<?
http://s57.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2SVVE4NDKZMEB0C6CHPL3SFYKI
?>
TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval ok here we go i didnt want to bring this up, how much do you know about nazi germany and the weimar republic? being americian probably not much apart fom they killed jews, hitler got the support of his country telling them the rest of the world is evil and arian raceof germany is the best, not too disimilar from from bush saying the middle east is evil and americia is the greates nation on earth, hitler also invaded other countrys in his quest to gain steel, gas and coal to rebuild his army and economy, the only difference is bush is doing it to save his economy, third hitler killed millions of jews, gays, and anybody who didnt agree with them, the difference with bush is that he has the un partially on his side. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval as i have backed up my claims from ligitamate sources, i am also very well educated in morern politicts an dmodern history so dont try to pull the wool over my eyes you quite clearly dont have any knowelede of the world apart form your own country and have proven to be incabable of putting up a decent argument as you dont know all the facts, i was very shocked that you dont know about bush and blair admitting they were wrong about wepons of mass destruction, one thing i should point out is politics is about infering(reading between the line for you) so when they say a 20 billion�/$ intellogence programe coldent prove the wepons of mass destruction it means they knew and threfore lied about it. you are an incompetent fool living in a bubble and seemingly uneducated in current events |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval so before you have a go at me calling me a conspirist or a theroist i think you should research up to date statements, government documents and not relying on out of date media clipings. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval i supose you didnt know that the bbc proved 9 of the suicide bombers to be alive and well today, thats a little strange dont you think, suicide bombers in a 500mph+ plance crash still being alive |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 You are now comparing the Bush administration to Nazi Germany...whether you like it or not that is what you have done. And i will not entertain that. Thank you...but you backed nothing up...your claim was that Bush and Blair downright admitted they "LIED"...and you did not back that up. Blair saying they made a mistake is not saying he lied. You are a conspiracy theorists...you are entertaining the notion that Bush and his pals carried out 9.11. That is a conspiracy. You want to get into it? Conspiracy people are a different tribe. You think & perceive differently from the rest of us. You SEE signs of the takeover everywhere. To you, it�s incredibly obvious. People who deny it have to be dumb, brainwashed, compartmentalized...or agents for the bad guys. Conspiracy people don�t want to talk about WHETHER a takeover is going on. They want to get together & talk about it. You want to elaborate their fantasy. Conspiracy nuts tend to be different from normal people because: - they think they can predict the future - they think they have access to �secret information� - they think they�re cleverer than anyone else in the world (because they see the takeover everyone is missing) - they see brainwashing in everything - they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being ignorant or blinded - they never consult experts (& are in fact suspicious of real experts), but instead figure it all out themselves, being, as they are, geniuses - they tend to see the government as the font of all evil & to blame the government for absolutely everything - they believe weird things about the Federal Reserve & monetary policy - they believe weird things about the United Nations - they cannot perceive the logical inconsistencies in their scenario So now lets get into the HOAX that Bush carried out on the world by secfretly concocting 9.11 and bring down 2 towers in NYC and the part of the Pentago...shall we? Now try to focus. You & the other 9/11 conspiracists are telling a silly, absurd story. You�re postulating that the conspirators planned this incredible caper...but they FORGOT to put out debris around the Pentagon. Are you serious? You�re saying that--after all this planning--they just up & FORGOT how to cover their tracks. They forgot to plant the bodies (silly guys!). O...& then they spread debris around while the site was being photographed, those reckless rascals. Duh. Were they trying to leave clues for conspiracy buffs? & yet these scatterbrained schemers have fooled everyone in the world but you with their elaborate caper. It boggles the mind. Your government perps are imaginary. There was no inside job. 9/11 was brought to us by real terrorists, who probably never heard any of your crazy theories about what they did. This pervasive emotional distemper is almost universal amongst conspiracy guys, & the political right in general. They harbor nearly megalomaniacal delusions, i.e., they honest-to-God think they�re the smartest guys in the world. They think they can read people�s minds & see behind the illusion. It�s often as not an angry white guy who perceives the scam in a bunch of blurry tapes & photographs. Rumors & amateur science also help, though the real experts never seem to sign on. Conspiracy guys can�t seem to see that the perpetrators of a hoax would want their cover story to appear real & believable. Conspirators don�t want impossible or fantastic things happening. They would take measures to attract as little attention as possible to the hoax. So every time one of you conspiracist starts rattling off weird anomalies��inept pilots flying like aces; a symmetrical demolition performed right in front of everybody; having passports appear out of nowhere��you are actually proving it was not a conspiracy. What conspirators would forget to put bodies & wreckage around the Pentagon, then try to do it while rescue workers & photographers milled around? What conspirators would allow supposed hijackers to be found alive? Why would they say the hijackers used pocket knives, when they could just as well supplied them with Uzis? Anomalies are exactly what conspirators would avoid, especially if they�ve been able to fool everyone in the world except sharpies like seval and the rest of twits on here. There might be flaws in the story. But there would not be the egregious anomalies the conspiracy guys talk about. Conspiracy guys don�t seem able to understand this point. But I thought some of the other members of the forum might get the point. Like all conspiracists, you are a fantasist, in love with your fantasy. This has never struck us as an idea that made much sense, especially if you believe the US Government were behind 9/11. If you were constructing a fake terrorist attack because you wanted to attack Afghanistan, or Iraq, then wouldn�t you involve a few Afghans or Iraqis? But no, we�re supposed to believe that they made them inconvenient Saudis, instead. Worse still, the planners picked live Saudis almost at random, despite the fact that they�d be sure to come forward and spoil the whole thing. Why would anyone do that? What�s more, all these stories occurred very soon after 9/11. Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on the 27th September), these stories disappeared. This suggests to us they were only ever a mixup over names, and once the photos appeared as well these individuals realised they weren�t wanted men after all. And in fact if you look at the details, you�ll find this seems the most likely explanation. Read more in analyses of the most common �still alive� stories: Abdulaziz Al Omari, Ahmed Al-Nami, Khalid Al Mihdhar, Mohammed Atta, Said al-Ghamdi, Salem Al-Hamzi, Wail Al-Shehri and Waleed Al-Shehri. Name confusion persists elsewhere, too, in the suggestion that some of the hijackers trained at Pensacola Air Force Base. Some people report this as absolute fact, but like so much of the 9/11 conspiracy story, it ain�t necessarily so. One factor complicating the investigation is that the hijackers' Arabic names are remarkably common. For example, when investigators went to the Naval Air Base in Pensacola, the address listed on a Florida driver's license issued to a Saeed Alghamdi in 1997, they learned that several people by that name had attended flight school there over the past 10 years. "What we have here is a situation of people with identical names", said Harry White, public affairs officer at the base. He said the school has had more than 1,600 people with the first name Saeed, spelled various ways, and more than 200 with the surname Alghamdi. White maintains, however, that none of the Saeed Alghamdi students was involved with terrorist activity. "We have found no direct connection between any of the foreign students trained at NAS Pensacola and any of the terrorist suspects,? he said. http://www.humanunderground.com/11s...-hijackers.html More than 200 Saeed Alghamdis? This shows how unsurprising the �hijackers still alive� stories are. And how none of them yet provide proof that the person they�re referring to matches the claimed hijacker. Another development makes this even less likely. Because if some of the named Saudis are still alive and innocent, then why has Saudi Arabia now accepted that they were involved? Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens... Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. "The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm And subsequently a video called �the 19 Martyrs� was released and partly aired on al Jazeera, which reportedly featured photographs of hijackers, and included bin Ladin giving a brief description of each. You�ll find a detailed page on the video here, with some interesting new photos, and we�ve saved a copy locally for posterity. We don�t know if the video is real, or this is an accurate account of it, but if true then it is another indication that the named hijackers were involved, and they�re now all dead. |
Tiesto14 is right when it comes this part. It checks out and is consistent with the combustion diffuser case of a 757. Boeing contracts a lot of people to do their engines, but specifically the engines used on the 757-200 can only be from either of these 2 brands:
Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4
Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B
OR
Pratt & Whitney PW2037
Pratt & Whitney PW2040
If you look at the second picture which is more detailed you notice the number RB-211. The piece at the crash matches that of the Rolls Royce engine also titled RB211.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/75...pf_200tech.html
According to Russell Pickering of 911review.org this is what he says regarding the wheel hub: "[that photo] is not from the Pentagon. It is from the WTC.�
Finally a piece that tiesto14 left out was this:
The picture can be found here. The ID for the pictures are 4414 and 4415.
As you may or may not know a plane has three main components: The 2 engines with the huge turbines on the wings and the APU (auxiliary power unit) located at the tail of the 757 which contain a smaller turbine inside. The APU serves as a generator or power source to the airplane. Think of it like the alternator in a car.
Anyways �several readers wrote to American Free Press suggesting that the unidentified disc was a piece from the APU mounted in the tail section of a Boeing 757. Honeywell [is the company that] makes the APU used on the 757 aircraft. �AFP contacted Honeywell�s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. �There�s no way that�s an APU wheel,� an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: �That turbine disc�there�s no way in the world that came out of an APU.�
�If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,� Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.
John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.�
The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999.
If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine.
When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine, Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the information.
Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.
AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: �No,� Brown said. �I don�t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company.�
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10...y_swirling.html
Neither Honeywell nor Rolls Royce claim this piece. With that said we can conclude that this piece as well as the wheel hub is evidence alone to reexamine what really happened on that fateful day when the Pentagon was hit. Why were there different parts? What was in that crate they were carrying away? If only the government would release those tapes then and only then would I have some peace. Darn!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval like i said before you are quite clearly an uneducated politics, have you noticed every single link you have sent me is an americian site? not one from outside the us. you are a fool |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval and like i said i wasnt calling the bush administration nazis if you were able to infer which you aernt i was saying that bush is worse and you will have it because like it or not it is the view of eurpoe apart from england. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval every time you try to back a claim up you rely on websites known for their sycophantic alliance with the government and your failing to listin to anybody else in this forum has made you look like a fool, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval i spent hours reading books, going to lectures and researching the net before i made up my mind as to what happened, you quite clearly havent and as a result you have a limited arsenal to attack me with, most of your posts are from what has been said in media, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval little or none of what you post is your own words, your posts are not facts as most of your claims have been dismised as nonsense. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval wtf is your last paragraph all about the bbc has proved that 9 of the suicide bombers are still alive and well today what part of that do you not understand, google it and find out for yourself. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval ill tell you what if you can find any information from the last 6 months that doesnt contradict what was said when the attacks first happen then i would consider a different course of action, no im not talking about americian government websites (ill give you a hint they are the ones with a .gov in the http address not a .com) im talking about you accually spending serious time of your life researching this as i have, finding INDEPENDANT research reports that back up what you say i can gaurentee that you are in for a big suprise. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Tiesto14 is right when it comes this part. It checks out and is consistent with the combustion diffuser case of a 757. Boeing contracts a lot of people to do their engines, but specifically the engines used on the 757-200 can only be from either of these 2 brands: Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B OR Pratt & Whitney PW2037 Pratt & Whitney PW2040 If you look at the second picture which is more detailed you notice the number RB-211. The piece at the crash matches that of the Rolls Royce engine also titled RB211. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/75...pf_200tech.html According to Russell Pickering of 911review.org this is what he says regarding the wheel hub: "[that photo] is not from the Pentagon. It is from the WTC.� Finally a piece that tiesto14 left out was this: The picture can be found here. The ID for the pictures are 4414 and 4415. As you may or may not know a plane has three main components: The 2 engines with the huge turbines on the wings and the APU (auxiliary power unit) located at the tail of the 757 which contain a smaller turbine inside. The APU serves as a generator or power source to the airplane. Think of it like the alternator in a car. Anyways �several readers wrote to American Free Press suggesting that the unidentified disc was a piece from the APU mounted in the tail section of a Boeing 757. Honeywell [is the company that] makes the APU used on the 757 aircraft. �AFP contacted Honeywell�s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. �There�s no way that�s an APU wheel,� an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: �That turbine disc�there�s no way in the world that came out of an APU.� �If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,� Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP. John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine. When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine, Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the information. Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer. AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: �No,� Brown said. �I don�t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company.� http://www.americanfreepress.net/10...y_swirling.html Neither Honeywell nor Rolls Royce claim this piece. With that said we can conclude that this piece as well as the wheel hub is evidence alone to reexamine what really happened on that fateful day when the Pentagon was hit. Why were there different parts? What was in that crate they were carrying away? If only the government would release those tapes then and only then would I have some peace. Darn! |
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax?...%2Fpentagon.htm
you quite clearly aernt going to admit there is anything suspicious about the attacks, which is fair enough but also quite pompous and arrogant, and their isnt really much point debating this if you fail to accept other peoples views, no says you have to belive them but totally dismising what other people produce is insulting to them.
i have no problem with you personally as i dont know you though i wouldnt really want to if you cant interact with other people and handle what they have to say
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval you quite clearly aernt going to admit there is anything suspicious about the attacks, which is fair enough but also quite pompous and arrogant, and their isnt really much point debating this if you fail to accept other peoples views, no says you have to belive them but totally dismising what other people produce is insulting to them. i have no problem with you personally as i dont know you though i wouldnt really want to if you cant interact with other people and handle what they have to say |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 I tell you what...i will change my mind if any of the following happens: - If a reasonable number of engineers said explosions must have brought down the towers, that�s what I would believe. - If ex-CIA or intelligence people were saying there was something fishy about the story, I would listen up. - If a group of commercial airline pilots said there was something fishy about NORAD on 9/11, I would change my mind. (The airline pilots would know if something was peculiar about NORAD on 9/11. Yet they have remained as silent as the engineers. The silence of the airline pilots is another item helping to hold my skepticism in place.) - If the seismology indicated explosives, I would think explosives. - If someone on the inside had confessed or leaked information, I would go with that. - If any kind of document suggesting a conspiracy were presented, I would sit down & rethink everything. This might be an e-mail, recorded conversation, or printed or handwritten manuscript. - If even one bonafide journalist were taking the matter seriously I would reconsider. you talk about all the coincidences but we�re not talking about flaws & imperfections here. According to you, the conspirators planned & brought off a scenario that was blatantly impossible��with fires knocking down steel frame buildings, inexperienced pilots who could fly like aces, hijackers turning up alive, Muslims going to topless bars, etc. These are not flaws in a clever plan. You�re imagining a scheme so full of absurdities that no conspirators would ever have planned such a thing. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval well how about this ill shut up if you do lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 deal! OK i am done argueing about this...lol. Cya |
well ive watched most of that 911 video via google now. didnt finish all of it coz i had to go to sleep. firstly, id like to state how fvcking BORING most of it was. oh my god. i wouldve thought a crackpot conspiracy vid to be way more entertaining.
if anything, watching that vid did more to affirm my belief of no conspiracy. the only thing i saw that didnt seem all that benign were the sounds of the pre-collapse explosions. i agree, sounds a bit iffy!
but seriously, the rest of the stuff was clutching at straws (and thats being polite!).
ooooh! flashes near the helicopters. what could they be? if there was a conspiracy, wtf are those flashes meant to be? also loved the counting of the choppers- since none of them are in screen for all that long i wanna know how youre keeping count. haha.
towers explode outwards, not collapsing in on themselves. collapsing from where the damage occurred.
lmao @ pointing out the spot fire that was a few levels up from the primary fire. omg! fires spread??? no!!
lmao x100 at pointing the bird circling. did that have a point that i missed later on in the vid?
anywayz, ill finish it tnite but you conspiracy fellas are seeing what you wanna see. ive tried but like i said, apart from those pre-fall booms i fail to see what you have.
^^ um, yeah. the conspirators had no qualms about murdering 1000s of innocent civilians, but they couldnt sacrifice the mayor. they had to warn him. um, ok.
...the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed.
UQ Wire: Long Debunked Rumor Validated by Giuliani
The former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, was near London's Liverpool Street station when the blast happened there and described the explosions as "dastardly, cowardly acts".
...Earlier on Thursday morning there had actually been a security drill with armed officers entering the New York subway - although this was unrelated to the London attacks
US boosts security after attacks
I was near Liverpool Station when I was notified of the first bomb going off.
Statement from Rudolph W. Giuliani on the terrorist bombings in London
Giuliani in London as Blasts Hit, To Appear on ABC Special Tonight
There is no conspiracy.
yep! they hatched a plan to bring down the towers, therefore they drew pictures of what they were planning to do for everyone to see.
wtf does the mayor in london have to do with anything???
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 your point? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 A few posters on here have brought up some VERY common sence questions for you conspiracy theorists like trance-x...yet not one of you brain surgeons even attmepted to answer them...seems all you do is spit up some nonsense your read from some loner quck who made a webpage cus he is probally a bi-polar freak who sits home and thinks of such utter crap to pass on to fools that beleive and uncover such OBVIOUS conspiracies that no one else seems to entertain. SO lets have some fun...see if you morons can answer one VERY VERY easy question...watch how COMMON SENSE debunks your theories. Here we go (or shall i say "Let's Roll") (QUESTION) If there was a conspiracy involved (cough bullshit cough) and Bush and his pals secretly orchestrated the biggest terror act of all time with secret explosives and hidden planes and whatever crap you retards (which you are) come up with to explain away your theories.....well why is that it was so friggen hard for Bush and his wacky clan to stash some VX nerve gas, some warheads or some other WMD in Husseins backyard in a bunker and then exclaim "AH HA WE TOLD U THERE WAS WMD"?....but no wait "THAT" would be to hard of a plan to do...bringing down 2 towers in NYC and penetrating the Pentagon is childs play compared to planting some WMD in the friggen desert hundreds of miles away from anyones sight...dumbasses...see how silly it seems already? |
| quote: |
U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm |
| quote: |
Show me ONE just ONE video or photo of ANY planned demolition that shows the building falling outwards and not inwards. |
| quote: |
| The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down. http://science.howstuffworks.com/bu...-implosion1.htm |
| quote: |
| Matter fact...lets play common sense with you as well. Answer me this butter cup.... Where did the planned/controlled explosives come from? Surely the quanity was enormous and had to be taken from somewhere thaqt keeps and inventory of such things. Now surely that man (but probally dozens of people) realized all that explosive was gone...how did they keep silent all these years? How about this...who planted the explosvies? Was there reports of people walking around with all of it planting it under peoples desks? Wait i forgot they did it in the middle of the night...lol |
| quote: |
| So lets make a short list of all the people who have knowledge of this huge cover up 1. George Bush 2. Rumsfield 3. Rice 4. Powell 5. The dozens of men who keep inventory of such highly dangerous explosives 6. The numerous men who set them up 7. The men who set them off Thats a small list for you...now i can see keepign the big guys silent..but no chance those little guys wouldnt jump at the chance to tell their story and make millions uncovering the biggest crime against ones own nation. COMMON SENSE. |
| quote: |
| People like you really scare me and after i meet someone like yourself i feel compelled to wash my hands. YOU...yes YOU...beleive Bush and his crew had part in the 9.11 attacks but dont think it would of been childs play to plant some WMD in the desert? Do you see how flawed you are? |
"You think that people would actually risk life and limb to tell their stories when their lives are being threatened? How about threats towards their families, their careers, et cetera?
Do you think that everyone would have been clued in on what they were actually doing or do you think that maybe they could have just been following orders from above, as in the chain of command? Is this really so difficult for you to figure out or do you just take pride in remaining obtuse?
It�s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,� said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11."~Trancer X
Wow. Just plain WOW! You're really a lost cause.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco "You think that people would actually risk life and limb to tell their stories when their lives are being threatened? How about threats towards their families, their careers, et cetera? Do you think that everyone would have been clued in on what they were actually doing or do you think that maybe they could have just been following orders from above, as in the chain of command? Is this really so difficult for you to figure out or do you just take pride in remaining obtuse? It�s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,� said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11."~Trancer X Wow. Just plain WOW! You're really a lost cause. |
9/11 and the Mainstream Press
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
SeptemberEleventh.org
Friday, Jul 29, 2005
Address given at the National Press Club
June 22, 2005
After the attacks of 9/11, I accepted the blowback thesis, according to which the attacks were payback for US foreign policy. About a year later, a colleague suggested that the attacks were orchestrated by our own government. My response was that I didn�t think the Bush administration---even the Bush administration---would do such a thing. A few months later, another colleague suggested that I look at a website containing the massive 9/11 timeline created by Paul Thompson. This timeline, I found, contained an enormous number of reports, all from mainstream sources, that contradicted the official account. This started a process that led me to publish The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, which summarized much of the evidence that had been discovered by previous researchers---evidence, I concluded, that provided a "strong prima facie case for official complicity."
In a criminal trial, once the prosecution has presented its initial case, the defense asks the judge for a dismissal on the grounds that a prima facie case for guilt has not been presented. However, if the judge declares that such a case has been made, then the defense must rebut the various elements in the prosecution�s case. The defense cannot simply ignore the prosecution�s case by stating that it is "too outrageous to be dignified by a response." If the defense fails to offer a convincing rebuttal, the prima facie case is presumed to be conclusive.
The Bush administration responded to the charges against it as a defense attorney would, declaring them too outrageous to be taken seriously. President Bush himself advised people, perhaps especially reporters, not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." What the president really meant is that people should not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories except his own, according to which 19 Arab Muslims defeated the most powerful and sophisticated defense system in history and also defeated the laws of physics, bringing down three steel-frame building in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition.
In any case, what was needed at that stage was someone to play the role of the judge, determining, from an impartial perspective, whether a prima facie case for the guilt of the Bush administration had been made.
This role should have been played by the press. But the mainstream press instead offered itself as a mouthpiece for the administration�s conspiracy theory.
The role of the impartial judge has, nevertheless, been played by civil society, in which tens of millions of people in this country and around the world now accept the 9/11 truth movement�s contention that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.
The fact that the president was finally forced to appoint a 9/11 commission provided an opportunity for the Bush administration to rebut the allegations made against it. You might assume that the 9/11 Commission would have played the role of an impartial jury, simply evaluating the evidence for the competing conspiracy theories and deciding which one was more strongly supported.
The Commission�s investigative work, however, was carried out by its staff, and this staff was directed by the White House�s man inside the Commission, Philip Zelikow, a fact that the mainstream press has not emphasized. Under Zelikow�s leadership, the Commission took the role of the prosecution for the Bush administration�s brief against al-Qaeda. In doing so, it implicitly took the role of the defense for the Bush administration. Accordingly, an important question to ask about The 9/11 Commission Report, especially since we know that the Commission had many copies of The New Pearl Harbor, is how well the Commission rebutted the prima facie case against the Bush-Cheney administration, which was summarized in that book.
In a second book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I showed that the Commission simply ignored most of that evidence and distorted the rest. I will summarize a few of the 115 sins of omission and distortion that I identified.
The New Pearl Harbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he "had never even heard of Pennsylvania," let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.
The New Pearl Harbor cited reports that although Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader, had been portrayed as a devout Muslim ready to meet his maker, he actually loved alcohol, pork, and lap dances. Zelikow�s commission, however, said that Atta had become "fanatically" religious. They also claimed that they could find no credible explanation as to why Atta and the other hijackers went to Las Vegas. The mainstream press has let the Commission get away with these obvious contradictions.
People who have seen Michael Moore�s Fahrenheit 9/11 know that President Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota when he was told that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, a sign that the country was suffering an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the president just sat there. Many critics have asked why he did not immediately assume the role of commander-in-chief, but the more important question is why the highly trained Secret Service agents did not immediately rush him to safety. Bush�s location had been highly publicized. They should have worried that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on them at that very moment. And yet they allowed the president to remain at the school another half hour, thereby implying that they knew the president was not a target.
The 9/11 Commission�s only response was to report that "[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the President] to run out the door." The Commissioners evidently accepted the implied suggestion that maintaining presidential decorum was more important than protecting the president�s life. The mainstream press has had no comment on this remarkable response to that remarkable incident.
Another big question created by the official story is how the hijackers, by crashing planes into the Twin Towers, caused them and Building 7 to collapse. One problem is that Building 7 was not struck by an airplane, and steel-frame buildings had never before been caused to collapse by fire alone, even when the fires had been much bigger, hotter, and longer-lasting. The Commission avoided this problem by simply not mentioning this fact or even, incredibly, that Building 7 collapsed.
Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds." But it never explained how fire plus the impact of an airplane could have produced such a collapse.
Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow�s commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."
James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. This book contains an extensive discussion of the construction of the towers around the 47 interior columns. And yet when the Commission in 2004 published its incredible denial that these columns existed, the Times did not protest.
Another example: Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow�s final report.
The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez�s story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it.
The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. The Commission in particular failed to subpoena the film from the video cameras, confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks, which could at least clear up one of the questions---whether the attacking aircraft was a Boeing 757. [editor's note - more than 1/2 of the 9/11 movement now agrees that a commercial jet did hit the building, but Griffin seems slow to acknowledge this].
The Commission did allude to one problem---the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was known to be completely incompetent, incapable of flying a Boeing 757, let alone performing the remarkable maneuver reportedly executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The Commission handled this problem simply by saying in one place that Hanjour was considered a "terrible pilot" while saying elsewhere that he was given the assignment to hit the Pentagon because he was "the operation�s most experienced pilot." The mainstream press has not pointed out this contradiction.
The Commission also failed to discuss the considerable evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military, perhaps when passengers were about to wrest control of it. The Commission dealt with this problem only indirectly, by claiming that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until 10:10, which was at least four minutes after Flight 93 crashed. In support of this claim, the Commission said that Cheney did not enter the Operations Center under the White House until almost 10:00 that morning. To make this claim, however, the Commission had to contradict all prior reports. It also had to delete Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta�s testimony, given during the Commission�s public hearings, that when he got down there at 9:20, Cheney was already in charge. Even such an obvious lie, supported by such blatant suppression of evidence, has elicited no murmur from our mainstream press.
There are dozens of other omissions and distortions the press has allowed the Commission to get away with. For example, the Commission�s endorsement of the claim by General Richard Myers that he was on Capitol Hill that morning ignores Richard Clarke�s report, in Against All Enemies, that Myers was in the Pentagon, participating in Clarke�s videoconference. Also, the Commission�s account of why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted contradicts the account that had been told since shortly after 9/11 not only by the U.S. military but also by the press, in thousands of stories. But the press now, like Gilda Radnor, says "Never Mind."
In any case, as these illustrations show, the 9/11 Commission, which had the opportunity to rebut the prima facie case against the Bush administration, failed to do so. This means that the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report needs to be recognized as a decisive event, because it was the moment at which the prima facie case against the Bush administration became a conclusive case.
What we need now is a press that will let the American people in on this development---which is most important, given the fact that the official story about 9/11 has provided the pretext for virtually every other horrible thing this administration has done.
www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchi...9-pressclub.php
Video:
David Ray Griffin in DC 9-24-05
PHP:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Actually, if you had clicked on the link from that last sentence you'd see that it was quoting a NYFD Firefighter. Dumbass. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco I repeat; You're a lost cause dude. |
| quote: |
| Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion. Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion. Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion. Exclusive: 911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11 (Part 2) |
| quote: |
| On September 11 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans: "I was at the base of the second tower...that was hit," Evans said. "There was an explosion-I didn't think it was an explosion-but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake...then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions... We can only wonder at the kind of damage-the kind of human damage-which was caused by those explosions-those series of explosions," he said. http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/...fTwinTowers.htm |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.