obviously there are some questions in my head about 9/11.
BUT my only question to those who claim the US was behind the whole thing is this: Why didn't they fabricate a clearer link between 9/11 and Saddam?!?!?
For G-dsakes if the gov't was really behind the whole thing they could have fabriacted as clear a link as they wanted to. Shit they could have left some "Made in Iraq" shrapnel at the crash site if they had wanted to, right?
That is a good question. But wasn't the alleged link between Osama and Sadam enough? Could it be that they didn't want to point the finger so obviously? Anyone could be believe that a faceless terrorist organisation could be responsible, but a whole country? That may be too long a bow.
right but there was literally NO credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11, and that's been the source of lots of discontent with the Bush administration ever since. so, like, why not at least a tenuous connection? if the whole thing was such a big plot on the part of the administration, why not some link? why the downing memo? why create these doubts in the minds of most of the world when they could easily have fabricated a link? seems sloppy to me (and not intentionally sloppy either).
sorry, i didnt mean to come off like: 'the govts story is perfect'. (jesus no, far from). however, there isnt one question or item cited in your lists (particularly in terms of physical evidence) that supports an alternate explanation for the basic 'version' that - and i must put emphasis on this - is what the experts[/b] (scientists, analysts, etc) have reached consensus on - after 5+ years of analysis, study, research, and very hard work. (note that any theory based soley on what was said or claimed in the first week after the attacks is going on 99.9 percent impressions and conjecture. this is where most of the CTs break down, when compared to conclusions and clarifications that the scientists and engineers have *since* come to understand with massive amonst of study and reaserch at their disposal). (Youd be amazed at how many of the often quoted sources that CTers cite have later come forward (angerly) saying they were misquoted or misrepresented - or in many other cases, arent in fact experts in the field they were commenting on.)
i also didnt mean to put the emphasis on the word "believe". Belief is a bad thing to base conclusions on. Beleif is the antihesis to hard fact, provable knowledge etc, and a lot of bullshit gets spread around because of people believeing something or "knowing it in their heart" or "feeling sure" about something.
what i was trying to say is i went in suspicious of the 'official story', and asked many of the same questions people are asking in this thread (and on CT sites all over). When you cut out the bullshit and ask/read the conclusions and statements of those that are indeed experts as opposed to "experts" (i.e. 98% of those on the internet arguing about this stuff without possessing relevant knowledge, present company of course excepted!), you can indeed explain (or dismiss as irrelevant) virtually everything being questioned without any fudging of numbers or otherwise shady assumptions etc.
let me repeat that reading this book is a great way to get a clear consise summary that addresses just about every question (yes, including all the ones you posted) re: physical evidence and other empirical data.
a side note: in saying things like "The impact of the planes and the subsequent fires bringing down the twin towers is unproven.", fair enough i suppose, but one is then required to offer an alternate explanation. All, and i do mean all of the alternate explanations hinge on theories and suppositions, that, when grouped together, SOUND like a possible (and quite provocative) theory, but have been individually pretty much systematically shown to be impossible or at least very improbable, and exponentially so when strung together with more improbables.
Yes, the more one searches thru ANY history, you will find the odd footnotes and things that dont quite add up. its true, we will NEVER know 100% of everything that went down that day - its an enormously complex event. And indeed, govt officialls certainly had their share of fuck ups based on confusing intel, systems that were not calibrated to this type of attack, (+possible bad motives??? we wonder?) etc. We still dont know everything that went down during any number of catastrophes in history, and we may never. But[/b] i must insist that (in any event analysis) the burden of proof is on those who would toss out the scientific data and testimony of experts and claim that something else than what scientific/engineering consensus has posited is the case. In other words, if you are saying 'no its something else', then offer a 'something else' that makes sense and can stand up to scientific analysis.
The key word is 'believe' though isn't it. You can believe the official story or you can believe something else. In your example scientists can obviously prove the world is round but with 9/11 the theory that it was 19 Arab hijackers working under the orders of bin Laden is unproven (hence the fact that bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted page still makes no mention of the 9/11 attacks). The impact of the planes and the subsequent fires bringing down the twin towers is unproven. Fire bringing down WTC 7 is unproven. And so on. yes, but, this works both ways: nothing can be proven to one who doesnt want to accept it. i am going with the empirical data, which points very strongly to all of the above explanations being true - albeit 'unproven'.
It is up to the Bush regime to prove their story and they haven't done that so naturally other theories have emerged. In fact the Bush regime did everything they could to block an investigation that would have shown us what happened. The 9/11 families had to fight incredibly hard to get the 9/11 Commission to happen. 3000 people murdered, why did they have to fight for that? Sadly they couldn't get Bush crony and ???public myths??? expert Philip Zelikow taken off the commission,they couldn't get their questions asked and the 9/11 Commission ended up being a rather depressing go nowhere farce of an 'investigation'. Even Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have written a book admitting its lengthy list of failings. the above is indeed sad and troubling (but not in istelf proof of a consipracy, IMO)
There are so many oddities, so may unanswered questions. The molten metal under the debris of the twin towers and WTC 7 is one such unexplained oddity. We know that burning jet fuel can't burn at hot enough temperatures to melt the steel frame of the building. We know that whatever else that would have been burning couldn't have burnt hot enough to melt the steel, so what did? And why was it still molten weeks after the attacks?
Why did the towers fall so fast? What caused steel beams to be flung sideways many of them embedding into nearby buildings? The furthest was found around 500 feet away from the twin towers. How can a building pancaking down on itself fall at such speed whilst firing huge steel beams sideways?
How did every steel support column in WTC 7 give up at the exact same time causing a perfect collapse again at great speed? Why did Larry Silverstein claim in reference to building 7 that they had to 'pull it' later claiming he meant 'pull the firemen from the building' even though he said pull 'it' not pull 'them'. And there were no firemen in the building to be 'pulled' anyway. all[/b] these above are fully addressed in above book. (note that many of the above questions are asking questions by positing (or re-positing) untrue assumptions as fact, i.e. "there were no firemen in the building to be 'pulled' anyway" - okay - even if there were none actually inside for whatever reason, there were indeed many firefighters fighting that fire, and they were considered to be in increasing danger the longer they fought it. you dont fight a fire from 10 blocks away, you are generally very close to it or you wont have much chance of extinguishing it.)
Why did the Bush regime fail to act on the numerous warnings they were given? Why did they claim they had no idea that terrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings when there had been a previous failed terrorist plot using this exact scenario. It even targeted the WTC? And US government agencies had run drills involving flying planes into buildings. And on 9/11 itself Cheney was in charge of several drills some of which involved hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings.
Why did Bush and Cheney appoint themselves heads of NORAD several months before 9/11? This was the first time
in its history that civilians were in charge of this military agency putting Cheney directly in charge of NORAD on the day of the attacks.
the above are excellent questions, though i still say they are not evidence/proof of a conspiracy - more likely evidence of corruption and incompetence. (actually some of these ive never heard before, and would like further info on. if you can cite some sources id love to follow up on the drills/cheney/norad stuff).
And then why was NORAD so slow to respond to the attacks. It was almost two hours from the first hijacking to Flight 93 crash and yet no military planes managed to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft. I wouldn't expect planes to be being shot out of the sky but I would expect military planes to get along side, check out the situation and perhaps try to force the planes off course.
the short answer is that they in fact had zero authority to shoot anything domestic down inside the US on 9/11/01 (they do now though!), and were alerted too late. some other fuckups and confusion as well - with the transponders turned off these planes were damn hard to find - the above book goes into the details.
And what orders were transportation secretary Norman Mineta referring to when he stated to the 9/11 Commission:
" During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" " ?
And how did Bush' secret service agents know Bush was safe in that classroom? If they had no idea what was going on then they would have had to assume the President of the United States was a target. How did they know a plane wasn't about to impact into the school from the nearby airport? Or that some other attack wasn't about to happen? And what about the safety of the children in that classroom? Cheney stated that when the attacks started he was grabbed and immediately taken to the underground bunker in the White House. Why was Bush not immediately taken somewhere safe?
And if Norman Mineta's testimony is true then why weren't the Pentagon, the White House, Capitol Hill, etc evacuated?
these questions are good, but at this point were getting into those anomalies that do not necessarily point to a conspiracy, more to confusion, incompetance. the story of cheney is very compelling, and id like to know what norman was talking about as well.
this brings to mind the key part of the rolling stone essay on this stuff, wherein the '9/11 planning session' between bush, cheney and rumsfeld is imagined:
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign
paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?
RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
And why did ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad have $100,000 wired to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta? This directly connects the 9/11 attacks to the Pakistani government and the ISI which itself is heavily connected to the CIA. And so the list goes on. this is something ive not heard much of, is there source material? would like to read more.
There are many theories that have been explained, many questions that have been answered and obviously there are many idiots pushing ridiculous theories. But there are a great many questions that have not been answered in in that vacuum theories appear. It's not crazy, it's inevitable. i absolutely agree, the biggest shame is this info vacuum - i guess what im saying is that the vacuum isnt as void-y as most people may think, and its really too band that CTers have run with the ball cloggin up the internet with recycled hogwash, which obscures the good questions. The real, reasonable answers/info (and yes, questions) are out there. hopefully more will be uncovered.
hey guzzo - if you were local and you smelled the electrical chemical charred flesh coming out of that quagmire you wouldn't be making as many lame ass jokes about the cia , zionism and lizard folks.
not to mention tanks rolling down bdway and PIGS of ALL kinds saturating the area for months. ever have to go thru an armed ck point in your whip to cop a bag? lots of fun State Police,Local emergency cops,port authority pigs,FEMA pigs,county pigs,ARMY pigs,treasury pigs ,military pigs,cia,dia,fbi,all hovering like flies on shit. navy,coast guard,national guard,marines,local off duty cops,etc and road blocks everywhere there was even a brawl between the nypd and the nyfd over who had a bigger cock
Now this area is an orewellian penal death camp,with cameras on every lighpost and the police given free reign to search your bags in the subway or in any of the rail or bus terminals.Freedom is flourishing in NYC IMNSHO downtown is haunted forever and they will find more bones as time passes. i like seeing whole families and tourists on vacation some of obvious middle eastern heritage mobbing the spot and taking pix of the gaping hole 'yippee ain't NYC hip
to all ostrich ass morons that beleive the government wasn't complicit in this thing- all i have to say is that somewhere between your education ,diet,upbringing and eyeball input lies the fact that people will beleive whatever they are told just like in nazi germany
9/11 Press For Truth focuses on the Jersey Girls and other 9/11 family members and is built around Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 website and subsequent book. It's all mainstream media information that proves the official story is a lie and is very powerful as a result of that. There's nothing in there regarding explosives or missiles being fired into the Pentagon so for people who don't find these theories credible it's a more watchable movie. It's also very well made, very informative and does a great job showing how the Bush regime have done everything they can to hide the truth about 9/11, the fight by the families members to get the 9/11 Commission to happen and the betrayal of the Bush regime in regards to that, it shows how the Taleban were allowed to escape in Afghanistan, the Randy Glass story and a lot of other important information.
I just watched this and i have to say that this is a very informative documentary. I like how this focuses on the real questions unlike Loose Change. Thanks for the link. This weekend i will watch the other links you posted as well.
And why did ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad have $100,000 wired to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta? This directly connects the 9/11 attacks to the Pakistani government and the ISI which itself is heavily connected to the CIA. And so the list goes on.
this is something ive not heard much of, is there source material? would like to read more.
9/11 press for Truth makes notice of this (at approx. 1 hour & 4 minutes in). Apparently the source is the Indian Times.
And why did ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad have $100,000 wired to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta? This directly connects the 9/11 attacks to the Pakistani government and the ISI which itself is heavily connected to the CIA. And so the list goes on.
this is something ive not heard much of, is there source material? would like to read more.
9/11 Press for Truth makes notice of this (at approx. 1 hour & 4 minutes in). Apparently the source is the Indian Times.
Comments
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
BUT my only question to those who claim the US was behind the whole thing is this: Why didn't they fabricate a clearer link between 9/11 and Saddam?!?!?
For G-dsakes if the gov't was really behind the whole thing they could have fabriacted as clear a link as they wanted to. Shit they could have left some "Made in Iraq" shrapnel at the crash site if they had wanted to, right?
I dunno. Add it to the long list of questions.
thats how slick the government is. they intentionally make their sloppy work seem unintentional
Now do you think their sloppy?
the matrix just blinked and I have gas
sorry, i didnt mean to come off like: 'the govts story is perfect'. (jesus no, far from). however, there isnt one question or item cited in your lists (particularly in terms of physical evidence) that supports an alternate explanation for the basic 'version' that - and i must put emphasis on this - is what the experts[/b] (scientists, analysts, etc) have reached consensus on - after 5+ years of analysis, study, research, and very hard work. (note that any theory based soley on what was said or claimed in the first week after the attacks is going on 99.9 percent impressions and conjecture. this is where most of the CTs break down, when compared to conclusions and clarifications that the scientists and engineers have *since* come to understand with massive amonst of study and reaserch at their disposal). (Youd be amazed at how many of the often quoted sources that CTers cite have later come forward (angerly) saying they were misquoted or misrepresented - or in many other cases, arent in fact experts in the field they were commenting on.)
i also didnt mean to put the emphasis on the word "believe". Belief is a bad thing to base conclusions on. Beleif is the antihesis to hard fact, provable knowledge etc, and a lot of bullshit gets spread around because of people believeing something or "knowing it in their heart" or "feeling sure" about something.
what i was trying to say is i went in suspicious of the 'official story', and asked many of the same questions people are asking in this thread (and on CT sites all over). When you cut out the bullshit and ask/read the conclusions and statements of those that are indeed experts as opposed to "experts" (i.e. 98% of those on the internet arguing about this stuff without possessing relevant knowledge, present company of course excepted!), you can indeed explain (or dismiss as irrelevant) virtually everything being questioned without any fudging of numbers or otherwise shady assumptions etc.
let me repeat that reading this book
is a great way to get a clear consise summary that addresses just about every question (yes, including all the ones you posted) re: physical evidence and other empirical data.
a side note: in saying things like "The impact of the planes and the subsequent fires bringing down the twin towers is unproven.", fair enough i suppose, but one is then required to offer an alternate explanation. All, and i do mean all of the alternate explanations hinge on theories and suppositions, that, when grouped together, SOUND like a possible (and quite provocative) theory, but have been individually pretty much systematically shown to be impossible or at least very improbable, and exponentially so when strung together with more improbables.
Yes, the more one searches thru ANY history, you will find the odd footnotes and things that dont quite add up. its true, we will NEVER know 100% of everything that went down that day - its an enormously complex event. And indeed, govt officialls certainly had their share of fuck ups based on confusing intel, systems that were not calibrated to this type of attack, (+possible bad motives??? we wonder?) etc. We still dont know everything that went down during any number of catastrophes in history, and we may never. But[/b] i must insist that (in any event analysis) the burden of proof is on those who would toss out the scientific data and testimony of experts and claim that something else than what scientific/engineering consensus has posited is the case. In other words, if you are saying 'no its something else', then offer a 'something else' that makes sense and can stand up to scientific analysis.
The key word is 'believe' though isn't it. You can believe the official story or you can believe something else. In your example scientists can obviously prove the world is round but with 9/11 the theory that it was 19 Arab hijackers working under the orders of bin Laden is unproven (hence the fact that bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted page still makes no mention of the 9/11 attacks). The impact of the planes and the subsequent fires bringing down the twin towers is unproven. Fire bringing down WTC 7 is unproven. And so on.
yes, but, this works both ways: nothing can be proven to one who doesnt want to accept it. i am going with the empirical data, which points very strongly to all of the above explanations being true - albeit 'unproven'.
It is up to the Bush regime to prove their story and they haven't done that so naturally other theories have emerged. In fact the Bush regime did everything they could to block an investigation that would have shown us what happened. The 9/11 families had to fight incredibly hard to get the 9/11 Commission to happen. 3000 people murdered, why did they have to fight for that? Sadly they couldn't get Bush crony and ???public myths??? expert Philip Zelikow taken off the commission,they couldn't get their questions asked and the 9/11 Commission ended up being a rather depressing go nowhere farce of an 'investigation'. Even Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have written a book admitting its lengthy list of failings.
the above is indeed sad and troubling (but not in istelf proof of a consipracy, IMO)
There are so many oddities, so may unanswered questions. The molten metal under the debris of the twin towers and WTC 7 is one such unexplained oddity. We know that burning jet fuel can't burn at hot enough temperatures to melt the steel frame of the building. We know that whatever else that would have been burning couldn't have burnt hot enough to melt the steel, so what did? And why was it still molten weeks after the attacks?
Why did the towers fall so fast? What caused steel beams to be flung sideways many of them embedding into nearby buildings? The furthest was found around 500 feet away from the twin towers. How can a building pancaking down on itself fall at such speed whilst firing huge steel beams sideways?
How did every steel support column in WTC 7 give up at the exact same time causing a perfect collapse again at great speed? Why did Larry Silverstein claim in reference to building 7 that they had to 'pull it' later claiming he meant 'pull the firemen from the building' even though he said pull 'it' not pull 'them'. And there were no firemen in the building to be 'pulled' anyway.
all[/b] these above are fully addressed in above book. (note that many of the above questions are asking questions by positing (or re-positing) untrue assumptions as fact, i.e. "there were no firemen in the building to be 'pulled' anyway" - okay - even if there were none actually inside for whatever reason, there were indeed many firefighters fighting that fire, and they were considered to be in increasing danger the longer they fought it. you dont fight a fire from 10 blocks away, you are generally very close to it or you wont have much chance of extinguishing it.)
Why did the Bush regime fail to act on the numerous warnings they were given? Why did they claim they had no idea that terrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings when there had been a previous failed terrorist plot using this exact scenario. It even targeted the WTC? And US government agencies had run drills involving flying planes into buildings. And on 9/11 itself Cheney was in charge of several drills some of which involved hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings.
Why did Bush and Cheney appoint themselves heads of NORAD several months before 9/11? This was the first time in its history that civilians were in charge of this military agency putting Cheney directly in charge of NORAD on the day of the attacks.
the above are excellent questions, though i still say they are not evidence/proof of a conspiracy - more likely evidence of corruption and incompetence. (actually some of these ive never heard before, and would like further info on. if you can cite some sources id love to follow up on the drills/cheney/norad stuff).
And then why was NORAD so slow to respond to the attacks. It was almost two hours from the first hijacking to Flight 93 crash and yet no military planes managed to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft. I wouldn't expect planes to be being shot out of the sky but I would expect military planes to get along side, check out the situation and perhaps try to force the planes off course.
the short answer is that they in fact had zero authority to shoot anything domestic down inside the US on 9/11/01 (they do now though!), and were alerted too late. some other fuckups and confusion as well - with the transponders turned off these planes were damn hard to find - the above book goes into the details.
And what orders were transportation secretary Norman Mineta referring to when he stated to the 9/11 Commission:
" During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" " ?
And how did Bush' secret service agents know Bush was safe in that classroom? If they had no idea what was going on then they would have had to assume the President of the United States was a target. How did they know a plane wasn't about to impact into the school from the nearby airport? Or that some other attack wasn't about to happen? And what about the safety of the children in that classroom? Cheney stated that when the attacks started he was grabbed and immediately taken to the underground bunker in the White House. Why was Bush not immediately taken somewhere safe?
And if Norman Mineta's testimony is true then why weren't the Pentagon, the White House, Capitol Hill, etc evacuated?
these questions are good, but at this point were getting into those anomalies that do not necessarily point to a conspiracy, more to confusion, incompetance. the story of cheney is very compelling, and id like to know what norman was talking about as well.
this brings to mind the key part of the rolling stone essay on this stuff, wherein the '9/11 planning session' between bush, cheney and rumsfeld is imagined:
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?
RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
And why did ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad have $100,000 wired to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta? This directly connects the 9/11 attacks to the Pakistani government and the ISI which itself is heavily connected to the CIA. And so the list goes on.
this is something ive not heard much of, is there source material? would like to read more.
There are many theories that have been explained, many questions that have been answered and obviously there are many idiots pushing ridiculous theories. But there are a great many questions that have not been answered in in that vacuum theories appear. It's not crazy, it's inevitable.
i absolutely agree, the biggest shame is this info vacuum - i guess what im saying is that the vacuum isnt as void-y as most people may think, and its really too band that CTers have run with the ball cloggin up the internet with recycled hogwash, which obscures the good questions. The real, reasonable answers/info (and yes, questions) are out there. hopefully more will be uncovered.
not to mention tanks rolling down bdway and PIGS of ALL kinds saturating the area for months.
ever have to go thru an armed ck point in your whip to cop a bag?
lots of fun
State Police,Local emergency cops,port authority pigs,FEMA pigs,county pigs,ARMY pigs,treasury pigs ,military pigs,cia,dia,fbi,all hovering like flies on shit.
navy,coast guard,national guard,marines,local off duty cops,etc and road blocks everywhere
there was even a brawl between the nypd and the nyfd over who had a bigger cock
Now this area is an orewellian penal death camp,with cameras on every lighpost and the police given free reign to search your bags in the subway or in any of the rail or bus terminals.Freedom is flourishing in NYC
IMNSHO
downtown is haunted forever and they will find more bones as time passes.
i like seeing whole families and tourists on vacation some of obvious middle eastern heritage mobbing the spot and taking pix of the gaping hole
'yippee ain't NYC hip
to all ostrich ass morons that beleive the government wasn't complicit in this thing-
all i have to say is that somewhere between your education ,diet,upbringing and eyeball input lies the fact that people will beleive whatever they are told
just like in nazi germany
I just watched this and i have to say that this is a very informative documentary. I like how this focuses on the real questions unlike Loose Change.
Thanks for the link. This weekend i will watch the other links you posted as well.
9/11 press for Truth makes notice of this (at approx. 1 hour & 4 minutes in). Apparently the source is the Indian Times.
9/11 Press for Truth makes notice of this (at approx. 1 hour & 4 minutes in). Apparently the source is the Indian Times.
Please advise as to what it is you are smoking, snorting or shooting.......this must be some top notch governemnt issue shit and I want some!!
And your excessive use of the word pig makes you a genuine Rebel.
You are my hero!!