9/11 Truth

[Mystic7]

These empirically verifiable data are what we know. We do not know who planted the explosives or why. All individuals are innocent until proven guilty and an extensive trial putting many key players on the stand would have to occur before we were able to even begin to put the pieces together for every single motive and event of that day. Also, see the thread in the philosophy forum for an analysis of the thermate evidence. We also know that Sibel Edmonds and at least a dozen other FBI whistleblowers have indicated that the FBI has been infiltrated by criminal elements who aided the 9/11 terrorists. Sibel Edmonds who claims to have documented evidence of this fact has been gagged by the highest authority - The Attorney General's Office, even after her claims were substantiated by a preliminary by the Justice Department. Since that time gags orders have been repeatedly placed on Edmonds, and even the U.S. Congress form hearing her testimony. What in the world are they hiding? Why is Congress allowing Executive Privilege to override congressional oversight? Ill outline the legal arguments if you cant see them. This appeal to executive privilege has also been used in the NSA spying scandal to exempt testimony and evidence. It has also been used in the Riggs Bank case where Bush's uncle was found to have allowed money laundering to two Saudi terrorists responsible for the 9/11 hijackings. Do you think it is suspicious that the brother of the President (who is already under fire for not going after the Saudi source of funding for the 9./11 terrorists), is now found guilty of laundering money to the 9/11 terrorists? There are hundreds of coincidences that nearly prove a conspiracy. They simply need more investigation before a full chronological picture of the events can emerge. I never said anything about remote controlled planes, missiles, fake cell phones, nor anything else you built up to knock down. Each of us who have actually admitted there are discrepancies in the official account have been sticking to the facts of what happened, and looking for the best possible explanation that accommodates them. We understand parsimony in scientific and logical investigation. ONE fact accommodates all of this evidence: "1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse” 2. Sounds of explosions (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters) 3. Observations of flashes 4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos 5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust 6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves 8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatestno resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave resistance 9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint 10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away 11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet 12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure. 13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate) 14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary)dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. found in slag, solidified molten metal, and 15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed” Taken from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Ill also add, basement explosions. And WTC7 as compared to a controlled demolition. Again, one fact can easily explain all of these occurrences, which are not explained by the official story. None of this even touching on the all of the facts surrounding the attempts by the U.S. government to cover-up everything from the 118 testimonies of explosions posted above, to ex-FBI agents who claim there are people in the FBI who are aided the terrorists, and are still doing so. Why did John Ashcroft place gag orders on Sibel Edmonds who claims to have evidence of FBI complicit in 9/11? Why did he also gag congress from even hearing her evidence when Congress had called her in to testify and present evidence? Why did the City of New York's government force the 911 Families to court 3 times before being forced to release the first responders testimony, which detailed explosions? None of these facts or questions have been explained or answered (but instead covered-up) by any official source. I wanted to make a thread that portrays the truth. Not a bias view. Neither will anyone anger, distract, ridicule, deceive, or spam irrelevant nonsense. You must address the evidence if you ever wish to respond properly. You may not categorize, create strawman arguments or use any kind of defamation in your response. Check 911 truth advice

[Mystic7]

THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY 1. AWOL Chain of Command 1. 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. 2. 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 1. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights. 2. 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. 3. 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 1. 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. 2. 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 & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS 8. What did officials know? How did they know it? 1. 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. 2. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th. 3. 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 1. 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. 2. 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 a 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 1. 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. 2. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks. 3. 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? 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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)? THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006 13. Who Is Osama Bin Ladin? 1. 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. 2. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dyalisis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)? 3. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape? 4. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data 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 1. 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. 2. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights). 3. 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. 4. 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 1. 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. 2. 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 3. 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 1. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush. 2. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact. 20. Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection 1. 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.") 2. 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. 3. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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." 3. 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 1. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org). 2. 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 1. Hush Money - Accepting victims' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation. 2. 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 1. 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.) 2. 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 1. 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. 2. 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 1. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed? 2. 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" 1. 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." 2. 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 1. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex. 2. 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. http://www.saveourwetlands.org/911top40doubt.htm

[Universal Mind]

Can you give evidence of your government action claims? I am talking about credible sources. Thanks. Here are links and links within links within links to facts and explanations about demolition specifics. Neither of us is even close to being expert enough to take that argument to its full extent, but here are answers to a lot of your questions. http://www.jod911.com/ http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html http://www.debunking911.com/ Your poll mentioned an inside job by the government. I don't see how they could have possibly pulled off such a thing. Please tell me how even in theory such a thing would have been possible. It seems that there are too many holes in the concept for it to have any touch with reality. Even if I can't explain everything the government has done since I don't work for the government (so I am having you believe ), the burden of proof is on you in regard to your claim that 9/11 was a government inside job. Since you believe such a story happened, please explain how it could have possibly happened even in theory. I don't think it could have. Do you? How? Specific areas to address are how the planes were flown, how the "real" commercial jet airliners could have been hidden without being reported missing if the crashed airplanes were military jets, why so many friends and family members of the victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and that they were directly told by the victims that hijackings were taking place, how so many people would be contacted about participation in such an evil and major conspiracy and enough of them were insanely evil enough to do it, why the government would roll such big dice, why there could possibly have been no leaks about the conspiracy itself even though tons of people would have been involved, why one of the planes crashed in a field, why Al Qaeda would have taken credit, why the people we are fighting in the Middle East would happen to have the same mentalities and tendencies as the imaginary hijackers, and why the government would go through such an outrageous amount of trouble and risk when it would have been so much easier to just blow up the buildings and say the buildings were bombed by terrorists just like they were in 1993. No matter what we speculate on regarding why the government did what when, it seems that it would be illogical to leap to the conclusion that the government would and could pull off such an insanely evil yet impressive feat. If you disagree, why do you?

[juroara]

this thread will lead no where, it's been how many years guys? This is worse than bigfoot! we should be asking ourselves as americans questions instead. If the government was in charge of the 9-11 attacks, what can we as americans do? If the government as not in charge of the 9-11 attacks, what can we as americans do? If the government knew about the terrorist attacks and allowed it to happen to go to war, what can we as americans do? sadly, I don't think there is much we can do. And it's been so long, Bush's term is almost over. This myth is going in the history books along with dozens of other white house scandals that were never proven either way. Pearl Harbor anyone? I don't even think we have the power to protest anymore. A while ago I had read on several different news sites about a protest that was held against this massive meeting of the corporations that virtually rule the world. The blurb on all the news sites were identical, and very short. "the crowd got out of hand and the police ended the protest" On only one blog was I able to find a first hand account of what went on that day, if the account was real - since it was the only one I could find - the protesters didn't get out of hand. They were just sitting and standing around as police fired rubber bullets at them and beat anyone in their vicinity, regardless of whether or not they were protesting. And even when the protesters ran for their lives, the police cornered them again at street intersections and fired and beat them again. Busted eyes, broken limbs, and lots of blood for a peaceful protest. According to the blog, Bush had given the city the authority for this day, for those corporations, that any protest would be illegal. Which is of course, against our constitutional rights. Problem is, I don't even know if this protest even really happened! All the accounts on news websites are so obscure and short.

[Mystic7]

Universal mind you broken record lol. Face the evidence posted.

[Original Poster]

I have to agree, you posted the same debunking myths that you actually ought to read to in oreder to realize its BS. They fail to debunk the evidence... miserably. You can;t have it both ways. Either two firemen were lying, or there were pockets of heat in the building that went way above 1800 degrees, and not from burning rugs. Either the FBI is so stupid they can't even get the names and pictures right of the hijackers, or the hijackers were faked. Either these buildings were demolished deliberately, or there are bombs in all major buildings in the United States. There were smoke clouds coming out, not from out the windows, but from one precise one every few floors. For God sakes there's a video on youtube showing the owner of WTC7 admitting they had to PULL THE BUILDING for safety reasons. How can you just PULL one building and not have the ability to pull every other building in the city at any time, unless of course they knew about it. So stop trying to walk on water just by linking people to sites you haven't even browsed. Here it is, the truth, either our government can demolish any building they want at any time they want, or they knew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

[memeticverb]

Universal mind you broken record lol. Face the evidence posted. He cant, knowingly or unknowingly hes disinfo. Great thread by the way, you brought up many things the debunker wannabes hate, like the many contradictions between officials, the flip-flopping of their own stories, and the tremendous failure of the military to defend against a highly anticipated threat... __________________________________________________ _ Yet another witness on video describing explosions throughout the WTC

[Universal Mind]

Broken record? You started a whole new thread with your broken record. First of all... http://www.jod911.com/ http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html http://www.debunking911.com/ I think you missed a few other things. Can you give evidence of your government action claims? I am talking about credible sources. Thanks. Let's see that. This conversation is really absurd if you can't even back up your assertions with credible sources. I am not talking a left wing lunatic site mentioning two firemen out of hundreds, for example. If you can't show credible sources, then there isn't really anything to talk about in the first place. Even if I can't explain everything the government has done since I don't work for the government (so I am having you believe ), the burden of proof is on you in regard to your claim that 9/11 was a government inside job. Since you believe such a story happened, please explain how it could have possibly happened even in theory. I don't think it could have. Do you? How? When do you guys think you can get that answer for me? So far, you have only asserted that there are peculiar things about the big bang theory. You have yet to explain why you leap to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, and you have not even told me how it could be real in light of the issues I have raised. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Thanks.

[R.D.735]

Although there are interesting anomalies in the structural failures of the WTC buildings, it doesn't point to demolition at all, in my opinion. I've read a lot on both sides of the We are told a lot about how the buildings fell so mysteriously, but why isn't there a trove of evidence about what was happening before the planes hit? There are reports from firemen about 'explosions' on 9/11, but nothing from anyone who worked in the building beforehand that demolition teams were wiring it or any other building to explode. The more secretive the wiring could have been, the longer it would have taken to complete it, straining the idea that the president(or whomever was allegedly the mastermind) was able to corrupt the government to such an extreme quickly enough to complete such a project. Regarding the 'pulling' comment, I've heard that it described pulling away from the building(because it might collapse), not pulling it down. Does anyone seriously believe the government has charges set up in every major building in the U.S.? If so, it should be a simple matter of inspecting some buildings to prove such a theory. Unless all of the building inspectors are in on it, which is a stretch of anyone's imagination. There is the accusation of government competence, as well. Incredibly, it is somehow unbelievable that the government could be so catastrophically incompetent as to not prevent the plot. This is the same government that produced the Katrina debacle and installed horrendously incompetent and arrogant cronies wherever possible. Don't forget Pearl Harbor either. Turns out the government botched that one too. Sorry if this offends anyone, by the way. I don't hold it against anyone who believes otherwise. I'm open to convincing (counter-)arguments on either side, and this is only my current opinion.

[Oneironaut Zero]

How about if the "conspiracy" didn't go as deep as the government planting bombs in the building, but purposefully provoking the attack, and allowing it to happen? And hard evidence or arguments for/against that? (I know that's a little off the scope of many of the proposed theories, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.)

[Universal Mind]

How about if the "conspiracy" didn't go as deep as the government planting bombs in the building, but purposefully provoking the attack, and allowing it to happen? And hard evidence or arguments for/against that? (I know that's a little off the scope of many of the proposed theories, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.) That is a much more plausible idea. It does not defy the laws of reality like the idea that the government rounded up hundreds of trustworthy Dr. Evils and pulled off a wild megasuperstunt with mystery pilots, fake hijackings, and demolition reports so flawed yet so convincing that their flaws are blaringly obvious to regular Joes on the internet but not the masses of actual experts. Your idea takes away the elements of the greatest stunt in history and the social bizarrities that would be too strange for a Twilight Zone episode and leaves something I think is not out of the question. I have not seen proof that it is true, but it could be for all we know. What I do know is that Al Qaeda continues to say they want us all dead and that terrorist plots keep getting foiled. I have no reason to believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just another part of the scenario we are dealing with in the world now.

[Mystic7]

Lets address the poll. Out of the 14 people voted so far. 6 say it's an inside job. 2 say it's government sponsored terrorism false flag military operation. 4 say it is not an inside job. 2 say it was because of bin laden and that they entirely trust the government. That's 8 people on the side of truth. And 6 people still in the process of waking up. That's only out of a small sample 8 out of 14. So we are winning the fight. 911 Truth

[Universal Mind]

Lets address the poll. Out of the 14 people voted so far. 6 say it's an inside job. 2 say it's government sponsored terrorism false flag military operation. 4 say it is not an inside job. 2 say it was because of bin laden and that they entirely trust the government. That's 8 people on the side of truth. And 6 people still in the process of waking up. That's only out of a small sample of 14 people who voted so far. So we are winning the fight. Your poll is scientific? You would be using better science if you did not conduct your poll on a web site that is a cess pool for liberals. Try Golf.com and see if you get the same results. Those scientific research considerations are a real bitch to work with.

[Mystic7]

It's A DV poll. And not something that can be made biased like the disinformation sites you cherry pick. (that ignore the evidence) People are fairly balanced and more evolved at Dreamviews than other forums since it is a lucid dreaming forum. Labeling everyone here liberals is definitely a desperate measure for you. Evidence Content. The World Trade Center destruction The Pentagon attack The crash of Flight 93 Immediate military response Attack foreknowledge The attack of 9/11/01 was a vast crime that left vast bodies of evidence. A great deal of that evidence was destroyed in the government's response to the crime. The quantity and quality of evidence available to the public varies greatly between different aspects of the crime. For example, whereas a large public body of visual records documents the destruction of the World Trade Center, there exist only a handful of photographs showing the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, and none showing the attack itself.

[R.D.735]

Frankly, much of the evidence in favor of the conspiracy seems circumstantial, especially the lack-of-evidence evidence. What is the most solid piece of evidence for the theory, and which evidence is the weakest, in your opinion?

[Universal Mind]

It's A DV poll. And not something that can be made biased like the disinformation sites you cherry pick. (that ignore the evidence) People are fairly balanced and more evolved at Dreamviews than other forums since it is a lucid dreaming forum. Labeling everyone here liberals is definitely a desperate measure for you. I didn't label everyone here a liberal. I said this site is a cess pool for liberals. In case you have not noticed, the vast majority of the people who discuss politics here are liberals. A fact is a fact. I very much challenge you to answer R.D.'s question. I know you love to dodge, but please answer her question. I kept asking how you get from supposedly unanswered questions to the land of the impossible (which you NEVER answered), but R.D. put it another way. She said that your evidence is circumstantial, which is absolutely true, and asked what your strongest evidence is. What is it? Is circumstantial "evidence" the best you've got? I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you cannot even attempt to tell a plausible version of the 9/11 story involving the government conspiracy you claim happened, so I now have a different approach. I too want to ask if you have any evidence that is not circumstantial. Do you?

[Mystic7]

Frankly, much of the evidence in favor of the conspiracy seems circumstantial, especially the lack-of-evidence evidence. What is the most solid piece of evidence for the theory, and which evidence is the weakest, in your opinion? Now R.D.735. Don't believe anything I say research and verify yourself. The main pieces of evidence you need to know about are: 1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft. 2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11 3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled." 4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11 5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive 6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission. 7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media. 8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods. no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat....A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. The weakest evidence. It is not an easy thing to believe that our government could or would deceive us on such a scale, especially when you start from within the paradigm of "mainstream reality." The concept of "9/11 as an inside job" points to a lot of other disturbing concepts, such as: 1. Our government may kill us to further their agenda. 2. Our media is completely sold out, corporo-fascist propaganda. 3. The majority of the US population (the world as well?) is effectively brainwashed. 4. Commonly accepted "reality" and "history" may be full of lies and deceptions. 5. We can be fooled (and have been, in many ways). 6. Our government is run by the terrorists and it is they who "hate our freedom."

[Universal Mind]

Circumstantial. Direct evidence, of which you have absolutely none, does not involve such leaps to bizarre conclusions. For example, the fact that the government knew about threats of terrorism. They had tons of warnings about all kinds of vague things. They get tons of them every day. That does not mean they had specific knowledge that terrrorists would hijack specific airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11/01. So your supposed evidence is of a very weak circumstantial nature. It does not implicate anybody in a conspiracy to have airplanes flown into those specific buildings. And that's one of your best pieces of evidence? Another example is your point that hijackers turned up alive. That is not a proven fact. It is a speculation that is under discussion by some left wingers, not an actual news story of fact. Even if it were a proven fact, it could very well mean that the government got some identities wrong because of some fake ID's. It does not put any government officials at a crime scene with criminal intent. You have no direct evidence. All you have is weak circumstantial babble. You are not explaining your leaps to really wild conclusions based on your extremely distorted claims. And you can't even tell a plausible story about how the supposed inside job could have possibly happened. It could not have. It is an absurd idea. That is why you cannot tell a plausible story.

[tyrantt23]

Another example is your point that hijackers turned up alive. That is not a proven fact. It is a speculation that is under discussion by some left wingers, not an actual news story of fact. As a matter of fact, it is proven fact, and it was an actual news story. Even if it were a proven fact, it could very well mean that the government got some identities wrong because of some fake ID's. It does not put any government officials at a crime scene with criminal intent. This statement brings me to one question that puzzles me. According to your story, the airplane explosion was so intense, the fire from the burning fuel was so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse. How then were the investigators able to find the IDs/passports of those said hijackers? Shouldn't they have been incinerated along with the rest of the airplane?

[Mystic7]

Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies. You can't explain anything other than state this illusion to try and convince those who still have that thread of ignorance too lazy to research. Now please address the evidence I posted above before you continue any more rants. Or I'm going to have to complain to the moderators from your irrelevance to the topic. The hi-jackers turning up alive is fact. The knowledge of the threat ahead of time by the government is fact. And, as for the rest you haven't responded to any evidence properly. You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it. Now face this evidence and what has being mentioned above that you avoided. 1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes 2. The Twin Towers 3. The Pentagon 4. Flight 93 5. The President's Response 6. Osama and WTC 7 7. How the Case was Cracked 8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel 9. The Undead Hijackers

[Universal Mind]

As a matter of fact, it is proven fact, and it was an actual news story. It is not a proven fact. The BBC jumped to the conclusion that it is about ONE of the hijackers. Other news sources jump to the conclusion about six, and I found one that jumps to seven. It seems that the more in competition and therefore check a news company is with rivals, the less leap prone it is. It is speculation at this point. LA Times CNN More importantly, such a mistake would not be proof that the government pulled off the most insane conspiracy stunt in history. This statement brings me to one question that puzzles me. According to your story, the airplane explosion was so intense, the fire from the burning fuel was so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse. How then were the investigators able to find the IDs/passports of those said hijackers? Shouldn't they have been incinerated along with the rest of the airplane? They were inside the airplane until the building collapsed and the airplane was destroyed. If that were an issue, don't you think the greatest conspiracy team in history would have done something much better to fool you in that regard? Can you explain this for me? Specific areas to address are how the planes were flown, how the "real" commercial jet airliners could have been hidden without being reported missing if the crashed airplanes were military jets, why so many friends and family members of the victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and that they were directly told by the victims that hijackings were taking place, how so many people would be contacted about participation in such an evil and major conspiracy and enough of them were insanely evil enough to do it, why the government would roll such big dice, why there could possibly have been no leaks about the conspiracy itself even though tons of people would have been involved, why one of the planes crashed in a field, why Al Qaeda would have taken credit, why the people we are fighting in the Middle East would happen to have the same mentalities and tendencies as the imaginary hijackers, and why the government would go through such an outrageous amount of trouble and risk when it would have been so much easier to just blow up the buildings and say the buildings were bombed by terrorists just like they were in 1993. Mystic and others run for the hills every time I bring up those major questions about what they have the burden of proving. Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies. You can't explain anything other than state this illusion to try and convince those who still have that thread of ignorance too lazy to research. Now please address the evidence I posted above before you continue any more rants. Or I'm going to have to complain to the moderators from your irrelevance to the topic. The hi-jackers turning up alive is fact. The knowledge of the threat ahead of time by the government is fact. And, as for the rest you haven't responded to any evidence properly. You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it. Now face this evidence and what has being mentioned above that you avoided. 1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes 2. The Twin Towers 3. The Pentagon 4. Flight 93 5. The President's Response 6. Osama and WTC 7 7. How the Case was Cracked 8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel 9. The Undead Hijackers 1-9 = CIRCUMSTANTIAL... and very weak, just like the examples I talked about. The burden is on YOU to explain how those circumstances prove that the big inside job idea (Not story. You cannot even give me a plausible hypothetical story.) is true. The burden is not on me to explain stuff that might have happened, and I asked you at least twice to show me credible sources of that information. I also asked you what "evidence" you have that is not circumstantial. You obviously do not have an answer to that, now do you? Do you understand that your weak circumstantial case that does not explain how an inside job conclusion can even be drawn from the weak circumstantial evidence that you will not even back up with credible sources and that has no hope of presenting a plausible story concerning the accusation would be laughed out of court? I am not making that up. It is a fact. Your case would be laughed out of court. A grand jury would be laughing so hard they would be crying if they were presented with your outrageous attempt at a case. It is unheard of for a prosecution to not have a story to tell. It is unheard of for a prosecution to completely avoid issues brought up by the defense. It is unheard of for a prosecution to not back up the evidence they use. Cases that are entirely circumstantial are extremely weak cases, especially when the circumstantial evidence is never tied to the conclusion, which is unheard of. Saying, "Uh, well explain these things," is not a basis for evidence, much less a case. You would be laughed out of court. That is absolutely the truth.

[Mystic7]

Universal Mind tries desperately again to distract from the evidence and denounces all proof calling it all absurd and circumstantial while nothing could be further from the truth. Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. [committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001]. Eyewitness PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven. Architectural and engineering professionals and 497 other supporters including A/E students have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation website here at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth And key evidence which Universal Mind continues to avoid. 911 COMMISSION HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HOW DID THEY KNOW? WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON? BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA? 911 FACT SHEET

[R.D.735]

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until after the attack had already begun! In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots? No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.

[memeticverb]

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until after the attack had already begun! In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots? No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event. You are quite right that Pearl Harbor was anticipated, provoked, allowed, and then used for fear-mongering. What would have happened if this information was made public within a few years of the attack? Similarly, Operation Northwoods would have shook the nation to the core, and still would now if everyone knew about it. It proves the govt plans terror attacks to create an excuse for war, a massively illegal and unethical practice thought only to be used by ruthless dictators. One thing you mentioned was that no one has come forth alleging they saw people wiring th building before the attacks. But this is not true, and there are at least a few people on the record making such claims. Either way this doesnt prove anything in my opinion, but simply adds to the mountain of evidence all suggesting an inside job. What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower. A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation. And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself. This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

[R.D.735]

The thermate-like reactions appear to be very compelling physical evidence, though it is difficult for me to tell by the video whether the sparks falling from the building are liquid iron or ignited jet fuel. How does one tell the difference between the two? I've heard that WTC7 had a structural design that lent it to likely possibility of the structure falling symmetrically. If a truss bridge fails at a single point, for example, the entire bridge will most likely fall nearly straight down because the forces that were supported by the failed member redistribute themselves instantaneously, creating a cascade of failures across the structure. In fact, here's some evidence of that: From Popular Mechanics According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." An unusual structural design and long-term exposure to fire that weakened supports that were already damaged and under unusually high stresses to begin with seems a likely explanation. It is simply untrue that progressive collapse cannot happen in a steel-framed structure(remember the Minnesota bridge collapse?). It isn't hard to imagine that a similar kind of collapse may have occurred in the twin towers, as there was high heat, structural damage, and higher-than-normal stresses on the members. It isn't hard to imagine that the core columns would buckle under the force of the building collapsing onto them, snapping them into twisted segments, as they were found in the rubble pile.