Press for truth

[T_R]

Crusher, it's simply impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who feels that providing piles of absurdly referenced quotes is the way to have a discussion.

Come back with some materials not sourced from 'alternative' websites and let's keep going. Until then, have fun.

[Sasha]

FWIW I think the whole collapsing of Building 7 was pretty strange..

I think we will never know the true answer to some aspects of what happened that day..

[Shadow Boxer]

The reason it looks like a controlled demolition is the the structural failure occured at the same place. i.e. the joins in the central steel superstructure failed.

Well yes, kind of. The way the buildings fell (all 3 of them) was consistent with an everyday controlled demolition. For a fire to achieve the same result it would of had to of burnt equally all around the building, be signifigantly hotter than it was, and burnt for much longer than it did.

For example of what fire does:

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases -- one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium, and thus had the hollowness that the 9-11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. 10

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... fires.html

This can happen deliberately with explosives or they can be progressively weakened due to fire, from the outside it would look the same.

Nah, fire looks like fire. Explosions look like explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRZ0ZUQU-3U

See the explosions?

Not really, because the superstructue is made of steel the heat from the fire is radiated through the steel spine weakening all the joints, when the top ones failed due to being closer to the fire the concrete floor "pancacked" into the floor below it, forcing that one to fail and putting twice the weight on the next floor..and so on.

Controlled demolitions are not really explosions as you imagine them in the movies, rather they are cutting charges placed at points of structural weakness in order to achieve the pancake effect.

Correct, you can see the effect of the diagonal 'cutting charges' in this photo, from the rubble of one of the towers.



This is what the controlled demolition of a skyscraper looks like, see how it looks EXACTLY the same as the WTCs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=e ... 9sJ1bMR6VQ

No it doesn't, one collapses from the top and one from the bottom.

[Nick]

Crusher, you've used the same picture from the same pillar on 4 different occasions to prove all the supports had a diagonal cut through them... if you can find me one... just one other photo of a support beam broken in that manner ill considering re assessing my stance... well i wont but anyways...

[Crusher]

My cynicism of the American government and government in general knows no bounds, except for the fact that in this particular case, they didn't do it.

You're no different to the religious zealots that you complain about in religious discussions, because you have your special, flawed, retarded theory that cannot be swayed by reason, logic or weight of evidence.

Its not that I have an agenda, or that I am supportive of America, or even that I believe government's aren't capable of those kinds of atrocities. I just think you're an idiot because you believe in what is patently false.

Mate take a step back and take a long look at the whole situation, without prejudice. Come to your own conclusions based on rational thinking and analysis of what happened that day. It is nothing to do with 'being supportive of America' or the opposite, just look at the situation objectively, everything else can come later.

[Rodman]

You should really consider going to University one day Crusher.

Maybe then you'll grasp the concept of what is and isn't a reliable source and how to form a cogent argument.

[Crusher]

Crusher, it's simply impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who feels that providing piles of absurdly referenced quotes is the way to have a discussion.

It is impossible to debate with someone who refuses to actually deal with the subject at hand and insists on regurgitating the same spoon fed propaganda. Instead of trying to rubbish anyone that raises questions and demands answers, try answering some of those questions. If my point of view is so obviously flawed as you think, it shouldn't be that hard.

Come back with some materials not sourced from 'alternative' websites and let's keep going. Until then, have fun.

Remember what I told you last time?

Anyway, there's nothing that I can say that will convince you and I won't revisit this thread, so please feel free to continue your Aspergoid rantings without my interference or continued interest.

Thats ok, I wouldn't want to force my opinion on anyone anyway. May I suggest that if you feel this way that you probably shouldn't of trolled the thread in the first place. If you wish to debate the issue I am more than happy to, if not, please hit your back button now, and don't come back.

...yet you are back in this thread... to tell me that your not coming back into the thread again? Let's see if you can stick to it this time.

[Crusher]

You should really consider going to University one day Crusher.

Maybe then you'll grasp the concept of what is and isn't a reliable source and how to form a cogent argument.

That just about sums your attitude up, now doesn't it.

[Crusher]

No it doesn't, one collapses from the top and one from the bottom.

Incorrect, they both have the bottom supports taken out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY3Fc

...but I guess the fire fighters that actually went inside the towers would have no idea, right?

[Crusher]

Crusher, you've used the same picture from the same pillar on 4 different occasions to prove all the supports had a diagonal cut through them... if you can find me one... just one other photo of a support beam broken in that manner ill considering re assessing my stance... well i wont but anyways...

[Rodman]

You should really consider going to University one day Crusher.

Maybe then you'll grasp the concept of what is and isn't a reliable source and how to form a cogent argument.

That just about sums your attitude up, now doesn't it.

Considering that you base your arguments on websites that lack any authority and could have been put up by mental patients, then yes it does.

T_R raised an excellent point in regards to your sources. Maybe you should stop being so defensive and listen to people who actually know more than you do.

You keep telling everyone to think for themselves and to not be so close-minded, yet to refuse to accept any of the well-formed arguments by people who I know for a fact are more educated than you on the matter. You back up your claims not with the support of experts but with random quotes from a miscellany of websites including wikipedia, which would get you laughed off of any university campus.

I've said before that I commend your anti-establishment stance and refusal to blindly accept versions of events espoused by mainstream media (perhaps one day you'll learn that a reputable source is not necessarily a part of the mainstream. Noam Chomsky for example is widely considered to be the world's most influential public intellectual and he is anything but an agent of the establishment), but the sooner you drop your pig-headed arrogance the more likely that anyone but the lunatic fringe (Bay56, Question etc) buys what you're selling.

[Crusher]

You should really consider going to University one day Crusher.

Maybe then you'll grasp the concept of what is and isn't a reliable source and how to form a cogent argument.

That just about sums your attitude up, now doesn't it.

Considering that you base your arguments on websites that lack any authority and could have been put up by mental patients, then yes it does.

T_R raised an excellent point in regards to your sources. Maybe you should stop being so defensive and listen to people who actually know more than you do.

You keep telling everyone to think for themselves and to not be so close-minded, yet to refuse to accept any of the well-formed arguments by people who I know for a fact are more educated than you on the matter. You back up your claims not with the support of experts but with random quotes from a miscellany of websites including wikipedia, which would get you laughed off of any university campus.

I've said before that I commend your anti-establishment stance and refusal to blindly accept versions of events espoused by mainstream media (perhaps one day you'll learn that a reputable source is not necessarily a part of the mainstream. Noam Chomsky for example is widely considered to be the world's most influential public intellectual and he is anything but an agent of the establishment), but the sooner you drop your pig-headed arrogance the more likely that anyone but the lunatic fringe (Bay56, Question etc) buys what you're selling.

Wow, what an arrogant fool you are.

[Nick]

Crusher, you've used the same picture from the same pillar on 4 different occasions to prove all the supports had a diagonal cut through them... if you can find me one... just one other photo of a support beam broken in that manner ill considering re assessing my stance... well i wont but anyways...

None of those look like the clean verticle cuts your talking about, in fact they look to me like beams that have snapped under immense pressure... but then again, i like you dont have any idea on the topic of building collapses, so im really just talking out my ****

[Inactive]

You should really consider going to University one day Crusher.

Maybe then you'll grasp the concept of what is and isn't a reliable source and how to form a cogent argument.

That just about sums your attitude up, now doesn't it.

Considering that you base your arguments on websites that lack any authority and could have been put up by mental patients, then yes it does.

T_R raised an excellent point in regards to your sources. Maybe you should stop being so defensive and listen to people who actually know more than you do.

You keep telling everyone to think for themselves and to not be so close-minded, yet to refuse to accept any of the well-formed arguments by people who I know for a fact are more educated than you on the matter. You back up your claims not with the support of experts but with random quotes from a miscellany of websites including wikipedia, which would get you laughed off of any university campus.

I've said before that I commend your anti-establishment stance and refusal to blindly accept versions of events espoused by mainstream media (perhaps one day you'll learn that a reputable source is not necessarily a part of the mainstream. Noam Chomsky for example is widely considered to be the world's most influential public intellectual and he is anything but an agent of the establishment), but the sooner you drop your pig-headed arrogance the more likely that anyone but the lunatic fringe (Bay56, Question etc) buys what you're selling.

up yours Nasty man

[Rodman]

You should really consider going to University one day Crusher.

Maybe then you'll grasp the concept of what is and isn't a reliable source and how to form a cogent argument.

That just about sums your attitude up, now doesn't it.

Considering that you base your arguments on websites that lack any authority and could have been put up by mental patients, then yes it does.

T_R raised an excellent point in regards to your sources. Maybe you should stop being so defensive and listen to people who actually know more than you do.

You keep telling everyone to think for themselves and to not be so close-minded, yet to refuse to accept any of the well-formed arguments by people who I know for a fact are more educated than you on the matter. You back up your claims not with the support of experts but with random quotes from a miscellany of websites including wikipedia, which would get you laughed off of any university campus.

I've said before that I commend your anti-establishment stance and refusal to blindly accept versions of events espoused by mainstream media (perhaps one day you'll learn that a reputable source is not necessarily a part of the mainstream. Noam Chomsky for example is widely considered to be the world's most influential public intellectual and he is anything but an agent of the establishment), but the sooner you drop your pig-headed arrogance the more likely that anyone but the lunatic fringe (Bay56, Question etc) buys what you're selling.

Wow, what an arrogant fool you are.

I agree that I'm arrogant.

But I think you've got the fool part covered all on your lonesome Crusher my boy.

[Crusher]

But I think you've got the fool part covered all on your lonesome Crusher my boy.

Hey, I'm not the one who believes that 19 suicide hijackers lead by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan managed to take over 4 jets armed with box cutters and fly them into the WTCs, and the Pentagon (HQ of the department of defense) without anyone so much as lifting a pinky to stop them...

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the Taliban didn't give Osama up, rather than having their country completely obliterated to protect him?


Taliban Won't Turn Over Bin Laden

(CBS) Without evidence, Afghanistan's Taliban rulers will not hand over Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan said Friday.

The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No." But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."

He also said he had no information on bin Laden's current whereabouts.

At a news conference in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador said he was sorry that people had died in the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week, but appealed to the United States not to endanger innocent people in a military retaliation.

"Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence."

Asked if he was ready to hand bin Laden over, he snapped, "No."

He also called for an investigation by the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference into the attacks, and criticized President Bush's remarks made in a speech late Thursday.

Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps. These demands are not open to discussion, Mr. Bush said. "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

The Taliban envoy added that his government was ready if necessary to defend the country against American attack.

"If they want to show their might, we are ready and we will never surrender before might and force," Zaeef said. "According to Islam, the blood of anyone who spies for the enemy or sympathizes with it in time of war must be shed."

Zaeef's comments Friday came a day after Afghanistan's Islamic clerics urged bin Laden to leave the country on his own accord.

The clerics' statement, issued at the end of a two-day meeting of the Ulema, or council of religious leaders, set no deadline for bin Laden to depart and included a warning of a jihad, or holy war, against the United States if its forces attacked this impoverished country.

The Taliban, a devoutly Muslim religious militia that controls about 95 percent of the country, have allowed bin Laden to live in Afghanistan ever since the government of Sudan pressured him to leave.

The Taliban leadership say they are able to convey information to bin Laden through radio communication with Taliban security personnel who travel with him.

In the Afghan capital Kabul, however, wary Afghans piled belongings on carts and trucks and left the Afghan capital for fear of U.S. air strikes.

Mohammed Hussein and his family of seven loaded their belongings into a pickup truck and headed south to join relatives in Logar province south of Kabul.

"Out of 20 homes on our street most of the families have left," said Mohammed Hussein as he piled his wife and six children into a pickup truck to join relatives in a province south of Kabul. "Anyone who can is leaving."

Meantime, fierce fighting raged in northern Afghanistan on Friday as Taliban troops battled opposition forces seeking revenge for the assassination of their leader while taking advantage of threats of U.S. strikes.

continued...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/ ... 0852.shtml


Here is 40 to doubt the official 911 story...

THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

... An outline in simple talking points ...


We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process--if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.


THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE and THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 5231.story


THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?


GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?


HISTORY

38) "Al-CIA-da?"
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.


REASON NUMBER 41:
RELATED MOVEMENTS AND PARALLEL ISSUES

Ground Zero aftermath movements:
- Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (wtceo.org)
- "Radio Silence" (radiosilencefdny.com)
- Skyscraper Safety (http://www.skyscrapersafety.org).

Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (BlackBoxVoting.org)

Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)

Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, "The War at Home")

Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten - May 9, 2008!)

Whether you call it "Globalization" or "The New World Order" - An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.

GOING FORWARD ...

"But an inside job would involve thousands of people! How could they keep a secret?" Counter-arguments, red herrings, speculations and false information.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 1155307646

[Crusher]

Crusher, you've used the same picture from the same pillar on 4 different occasions to prove all the supports had a diagonal cut through them... if you can find me one... just one other photo of a support beam broken in that manner ill considering re assessing my stance... well i wont but anyways...

None of those look like the clean verticle cuts your talking about, in fact they look to me like beams that have snapped under immense pressure...

Look, I even circled the cuts for you...



...and the cuts aren't vertical, they are diagonal which is consistent with building demolition charges.

...but then again, i like you dont have any idea on the topic of building collapses, so im really just talking out my ****

I don't claim to be an authority on building collapses either, however my dad (who as I have said before is a well known Canberra architect, Tom Kean - James Court, Manuka Plaza and Thunder and Lightening in Thredbo is some of his work) is. I am going to trust someone who has knowledge of such things, over say someone who is (in your own words) "really just talking out my ****."

[Rodman]

But I think you've got the fool part covered all on your lonesome Crusher my boy.

Hey, I'm not the one who believes that 19 suicide hijackers lead by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan managed to take over 4 jets armed with box cutters and fly them into the WTCs, and the Pentagon (HQ of the department of defense) without anyone so much as lifting a pinky to stop them...

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the Taliban didn't give Osama up, rather than having their country completely obliterated to protect him?

Because Mullah Muhammad Omar and bin Laden are ideological brothers who fought the Russian invasion together and forged an extremely close relationship. When bin Laden was kicked out of Egypt and the Sudan it was the Taliban that gave him sanctuary, and as you point out the Americans never formally presented any evidence to any world court or to Afghanistan. However, the reason is not because bin Laden was not responsible - it's because America has long considered itself above International Law and we all know that the Bush regime wanted to launch a military operation in the Middle East. They were able to manipulate the facts to draw Iraq into the equation and the whole 'War on Terror' rubric is based on going after terrorists through military means, hence a protracted series of negotiations between America and a third-world country regarding a terror attack that killed thousands of US citizens is the stuff of pure fantasy.

[Crusher]

Because Mullah Muhammad Omar and bin Laden are ideological brothers who fought the Russian invasion together and forged an extremely close relationship. When bin Laden was kicked out of Egypt and the Sudan it was the Taliban that gave him sanctuary, and as you point out the Americans never formally presented any evidence to any world court or to Afghanistan. However, the reason is not because bin Laden was not responsible - it's because America has long considered itself above International Law and we all know that the Bush regime wanted to launch a military operation in the Middle East. They were able to manipulate the facts to draw Iraq into the equation and the whole 'War on Terror' rubric is based on going after terrorists through military means, hence a protracted series of negotiations between America and a third-world country regarding a terror attack that killed thousands of US citizens is the stuff of pure fantasy.

I dunno about you sometimes mate, posts like this one give me the idea you are indeed rather intelligent, but then you go and ruin it all with some of your other... more egotistical postings. Of course the US didn't care what the Taliban said, or even if they had a legitimate point. That is kinda the point here...

[Nick]

Crusher, you've used the same picture from the same pillar on 4 different occasions to prove all the supports had a diagonal cut through them... if you can find me one... just one other photo of a support beam broken in that manner ill considering re assessing my stance... well i wont but anyways...

None of those look like the clean verticle cuts your talking about, in fact they look to me like beams that have snapped under immense pressure...

Look, I even circled the cuts for you...



...and the cuts aren't vertical, they are diagonal which is consistent with building demolition charges.

...but then again, i like you dont have any idea on the topic of building collapses, so im really just talking out my ****

I don't claim to be an authority on building collapses either, however my dad (who as I have said before is a well known Canberra architect, Tom Kean - James Court, Manuka Plaza and Thunder and Lightening in Thredbo is some of his work) is. I am going to trust someone who has knowledge of such things, over say someone who is (in your own words) "really just talking out my ****."

I'll take the words of the experts who have debunked your conspiracy thoery over you're old mans, no offence

[Rodman]

Because Mullah Muhammad Omar and bin Laden are ideological brothers who fought the Russian invasion together and forged an extremely close relationship. When bin Laden was kicked out of Egypt and the Sudan it was the Taliban that gave him sanctuary, and as you point out the Americans never formally presented any evidence to any world court or to Afghanistan. However, the reason is not because bin Laden was not responsible - it's because America has long considered itself above International Law and we all know that the Bush regime wanted to launch a military operation in the Middle East. They were able to manipulate the facts to draw Iraq into the equation and the whole 'War on Terror' rubric is based on going after terrorists through military means, hence a protracted series of negotiations between America and a third-world country regarding a terror attack that killed thousands of US citizens is the stuff of pure fantasy.

I dunno about you sometimes mate, posts like this one give me the idea you are indeed rather intelligent, but then you go and ruin it all with some of your other... more egotistical postings. Of course the US didn't care what the Taliban said, or even if they had a legitimate point. That is kinda the point here...

I believe I am rather intelligent, and I've been telling you for a while now that this is one subject that I have been studying for quite some time and feel like I probably know a fair bit more than your average punter.

I'm not just having a go at you because I take exception to your incessant of Todd Carney you know...

(I can't believe I originally wrote 'acceptation' instead of exception... that's what recovering from a BIG weekend topped off with a festival will do to you)

[Crusher]

I'm not just having a go at you because I take acceptation to your incessant of Todd Carney you know...

I have my doubts on that one

[Shadow Boxer]

On a more positive note, James Court is a fine hotel, we often have international visitors for work and they always stay there. These guys are seasoned travellers and they are always really impressed

[Northern Raider]

I've only just discoverd this thread. Its one of the best reads I've had on the GH in ages!



Can't believe it has eluded me for 6 weeks.

[Crusher]

On a more positive note, James Court is a fine hotel, we often have international visitors for work and they always stay there. These guys are seasoned travellers and they are always really impressed

On behalf of my dad, thanks

[Crusher]

Guantanamo 'Briton' Arrives Back In UK

A British resident held at Guantanamo Bay for more than four years says his experience was worse than his "darkest nightmares".


Binyam Mohamed emerges from a plane at RAF Northolt

Binyam Mohamed has arrived back in Britain after he was cleared for release from the controversial military base in Cuba.

An aircraft carrying Mr Mohamed landed at RAF Northolt in northwest London just after 1pm.

Upon his arrival he was detained under the Terrorism Act and can be held for up to nine hours.

A forensic medical examiner determined he was fit enough to be questioned by officials.

"He will have access to a solicitor, as is normal practice," a spokesman for Scotland Yard said.

"Police are conducting investigations into his case. Their inquiries are being carried out, as they must be, strictly in accordance with UK law."


Guantanamo Bay

In a statement read to the media in central London, Mr Mohamed said: "I hope you will understand that after everything I have been through I am neither physically nor mentally capable of facing the media on the moment of my arrival back to Britain.

"I have been through an experience that I never thought to encounter in my darkest nightmares.

"Before this ordeal, torture was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim.

"It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways - all orchestrated by the United States government."

Ethiopian-born Mr Mohamed, 30, has been held at Guantanamo Bay since September 2004.

He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 after the US launched its war on terror.

Mr Mohamed claims he was secretly flown to Morocco and tortured before being moved to Afghanistan and then Cuba.

He also alleges he was tortured into falsely confessing to terrorist activities and claims MI5 officers were complicit in his abuse.

"I have to say, more in sadness than in anger, that many have been complicit in my own horrors over the past seven years," Mr Mohamed said in his statement.

"For myself, the very worst moment came when I realised in Morocco that the people who were torturing me were receiving questions and materials from British intelligence.

"I had met with British intelligence in Pakistan. I had been open with them. Yet the very people who I had hoped would come to my rescue, I later realised, had allied themselves with my abusers.

"I am not asking for vengeance; only that the truth should be made known, so that nobody in the future should have to endure what I have endured."

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said he was pleased Mr Mohamed was returning to the UK.

"His release and return from Guantanamo Bay is the result of a number of years of very hard work by officials with him and with his (legal) team," he said.

"Obviously the release of Binyam Mohamed is the first release from Guantanamo Bay since the election of President (Barack) Obama.

"We very much welcome President Obama's commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and I see today's return of Binyam Mohamed as the first step towards that shared goal."


Mr Mohamed in London

Mr Mohamed went on a hunger strike for more than a month at the start of this year and was described by his legal team as "close to starvation".

A team of British officials who travelled to Guantanamo Bay earlier this month said he was well enough to travel back to the UK.

One of Mr Mohamed's lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith, director of legal charity Reprieve, said he "wants nothing more than to return to normal life in Britain".

Mr Miliband said last week that Mr Mohamed's return to Britain did not necessarily mean he will be able to stay here permanently.

Gordon Brown today declined to say whether Mr Mohamed would face any restrictions in the UK.

"What I can say is that at all times the security of the country will be protected," the Prime Minister said.

"Of course, we have got to look at the details of the arrangements, but at all times the security of the British people comes first."


"There is the horror story of a man being subjected to beatings, white noise, slashings, rendered, 'disapeared' and hanged upside down. It seems likely, much of this happened, it is proven some of it happened. What has yet to be proved is that the UK was complicit." -Tim Marshall, Sky News Foreign Affairs Editor

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... Back_To_UK

[Crusher]

I'll take the words of the experts who have debunked your conspiracy thoery over you're old mans, no offence

I wouldn't do that to fast, at least until you have seen 9/11 Mysteries. It completely debunks the debunking! Seriously, if you want the documentary to watch to explain how the towers blew up? Then this is the one. Unlike Zeitgeist and Press for Truth which mostly deal with why it happened, this video (and the other ace I am keeping up my sleeve...) deal with HOW it happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

[T_R]

Oh for the love of GOD!

Crusher! I confess! It was me! ME!

I did it!

I was working with the CIA, George Bush, a small band of Afghan partisans and rogue elements from the NAACP. I planted explosives, built a fake plane and dressed like a suspicious looking Jewish accounts executive. It was all about the oil.The oil, I tells ya!

I'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!

Please, can we all move on?

[Crusher]

Oh for the love of GOD!

Crusher! I confess! It was me! ME!

I did it!

I was working with the CIA, George Bush, a small band of Afghan partisans and rogue elements from the NAACP. I planted explosives, built a fake plane and dressed like a suspicious looking Jewish accounts executive. It was all about the oil.The oil, I tells ya!

I'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!

Please, can we all move on?

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

...I bet you don't though... prove me wrong!

[Northern Raider]

Oh for the love of GOD!

Crusher! I confess! It was me! ME!

I did it!

I was working with the CIA, George Bush, a small band of Afghan partisans and rogue elements from the NAACP. I planted explosives, built a fake plane and dressed like a suspicious looking Jewish accounts executive. It was all about the oil.The oil, I tells ya!

I'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!

Please, can we all move on?

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

...I bet you don't though... prove me wrong!

I watched it. Nice production but I ended up saying "*'s your point?” Its typical use of selective anecdotal evidence and speculation from ‘experts’ to try and cast doubt on an event. They have gone to great pains to try and make you believe that the buildings didn’t collapse from the impact of the planes and subsequent fire but they provided no alternative backed by any hard evidence.

Makes for interesting entertainment but not much more.

[Crusher]

Oh for the love of GOD!

Crusher! I confess! It was me! ME!

I did it!

I was working with the CIA, George Bush, a small band of Afghan partisans and rogue elements from the NAACP. I planted explosives, built a fake plane and dressed like a suspicious looking Jewish accounts executive. It was all about the oil.The oil, I tells ya!

I'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!

Please, can we all move on?

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

...I bet you don't though... prove me wrong!

I watched it. Nice production but I ended up saying "*'s your point?” Its typical use of selective anecdotal evidence and speculation from ‘experts’ to try and cast doubt on an event. They have gone to great pains to try and make you believe that the buildings didn’t collapse from the impact of the planes and subsequent fire but they provided no alternative backed by any hard evidence.

Makes for interesting entertainment but not much more.

They do, you just have to watch more than part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVcn84cyGiE - part 2

You can find the other parts in the user's channel who uploaded it...

http://www.youtube.com/user/merovinq911

[T_R]

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Yeah, you're right. And through your peddaling your little theories on a rugby league fan site for a regional team in a competition that no one of any significance has ever heard of, let alone will ever visit [No offence Greeneyed...it's a lovely site, really] , I expect the whole thing will be blown wide open, George Bush will be put up against the wall and shot, and Dick Cheney will be sentenced to community service at the DNC.

Sorry, but your sense of self-importance is perplexing at best.

[Northern Raider]

Oh for the love of GOD!

Crusher! I confess! It was me! ME!

I did it!

I was working with the CIA, George Bush, a small band of Afghan partisans and rogue elements from the NAACP. I planted explosives, built a fake plane and dressed like a suspicious looking Jewish accounts executive. It was all about the oil.The oil, I tells ya!

I'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!

Please, can we all move on?

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

...I bet you don't though... prove me wrong!

I watched it. Nice production but I ended up saying "*'s your point?” Its typical use of selective anecdotal evidence and speculation from ‘experts’ to try and cast doubt on an event. They have gone to great pains to try and make you believe that the buildings didn’t collapse from the impact of the planes and subsequent fire but they provided no alternative backed by any hard evidence.

Makes for interesting entertainment but not much more.

They do, you just have to watch more than part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVcn84cyGiE - part 2

You can find the other parts in the user's channel who uploaded it...

http://www.youtube.com/user/merovinq911

Gets me back to my original question. Is there a point to the whole thing?

[Crusher]

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Yeah, you're right. And through your peddaling your little theories on a rugby league fan site for a regional team in a competition that no one of any significance has ever heard of, let alone will ever visit [No offence Greeneyed...it's a lovely site, really] , I expect the whole thing will be blown wide open, George Bush will be put up against the wall and shot, and Dick Cheney will be sentenced to community service at the DNC.

Sorry, but your sense of self-importance is perplexing at best.

Careful, you are starting to show your ignorance. Firstly, to say something like "rugby league fan site for a regional team in a competition that no one of any significance has ever heard of" is not only disrespectful to this forum, but disrespectful to the club. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously.

Secondly, if you think that I am the only person who is aware of this you are severely mistaken. The more people that know about it, the greater chance (although unlikely in the near future at least) that the people you mention (and others) will be brought to justice.

You can keep living in your ignorant bliss if you like, but know this. Every day you do nothing more and more INNOCENT people are dying. Their blood is on your hands.

[Crusher]

Oh for the love of GOD!

Crusher! I confess! It was me! ME!

I did it!

I was working with the CIA, George Bush, a small band of Afghan partisans and rogue elements from the NAACP. I planted explosives, built a fake plane and dressed like a suspicious looking Jewish accounts executive. It was all about the oil.The oil, I tells ya!

I'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!

Please, can we all move on?

No, sorry, this is far to important.

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

...I bet you don't though... prove me wrong!

I watched it. Nice production but I ended up saying "*'s your point?” Its typical use of selective anecdotal evidence and speculation from ‘experts’ to try and cast doubt on an event. They have gone to great pains to try and make you believe that the buildings didn’t collapse from the impact of the planes and subsequent fire but they provided no alternative backed by any hard evidence.

Makes for interesting entertainment but not much more.

They do, you just have to watch more than part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVcn84cyGiE - part 2

You can find the other parts in the user's channel who uploaded it...

http://www.youtube.com/user/merovinq911

Gets me back to my original question. Is there a point to the whole thing?

Yes, the buildings were demolished. The video seeks to prove that. That is the point of the video.