|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 25)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| ^^ 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. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
...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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
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??? |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
your point? |
Get back to me when you've actually read the thread. Also that link you posted discusses everything but the plane parts. How convinient eh? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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 bull 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?
|
Why would I even care to, as you so put it, 'atmept' to do anything for a loudmouthed bigot such as yourself? Well, I usually wouldn't, and especially not when presented with such a logically fallacious argument (as occrider would be quick to point out) - but what the heck, I'll bite.
Now I'm sure you may either have conveniently forgotten or perhaps were never aware in the first place, but even Bush's former Treasury secretary himself came out and admitted that the Neocons had been planning to go to war in Iraq since day one of Dubya's presidency. If you need further proof, no problem - much of their prior rhetoric can easily be found on PNAC's website, with much of it dating back to 1998.
| 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:
- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;
- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;
- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm |
They had planned for a quick and decisive war, not the quagmire in which we are currently embroiled. As for your actual question about them planting the evidence, well, I doubt that planting a WMD is as easy as planting an unburned passport at the site of an allegedly burned down building - but maybe they just wrongfully assumed that they would find at least something amongst the old shells in Saddam's dwindling to nonexistent chemical weapons cache. And who knows, maybe they even figured that Saddam still had some of the WMD's left over from what we sold them? We can really only speak hypotheticals as none of us has any clue.
What we do know, however, is the history of the events leading up to the conflicts in Iraq, and who and what was involved in them.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...nvasion_of_iraq
Just another tidbit, but Saddam was also in the process of changing Iraq's oil accounts from the dollar to the Euro, which could have been an incredible blow to dollar hegemony if they could have enticed OPEC to switch as well. Our banking economy is obviously very reliant on those petrodollars. Anyway, that was quickly switched back once Saddam was overthrown.
| quote: |
Show me ONE just ONE video or photo of ANY planned demolition that shows the building falling outwards and not inwards. |
In controlled demolition, they don't always implode their structures. Often times they will simply just make it fall towards an area that is free from obstructions or away from whatever it is that they are trying to avoid from getting damaged. If you would watch some controlled demo's you'd know this.
Here's some quick info for you:
| 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 |
http://www.dykon-explosivedemolitio...ohs/Mov1679.asf
http://www.dykon-explosivedemolitio...271Argentia.asf
http://www.vsocial.com/varmedia/vso...18_kingdome.mpg
http://www.implosionworld.com/
http://www.argusleader.com/assets/mov/DF13214123.MOV <- oops
| 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 |
You don't think that it's possible to acquire such explosives without anyone turning a blind eye? I guess you must still be wondering how they were able to get the explosives to do the Murrah building in OKC. Or how about the recent London Subway bombings? As far as planting them, there are plenty of clandestine networks filled with demolition and pyrotechnics experts. I figured that you would at least know that much.
| 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. |
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."
http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/paulisaac.html
| 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? |
And I'm sure we all feel the same way about you and your ilk. But go ahead, keep grasping at straws in order to defend your officially promulgated conspiracy theory - keep using your flawed arguments so that your fragile little worldview doesn't have to become altered in any way. |
|
|
| 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.:nervous: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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.:nervous: |
Actually, if you had clicked on the link from that last sentence you'd see that it was quoting a NYFD Firefighter.
Dumbass. :haha: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
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:
(copy and paste) |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| 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. :haha: |
You're the one quoting the "link" as though you believe it.
I repeat;
You're a lost cause dude. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
I repeat;
You're a lost cause dude. |
Well, I'm sure glad it's some moron telling me that rather than someone who actually has a clue! :p |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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)
|
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
