypt and Jordan in torturing and imprisoning the formerly fairly harmless Salafist revolutionary movement, prompting Sayyid Qutb to pen the justification for Al Qa'eda's ideas of Jihad.. then they act suprised when it turns around and bites them, its fine as long as the terrorism happens to other people I guess.

No doubt Zarqawi is annoyed at all these people taking the credit away from him :P


Yeah, well this pattern happens over and over -- the U.S. has its flunkies on the CIA payroll all over the world, and everything works until it doesn't. Then the U.S. has to throw an official shit-fit and whip everyone into a hysteria in order to demonize the former proteges, now renegades, who learned too much and went freelance. Business is all the same, you know....

[Louise Michel]

The truth is we don't know and will never know. There's plenty of circumstancial evidence that just doesn't add up - failure to intercept the planes, the collapse of the twin towers (some engineers support the "pancake down" theory others oppose it) and so on but, like the Kennedy assasination, the truth is buried beneath a pile of conspiracy theories, official reports and You Tube videos.

There is though a real sense in which the truth here is very important. Many Americans dismiss the conspiracy theories out of hand because the idea that people in power (the state and big business) would sacrifice hundreds of Americans on American soil in order to further their political agenda is just too hard to think about.

The truth here is that people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger and the rest are perfectly capable of doing just that and more. And, as a footnote, it's interesting that whilst Obama is closing down Guantanamo it seems he will not be prosecuting anyone involved in authorising or carrying out torture - he's obviously wary of poking a very poisonous spider with a stick.

[ibn Bruce]

Yeah, well this pattern happens over and over -- the U.S. has its flunkies on the CIA payroll all over the world, and everything works until it doesn't. Then the U.S. has to throw an official shit-fit and whip everyone into a hysteria in order to demonize the former proteges, now renegades, who learned too much and went freelance. Business is all the same, you know....

Total agreement lol. I don't know if you misread what I said and are disagreeing, or simply clarifying :S

I will assume the latter :D

[Dr.Claw]

What really ] happened on that day? I don't know. There is some pretty convincing evidence that it was an inside job,but will we ever know for sure? probably not. All we can do is stay vigilant.

[ellipsis]

I roomed with a bloke in university who was nicked name 9/11 conspiracy theory matt. He opened my eyes to a lot of shit that blew my mind. now i am not sure what to believe.

[ckaihatsu]

[9/11 Truth Portland] Developments

There's been some developments in the battles to restore Civil, Constitutional and Human Rights in the US recently, especially through the Courts.

Here's a summary and update of a Court case that will have a tremendous impact on the illegal detention and torture system that was put into place by the previous US Governent. I feel a great admiration and gratitude for the progressive and radical lawyers who have been fighting against US institutional insanity and secret government from Day 1, right after the US-engineered September 11 strikes that were used as the pretext for subsequent freezing up of the Constitution and global Imperial expansion.

Petros
______

Lawyers ask Supreme Court to rule in terror case
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer Tue Mar 3, 7:07 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Lawyers for suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali al-Marri asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule whether a president can indefinitely detain terror suspects in the United States.

The Obama administration last week sought to dismiss al-Marri's case before the Supreme Court, shortly after prosecutors unsealed a criminal indictment charging him with providing material support to terrorists.

Al-Marri has been held for more than five years in a military brig in Charleston, S.C., after President George W. Bush declared him an enemy combatant. His lawyers have challenged the president's authority to detain — without charge — people legally in the United States.

The Obama administration has asked the justices to render that challenge moot and leave the issue unresolved because al-Marri is headed to a civilian courtroom.

Al-Marri's lawyers filed papers to the Supreme Court late Tuesday asking the justices to keep the case alive because the government "has not renounced the legal authority under which al-Marri was designated and detained as an 'enemy combatant' and has made no commitment that al-Marri will not be re-designated and re-detained as an 'enemy combatant' in the future."

Al-Marri was the only person being held inside the U.S. without being charged, the administration said in court papers, and President Barack Obama "has ordered a comprehensive review of all military detention policies worldwide."

The transfer signals that Obama is likely to handle accused terrorists in a significantly different way from the Bush administration's aggressive use of preventive detention.

Still, rather than foreclose the use of presidential power or risk an unfavorable court decision that might bind Obama or a successor, acting Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler told the court, there is no "certainty as to whether, or in what circumstances" the issue will arise again.

Al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Tuesday the court should "make clear that there is no legal authority for the president to deprive individuals living in the United States of their most basic constitutional rights by declaring them 'enemy combatants.'"

Prosecutors plan to transfer al-Marri to Peoria, Ill., to face trial in a civilian court on a charge of providing material support to al-Qaida and a related conspiracy count. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years each.

From:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_go_su_co/enemy_combatant_1/print
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~

__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
MARKETPLACE
From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
Yahoo! Groups
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity

Visit Your Group
New web site?

Drive traffic now.

Get your business

on Yahoo! search.
Yahoo! Groups

Do More For Dogs Group

Join a group of dog owners

who do more.
Support Group

Lose lbs together

Share your weight-

loss successes.
.

__,_._,___

[Bilbo Baggins]

All one has to do is look at video of Dubya sitting in the Florida classroom staring off stupidly for five full minutes after being officially informed of the attacks that he let it happen.

Too much was at stake for him and the plans for international armed robbery(Iraq oil, etc.) of his cronys.

[oujiQualm]

The Conspiracy theory Paranoid Style of American Politics (released Quite Coincidentally a month before the Warren Commision--yes a coincidence in my view) pary line is aimed at the left like a precision laser.

Yes we do have historical examples of CIA funded """""left"""""" publications aimed with the purpose of splitting the left and or creating firewalls that divide left-liberal from further left. SEE THE ALL IMPORTANT EXAMPLE OF ENCOUNTER MAGAZINE THE LEFT LIBERAL MAG FUNDED BY THE CIA THAT WAS AIMED AT LEFT LIBERALS PROFESSOR TYPES IN US AND ENGLAND DURING THE COLD WAR.

In many ways the cow-catcher word conspiracy theory is used in this manner, especially in the US Monastaries known as academia. One poster mentioned that they still believe in Lone Nutism in JFK assassination. Well look at he academic press. Try to find a Lone Nut view published in the academic press in the last ten years.

at the magazine level of consciousness however (see The nation , counterpunch) there is still a lot of disinformation going on. In my opinion -- given after years and years of reading this gatekeeping lefter than thou but for RIGHTEST ENDS publications-- these are likely examples of left-gatekeeping.)

See for example the way so many on the Left dispute the HISTORICAL FACT that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam. You will NEVER EVER READ REVIEWS OF THESE BOOKS IN THE NATION MAGAZINE. Because shows like this and Democracy Now are aimed at the left and designed to "prove" JFK was just another cold warrior-- party true and partly DEFINITELY NOT TRUE but only the first part allowed on DN.

It never fails that those who dismiss glibly so much by saying two words conspiracy theory -- they are the ones who know least about the CIA, and even basic realities of twentieth century US history. Almost always they are groovy social historians which was pushed in US academia starting in 1980s. Nothing wrong with social history except this-- I have notices so many of the young have SUBSTITUTED THIS WITH EVEN THE MOST BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF POLITICAL--INTELLIGENCE--COMMUNICATIONS HISTORY. This is not a good trade. It leads to cowcatcher phrases like conpspiracy thoery which mean everything and nothing.

[Dr.Claw]

I guess I'd say that there is definitely a motive for this type of inside job being that it gives the government the excuse to invade people's privacy and keep an eye on them using Mcarthyite tactics, and there is alot of convincing evidence but I'm not sure and I dont think anyone will ever know.

[oujiQualm]

What does Know mean? This question is not addressed only at the last poster, but rather everyone, and also addressed at the meaning of the phrase We Will Never Know.

What does Know mean in this context?

Not trying to be glib here, working towards some point....I hope.

To shift examples about a SO CALLED """""""""""Conspiracy Theory""""""""""" it is often said at this point that we will "never Know" what Institutions killed and helped cover up the conspiracy of JFK.

I note that so many who only seven years or so ago were screaming lone nut, are now quietly switching to the well never know, er maybe there was a conspiracy but it was because kennedys anti-castro jihad etc" Eg Alexander Cockburn.

The reason for this shift is not hormones. It is because there has been an incredible amount of new evidence since 1993 Assasssination Records Review Board created by Congress has forced more than amillion new records out in the open. Takes a while to precess more than a million!

The fact is that we now CAN Know though it has become a fall back position by professional watter-muddiers( yes they do exist, in fact it is more of what the CIA does than anything else , extreme documentation available upon request or eventually without it) that "well neve know" Now true it might take MORE time and effort to know than to know the outcome of the St Louis Cardinals baseball game. And theres the rub; disinformation artists know that they can lose a huge percentage of people here who will never read two books or more.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT CANNOT BE KNOWN OR EVEN THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN INCREDIBLE PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS KNOWING.

What I am getting at here is the difference between "knowning" and knowing WITH OTHERS ie knowing with a critical mas of others so that that "knowing" can become actionable.

Now those on the left who are so readily provided with examples of JFK was just another COld Warrior So ITS NOT WORTH KNOWING" have been doing the wave with their eyebrows for some time know repeating the phrase Conspiracy Thoerist with some other unorthodox adjectives.

But the issue is not JFK. Personally I would probably find the guy an A-hole and to some extent at least a mass murderer. Yet that is not at all the point.

The issue is what INCREDIBLE BABIES will be thrown out with the bathwater when one just says its not worth looking into. I intend to list and analyze these babies as soon as possible. The JFK assassination is NOT about JFK. It is the elbow of the Cold War.

Again I ask What do we mean by Know. Knowing in isolation or knowing in a group that can in SOME WAYS (these could be very very different ways -- as I will soon show I hope-- become actionable SOCIALLY MEDIATED intelligence.

[communick]

9/11 was a vast conspiracy intended to turn a section of the left into amateur structural engineers.

[ckaihatsu]

9/11 was a vast conspiracy intended to turn a section of the left into amateur structural engineers.


x D


Hahahahaha...! Who will be left to take care of the humanities???


: D