Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Gaza as Sarajevo




War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Troy Jollimore on Martin Amis’ ‘The Second Plane’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 24, 2008
book cover

By Troy Jollimore

(Page 3)

These days, the attempt is frequently based on a “partners in crime” approach. When one of the participants in a public discussion points out that the Quran does, in fact, contain passages which at least apparently condone violence against non-Muslims and other barbarities, it is almost certain that someone will respond with, “Ah, but so does the Bible.” So a passage in which Allah calls for the mass slaughter of non-Muslims is juxtaposed with, say, Deuteronomy 20:17. (“But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.”) It is thus supposed to be established that we, as members of a culture shaped by Christianity, are in no position to criticize the Quran for whatever injunctions to violence it might contain.

The popularity of this strategy is both perplexing and appalling. Why is the comparison supposed to carry any weight at all? Why, that is, are we to assume that when someone is criticizing the Quran, he or she is doing it from a Biblical perspective? Why can’t we reject both? Amis would reply that we can, and should—indeed, we can and should—reject them all: “Since it is no longer permissible to disparage any single faith or creed, let us start disparaging all of them. To be clear: an ideology is a belief system with an inadequate basis in reality; a religion is a belief system with no basis in reality whatever. Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful. It is straightforward—and never mind, for now, about plagues and famines: if God existed, and if he cared for humankind, he would never have given us religion.”

This hostility toward religion will displease both moderates and extremists. Amis might seem more tolerant elsewhere, when he draws the distinction between fear of Islam, and fear of Islamism: “I was once asked: ‘Are you an Islamophobe?’ And the answer is no. What I am is an Islamismophobe, or better say an anti-Islamist, because a phobia is an irrational fear, and it is not irrational to fear something that says it wants to kill you.”

But this need not—and, in Amis’ case, does not—imply a tolerance toward moderate religion in the philosophical or emotional sense. To say that we should not fear moderate religion is not to say that we should admire or embrace it. Nor does either amount to a claim about whether moderate faith should be legally or politically tolerated. Nowhere in “The Second Plane” is it suggested that anyone ought to be denied the right to believe and practice Islam, or any other faith. It is perfectly consistent to claim that “[t]oday, in the West, there are no good excuses for religious belief—unless we think that ignorance, reaction, and sentimentality are good excuses,” while allowing that people have the right to act in ways for which they have no good excuse, so long as they do not infringe other people’s rights in the process.

Amis is, moreover, perfectly on target when he decries the current tendency to identify moderate religion as the mainstream, and to treat skepticism and, in particular, atheism as kinds of extremism—mirror images, as it were, of religious fundamentalism: “In this general view, fundamentalists are on one wing, atheists are on the other, and the supposed center is occupied by moderate believers and a few laconic agnostics. Secular fanaticism, secular hatred—these equivalencies are fictions. ... The key point, of course, is that secularism contains no warrant for action. One can afford to be crude about this. When Islamists crash passenger planes into buildings, or hack off the heads of hostages, they shout, ‘God is great!’ When secularists do that kind of thing, what do they shout?”

This is, indeed, somewhat crude, but it is, perhaps, refreshingly crude: There is a truth here that is too infrequently expressed. (One can’t help but wish, though, that Amis had mentioned the second key difference, which is that the standard skeptic, unlike the typical religious believer, is able to say what evidence it would take to make her change her beliefs.)

Amis’ comments in a 2006 interview with The Times of London were cruder still, and less defensibly so. There, he seemed to suggest open discrimination against Muslims and “people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan”—measures including travel restrictions and, potentially, deportation—in order to encourage the community to crack down on its more violent members. Amis has since distanced himself from these remarks, claiming that he was not making a serious policy suggestion but simply “conversationally describing an urge—an urge that soon wore off.”

One might well hesitate to let him off quite so easily: The remarks really were not only, as he himself now admits, “stupid,” but deeply offensive. (Such overtly discriminatory policies have something important in common with terrorism: They violate the rule that the innocent are not to be punished for the crimes of others.) On the other hand, the price of engaging in moral thought in a serious way—rather than simply standing on the sidelines and muttering platitudes about the goodness of peace and tolerance—is that one will on occasion give offense, including legitimate offense; and the only way to guarantee that one never hits the wrong target is to avoid taking any sort of stand at all. This is clearly a price Martin Amis is not willing to pay. In response, his intellectual opponents have attempted to dismiss his criticisms of militant Islamism as nothing more than intolerant expressions of right-wing prejudice. But this charge is badly overinflated. If Amis’ writings are intolerant, then it is intolerance of an admirable sort—the attitude that refuses to tolerate the oppression of, and the infliction of violence on, women, nonbelievers and others. Jihadism, as Amis recently told Rachel Donadio of The New York Times, is “racist, homophobic, totalitarian, genocidal, inquisitorial and imperialistic. Surely there should be no difficulty in announcing one’s hostility to that, but there is.”

Troy Jollimore is Associate Professor in the philosophy department at California State University, Chico. His reviews and essays have appeared in venues including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Book Review and St. Louis Magazine. His first book of poetry,“Tom Thomson in Purgatory,” won the National Book Critics Circle Award in 2006.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By niloroth, May 23, 2008 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

nyc 9/11 initiative?  And what are you going to do when they come to the same conclusion that the NIST did with regards to the collapse of the towers?  Probably bitch about that as well. 

Who is going to support the 9/11 denial side?  Jones won’t submit any of his “evidence” to independent review.  Gage won’t debate anyone, and griffin won’t even respond to Ryan Mackey’s destruction of ‘debunking 9/11 debunking’.  And you expect these people to go into court and be cross examined on the stand?  Yeah right.  That would endanger their book deals and website advertising and merchandising revenue.  Please, they are cowards.  If they truly believed what they say, they would have been there at the Mousaaoui trial to support him.  But they weren’t.  Which makes them liars, or cowards.  I tend to think both, but thats just me.

Report this

By Maani, May 23, 2008 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“Moreover, it is the rest of what you’ve put here, that forms the basis of my own (at least one of them) academic projects. It is actually the on-going project that at its foundation, examines how we have devolved, (not unlike OTHER regimes of history) into a totalitarian state. As one of my favorite professors says…9/11 changed EVERYTHING!”

“Ditto” right back atcha.  And your addition of the 2000 election debacle is a good call as well.

Re the “post-9/11 world,” and your comments re the growing proto-totalitarianism in the U.S., again I am in full agreement.  Although I am guessing you have read some or all of these, three superb books that speak to this issue are: Crossing the Rubicon (Michael Ruppert), The End of America (Naomi Wolf) and The Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein).  There are, of course, many others.

As well, for anyone (I am speaking generally now) seriously interested in why (as you correctly noted) the 9/11 Commission Report was actually the “death knell” for the “official story,” two must-reads are the one you mentioned, “The Commission” (Shenon) - which explains how the commission was formed, the many conflicts of interest of the commissioners and staff, and how executive director Philip Zelikow (a Bush crony) did everything he could to sabotage any REAL investigation - and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” (Griffin), which focuses more on the content of the Report itself.

And any serious “student” of this issue would be remiss in not reading the document that “started it all”: PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which can be found in its entirety here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

It is also instructive to read the two Patriot Acts:

Patriot Act I:
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Patriot Act II:
http://www.loyalnine.com/DSEA2003_text_Patriot_Act_2

And finally, there is the soon-to-be-passed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, which is very short - but truly frightening:
 
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

If you read it carefully, you will realize that it may soon become a crime to recite the second paragaph of the Declaration of Independence.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

Ah HA!! This gives some very clear evidence to my last comment in the post below, regarding Niloroth’s motivations. He writes this:

•  “…once these things fall off the front page i have no more interest in them, since it is less likely you will actually infect anyone else with your stupidity….”

I had suggested that Niloroth was either in serious denial, or that he was petrified that more and more Americans were learning the truth.

I think he proves the latter right here, which is what I’ve long ago suspected anyway. He is determined to undermine anyone who questions the most horrific TREASON perpetrated in the 21st Century. Scared shitless that the truth will be exposed. He is all about subverting and covering up but unsophisticated in how to manage it. So, he concentrates on demonizing anyone who DOES expose these questions, by calling us stupid or ignorant or whatever. But, it’s CLEAR that he is only interested in doing that, to as wide an audience as he can, and NOT about actually uncovering and/or addressing all of these many questions.

He’s said it himself. Once they are off the front page, he is NO LONGER INTERESTED, because his only INTEREST…COMMITMENT is to subverting the truth, and preventing anyone from discovering it. If HE thinks that people aren’t paying any attention, (his first mistake) then he doesn’t care, and moves on to whatever ‘audience’ it is that he THINKS he can overwhelm with the lies, by calling everybody else stupid. That is his only purpose on this or any other public forum. That is attacking the truth anywhere it might seep out, and affect public opinion.

Big job…kind of like holding ones finger in a hole in a leaky dike, while the water pours out from all other sides.

Have fun Nilo.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

“As an aside, I’m really pleased that you and I have found something on which we are in virtually total agreement…LOL.  And not coincidentally, it is the very thing that directly LED to everything that followed (the phony “post-9/11 world”), including the Iraq War, the Department of Homeland Security, the two Patriot Acts, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, color-coded terror alerts, illegal spying on American citizens, and the the evisceration of habeus corpus and posse comitatus, among many other outrages. ..”

Maani..
Ditto on all of this. I’m pleased as well. Moreover, it is the rest of what you’ve put here, that forms the basis of my own (at least one of them) academic projects. It is actually the on-going project that at its foundation, examines how we have devolved, (not unlike OTHER regimes of history) into a totalitarian state. As one of my favorite professors says, (and I think I’ve mentioned him before, Richard Falk) 9/11 changed EVERYTHING!

In nearly all authoritarian states, the components of ‘national security’ and ALWAYS, ALWAYS, *TERROR* are involved. The fall of the US republic, as we knew it, or as it was envisioned, has been accomplished, and the kick-off was first (in my opinion) The Coup of the 2000 Election. Cheney had already dictated long before that…”Just get the Oval Office. Whatever it takes, and whatever needs to be done…JUST GET THE OVAL OFFICE.”

The Coup d’etat was 9/11, and set the stage for all of the rest. Like most folks, I’ve had to observe as best I can from the information as it becomes available, in trying to come to some sort of informed consensus of the hows and the whys, and the lack of consensus on that; namely the distinction between the blowback theories, the LIHOP and the MIHOP have made it difficult to get to the truth of the whole thing, because of course the truth is the first thing that has to be undermined in a totalitarian arrangement.

Still, with the advent of technology and the research and communications assistance that it provides, we keep learning more, and can connect the dots more absolutely. So, while I was not certain in my own mind at the beginning, of exactly HOW this was accomplished, (and I’m still not) I do at least have a far, far better understanding of WHY. And the why has to be resolved before the ‘how’ can be absolutely verified. (If it can ever be, since much of the physical evidence has been destroyed).
I’m honestly not sure that all of the scientific expertise on the matter is helpful at anything more than ruling out all of the official lies. In other words, I don’t know how much any ADDITIONAL help can be provided by all of detailed information about architecture and engineering and even some of the stuff that I’ve seen on-line in reference to the aviation or aerodynamics details. I read a really long piece yesterday that was intended to prove whether or not ground speed could have affected the alleged behavior of the alleged aircraft at the Pentagon. It was an excellent piece for the study of aerodynamics, but taken alone, none of that information is really helpful to understanding what happened, because it doesn’t address the WHY.

So, I only said that to say that we have to know and understand the WHY, in order to put it into context with the HOW. Now that’s just my own working theory, and in that, I loosely connect the ‘why’ to the strategic, and the “how”, to the tactical. Even that though, is a loose connection for the moment.

What you’ve put forth here, (which is the WAY that 9/11 ‘changed EVERYTHING) is are the tactical results of the why.

I hope something comes from the group that is attempting to organize in NYC.

As for Niloroth…one of two explanations..He’s either in the strongest form of denial and delusion that exists, or he’s in a sheer panic that so many Americans have figured this out. Not sure which.

Report this

By Maani, May 22, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

Patrick:

“A new hearing needs to be established under the new government, with all the advocates on both sides represented.”

Dream on!  LOL.  The chance that either Hillary OR Obama would open a new investigation is none to minus-one.  LOL.

However, there is a ballot initiative in NYC that, if passed, would create a new, non-political, non-partisan investigation, with subpoena power, with a commission made up of a wide variety of people (I think the number is 25), including two of the “Jersey Girls,” victim’s family members, survivors, journalists, scientists, etc.

For those who live in NYC, I urge you not only to sign the petition, but to help spread the word.  The site for the initiative is:

http://www.nyc911initiative.org/

Peace.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

Unlike the 9/11 commission which rushed to judgement, many fellow 9/11 researchers like to follow all the leads, inconsistancies and coincidences which were not available at the time of that hearing.

A new hearing needs to be established under the new government, with all the advocates on both sides represented.

Dirt always comes out in the wash.

Report this

By Maani, May 22, 2008 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

I’m really glad that my link led you to the very thing you were looking for.  And thanks for providing that direct link.

Re Silverstein, it was actually two of his backers who made the purchase of the Sears Tower from Met Life in 2004.  Here is the article:

http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20040312-starkman.html

I agree that the 9/11 Commission Report helped to undermine the government’s case.  Between errors and omissions, conflicts of interest, and other factors, it actually serves to do the opposite of what it intended.  How sweetly ironic.

I’m sure you’ve seen both Zeitgeist and Loose Change (both editions).  As well, Griffin’s three main books are worth reading (The New Pearl Harbor, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Debunking 9/11 Debunking).  What niloroth fails to realize is that, even if one or two particulars of Griffin’s claims ARE in error, this leaves an ENORMOUS amount that is NOT in error, and is, in fact, solidly supported.

As an aside, I’m really pleased that you and I have found something on which we are in virtually total agreement…LOL.  And not coincidentally, it is the very thing that directly LED to everything that followed (the phony “post-9/11 world”), including the Iraq War, the Department of Homeland Security, the two Patriot Acts, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, color-coded terror alerts, illegal spying on American citizens, and the the evisceration of habeus corpus and posse comitatus, among many other outrages.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, May 22, 2008 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Niloroth:

Actually, I tried to post my multi-part response only hours after your last post.  However, the site would not let me do so.  I even had a long back-and-forth with the TD admin people about why the site refused to accept my post.  That led to a great deal of work by them to increase response time, and eliminate various kinks in the system.  It took them the better part of a week or more to get to everything.  Thus, I posted my multi-part response at the first opportunity at which the site would accept it.

As for “infecting” people with my “stupidity,” I am fine with that, since it is better than YOU infecting people with your myopic, narrow-minded, “see no evil, hear no evil” approach.

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, May 22, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

You folks never fail to amaze me with your consistency.  You wait a good 2 or 3 weeks, until the article is off the front page, and no one is reading it any more, and then you come in with some idiotic list of issues to try to support your failed conspiracy hypothesis.  Anyway, it’s all the same crap, and no one is reading it any more except for you 2.  Have fun, once these things fall off the front page i have no more interest in them, since it is less likely you will actually infect anyone else with your stupidity.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

THANKS Maani!!

This was very, very interesting. I’d not seen it before.

And guess what? On that very same sequence, the next video that came up, was of the guy that knew too much!!

It’s under the title of “Mass Media Knew Everything…”

So, I saved it this time.  Actually, I had before, but my system crashed..(for real, not like the 9/11 thing)...and it was just going to be way to big a job to try and save it all.

So fortunately, I’ve been able to gradually replace some of the stuff as I go along.

Anyway, here are a couple more that you may already have, including this guy that just appears and they just happen to interview HIM, and he just happens to know all about how this steal melted and all.

And, thanks again for checking. I hope you didn’t have to spend a lot of time on it. It was lucky that it came up from the other that you gave me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE2WU-WAJ7A&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDModrMBQ3k&feature=related

Oh…from this video that you sent, did you hear or read somewhere on this blog…(I know I read it recently, but I can’t remember where) that Larry Silverstein has purchased the Sears Tower?

What the hell? Remember when they accused those guys in FLorida a couple of years ago, of planning a terrorist operation to include the Sears Tower? (It was one of the many occassional threats that they’ve drug out over the past 5 years). I think I remember reading a few months ago that they’d actually tried to bring it to trial, and it was thrown out. Those guys probably never even heard of the Sears Tower.

I just wanna know why Larry Silverstein bought it. Gives me the creeeps. Kinda makes ya think that dooms it, huh?

And, I just got two books on this 9/11 thing, even though I was expecting two others that I actually NEED right now. But, these came today, so I might as well waste some time looking though them. It will be new stuff for me. On is “Towers of Deception” and the other is “9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.”

Philip Shenon also has an EXCELLENT book “The Commission: The UNCENSORED History of the 9/11 Investigation”, published by this same new (2005) publishing company, TWELVE, that is doing Robert Scheer’s newest book.

I’ve had that one for awhile, but haven’t gotten as far into because of other work. But, it’s great. Starts out with Kissenger meeting with the widows that eventually forced the investigation. Rove was apparently all over it as well.

And ya know, just in my own opinion, that Commission Report is what sealed the Admin’s fate, and confirmed the lies. I mean, we already KNEW what had happened, and it was obvious from day one, that the buildings at the WTC had been blown up. (at least to me it was, because I know airplanes couldn’t have done that damage).

So, that’s why I could never figure out why they didn’t just ADMIT that the buildings had been blown up. I mean, since they were lying anyway, they could have blamed that on the ‘terrorists’ as well, and we wouldn’t have known the difference. (well, eventually we would have).

Still, you know what I mean. Lying to cover up lies NEVER works, and it just means that they have to keep telling more lies, which then means there are more lies to catch them in.

It’s such a hassle. That’s why I always just reccommend that folks tell the truth. I tell ‘em, “you can lie to yourself, but you should never lie to your attorney.” smile

Just seems like Dick Bush would know that. Then again, I suspect they do, and just don’t care.

Thanks again..

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

I am looking for the video you requested (the man who seemed to know too much…), and will post it when I find it.  I know it is part of at least two longer videos I own, but I’m looking for just that clip.

In the meantime, I thought this might interest you as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEHAad79LU

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

Niloroth BEGINS his post to me with this sentence…

•  “Ah cyrena, the ignorance you bring to any thread on 9/11 you are in is always funny to see.”

Actually Niloroth, THIS is always funny to see. (at least for me). Ah yes, my ignorance after nearly 30 years of commercial airline operations, both navigating the not always so friendly skies, as well as dispatching, and emergency response to air disasters, which are of course always quite horrific. One never becomes ‘accustomed’ to such work, anymore I guess, than any policeman, fireman, or other public servant involved in that sort of thing. Yep, I’m sure ignorant about this airplane stuff. But, I can’t imagine why you would find that ‘funny to see’. You wouldn’t have thought it was so funny to have such an ignorant person chauffeuring you around at FL370 now would you? (oh, that’s 37,000 feet for laypeople) Or wait, maybe you’ve never been in an airplane. Maybe THAT explains it.

So tell me Niloroth, when exactly did YOU SEE this huge crowd of people in the aftermath of the alleged crash into the Pentagon, of AA flt 77 and did you also get some really good footage on the same at that field in Pennsylvania, where UA 93 allegedly broke into so many pieces that they much have all blown away, leaving that little hole there in the ground? I must have missed that Niloroth, and it was appear that you’re the only one who saw all of these people. Are you sure of what you saw Nilo? Do you know what an airplane looks like? Could you identify a 757 from at 767, or a 777 or even a 727?

I’m very familiar by the way, with the DCA airport that is nearest the Pentagon, but not as close as a mile, and I don’t reference google maps to find that sort of thing out. You see we have these CHARTS that we use to reference when flying around the friendly skys. And yes, we use approach plates, and various other sorts of things like that, to navigate our way between the ground and the sky. So after doing that for so long, one just sort of remembers those things. Know what I mean? That’s a tricky airport I might add..at least for a long time it was…I used to hate the approach at that airport. Leaving wasn’t bad, but the approach always required these special calisthenics. It’s much better now…they redid it years ago.

Meantime, I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but a 757 cannot fly ‘low to the ground at 500mph.” And, while there have been a million after attempts to scientifically justify the OCL that flt 77 could in fact do what it did, with an inexperienced pilot at the helm, it simply cannot. One of the arguments is that it’s not at all hard to fly a 757 into a building the size of the Pentagon, but that it is far more difficult to fly it properly. Indeed, landing an aircraft on a runway is far more difficult than slamming one into the Pentagon. On the other hand, nobody bothers to account for how this inexperienced ‘terrorist pilot’ managed to even FIND HIS WAY to the Pentagon, unless the flight plan had been accordingly uploaded that way. (that happens prior to take off by the way, and the pilots themselves do NOT upload those plans to the FMC)

BUT, ALL pilots certainly DO know how to squawk the hijack code, or the code for lost communications, or the other emergency codes that are used. So, it sort of makes me ‘wonder’ why, out of EIGHT PILOTS on FOUR AIRCRAFT, not a single one of them squawked the code.

Maybe YOU know Niloroth. I’ll wait for you to send me links to all of those people that were allegedly at the seen of the aftermath. NOT the next day Nilo. NOT 4 hours later. I’m talking about when the plane supposedly hit.

As for me ‘wanting’ to see dead body parts, that WOULD be sick. But as I’ve said, air disasters do happen, and I’ve been a witness and/or first responder to more than I like to remember. It was my JOB!

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

Sdemetri
Excellent questions/points

•  “As gruesome as it may sound, the body parts recovered… can you be absolutely certain they are from the pentagon? And, if so, what gives you that certainty?”

Answer…NO. To date, there is absolutely NO proof that the body parts that the Gov claimed to recover actually came from the Pentagon, and I don’t believe that they did. We have only the governments word that they even recovered any bodies there.

•  “The debris… there may be a pissing contest going on, but no large aircraft crashes that I am aware of were ever void of large pieces of debris… tail sections, wings, engines.”

This made me chuckle…on the pissing contest thing. There really isn’t one (pissing contest) UNLESS you’re trying to have any rational discussion with Niloroth, which isn’t gonna happen. He’s committed (for a lifetime apparently) to ignoring all evidence of anything other than the ‘official lies of the commission’…heretofore OLC.

Anyway, I’ve mentioned this a few hundred times. (the lack of debris, or any sign that an airplane was ever there). But, maybe that’s too obvious for folks, unless they’ve spent a few decades working/living the operations of the commercial airline industry. Then again, it just seems like it wouldn’t even take that. Seems like anyone who’s done any checking on previous air disasters AT ALL, would realize that aircraft ALWAYS leave debris. No matter what.

The other issue is that there is ALWAYS an immediate emergency response team, even for aircraft that go down in the middle of the ocean, or the middle of the mountains. But, because so many of these disasters HAVE occurred either in airports, or nearby such facilities, that emergency response is immediate, as it was in NYC. But, not at the Pentagon. I did not see a single solitary emergency response vehicle or team. AT THE PENTAGON!
Now there is SO MUCH footage, (sadly) of previous air disasters, and it seems to go on and on forever. The aftermath of AA flt 191 at ORD way back in 1978 or ’79. Then the aftermath of DL flt 191 (yes same flight number) at DFW in the early 80’s. (about 83 I believe). Of course there have been far more, and those stand out in my mind just because I happened to witness them. Egypt air in the late 90’s, was the same. ALL of these passenger jetliners that have come to such fatal ends ALWAYS have an immediate emergency response, because major cities and airports PLAN for such disasters. But the Pentagon? Nothing.

UA flight 93? Nothing. No debris, and no news footage of the disaster from the regular news coverage. I can’t and won’t believe that this was not intentionally planned here, because no ‘terrorists’ arranged in advance, to make sure that the demise of the 4 airplanes and their passengers, would not and could not be recorded by the US media, who NEVER miss an ‘opportunity’ to cover these things, and immediately.

Yes, it’s true that all eyes were on NYC and the WTC, which DID have the standard emergency response, because we know how many of those first responders lost their lives as well. But conveniently, (for the first time in the recorded history of commercial aviation) not a single piece of the aircrafts were left to identify.

Meantime, does anyone know where I can find the video of the guy that was talking to the news media immediately after the 1st plane hit the tower? He is presumed to be a spectator, describing what had occurred, and he goes into a long explanation about the fuel melting the steal and weakening the structure, within minutes after the tower was hit, while there was still pandemonium in the area. And, he’s very detailed in how this all occurred, and it turns out to be the same thing the OLC tried to put over on us. It’s SO suspect, but maybe only in hindsight. I’d like to review it again.
Maani, nice job on the series.

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

CY:

You have it exactly backward.  Most of the work being done on that section, to “shore it up,” had already been completed.  Thus, it was the STRONGEST part of the building, not the weakest.  In fact, the wing of the building in which the “brass” are housed (including Rumsfeld) was one of the weakest parts of the building at that time.

Peace.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 21, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

If you haven’t seen this yet, I highly recommend the following presentation given at Waterloo University in March 2008, to an audience of about 400 people. The second speaker, Dr. Graeme McQueen gives one of the best presentations on the collapse of the towers I have seen to date. His bit starts at about 48:00. The first fellow is worth listening to as well, but McQueen’s presentation is excellent. As I am sure you know, he wrote the paper “118 witnesses” on the Journal of 911 Studies site.

Thank you for your work putting these comments together. Nice job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=812494320239887035

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The pentagon was built during WWII it was supposed to last only to the end of the war. It was not constructed well, and lately, the Defense Department has been attempting to upgrade. The destroyed section was under construction when the w\hatever happened on 9/11. I probably could have driven my Buick through those walls!

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

(1 of 9)

Niloroth et al:

Put THIS in your pipe and smoke it!  LOL.

1.  The Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that the towers fell as a result of steel support structures being weakened by the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires.  The Report claims that the fires fed on flammable materials in the building, leading to the weakening of the interior and exterior support structures, which then led to the collapse of the buildings in a “pancake effect” - i.e., one floor collapsing on top of the next, with the combined weight causing each of the buildings to collapse.  Here are some facts and questions that “put the lie” to that theory.

-The impact of the planes in and of themselves did “take out” some of the exterior and interior support structure.  However, the impacts themselves would not have caused the buildings to collapse.

-The initial “fireballs” of jet fuel probably caused some damage, but were not hot enough, or for long enough duration, to cause any significant damage.  It is important to keep in mind that, in both impacts, the vast majority of the diesel fuel burned up within seconds.  More importantly, jet fuel burns, at its hottest, at around 1,800 degrees.  Yet the melting point of steel is ~2,600 degrees.  So the heat from the fires - even had it been at the hottest possible temperature (which is was not) - could not have melted the support structures.  Numerous studies have been done on this, and all have concluded that there is no way that the fire was hot enough to melt steel.  (See, for example, http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064).

-There was very little flammable material in the buildings that could have provided “fuel” for the fires, especially to create a hot enough fire to continually affect the steel.  In fact, it is very clear that the fires were not very hot at all.  For one thing, the darker the smoke, the more “fuel-starved” the fire is: and the smoke from the fires in the two towers began to get dark in less than 20 minutes, which means they had very little to “feed” on.  In addition, there are numerous photographs of people standing in the areas in which the fires were supposedly hottest: yet these people are standing there comfortably (though admittedly stranded), many in clothing that is not even black from smoke.  (See, for example, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm).

(cont’d below)

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

(2 of 9)

-Each tower had a “central core” comprised of 47 vertical solid-steel beams.  Note that The 9/11 Commission Report completely omits this: it is as if these “central cores” did not exist!  This is because their “pancake theory” falls apart given these “central cores.”  Had the floors collapsed on top of each other in perfect pancake fashion, as the Report claims, there would have been a “stutter” effect - i.e., a slight time lag - due to the existence of this “core.”  Yet it took between 10 and 16 seconds for each of the towers to collapse.  This is called “free fall” speed: i.e., the time it would take for an object dropped from the top of one of the towers (i.e., without any resistance other than wind) to reach the ground.  But buildings - any building - cannot fall at “free fall” speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed.  The only thing that could have destroyed the interior “cores” of the twin towers is explosives: i.e., a “controlled demolition.”  There is simply no other way to explain how and why the towers fell at “free fall” speed.  Indeed, in some of the photographs and videos of the collapses, you can spot the “squibs” (i.e., explosive charges) blowing up just prior to each floor collapsing, and see parts of the building flying outward - and even upward - which can only be the result of explosives.  (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html and
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/).

-Over 90% or more of the concrete in both towers was pulverized into fine dust: there were very few large chunks of concrete.  If the government’s “pancake theory” were true, there would have been quite a few large chunks of steel flying off as the floors collapsed on top of each other.  The only thing that could have pulverized 95% of the concrete is explosives - especially given that some of this pulverizing occurred before the buildings had completely collapsed.  As well, there were no pieces of steel longer than between 12 and 24 feet.  In fact, almost all of the pieces of steel were exactly that size.  Only explosives could have created such perfectly “cut” steel pieces.  As an aside, this is coincidentally the exact size that fits on a flatbed truck.  (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/aerialdust.html and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html).

-The twin towers collapsed almost perfectly into their own “footprints”: even though the top of one of the towers was leaning precariously, both towers fell straight down, causing the most minimal damage to the buildings around them.  This is exactly how a controlled demolition works.  (See, for example, http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm).

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

(3 of 9)

These are the clearest, most direct facts and questions.  There is also evidence to support the fact that there were explosions in the sub-basements of the two towers just prior to their collapse (See http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm and http://www.explosive911analysis.com/).  It is also curious that one of the companies hired to do the clean-up at the site was the same company that had been working, prior to 9/11, on strengthening of the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed.  (See http://www.global-conspiracies.com/16254.htm).  And then there is the fact that, despite the site being essentially a “crime scene” - for which a thorough forensic investigation should have been done - the clean-up was done as quickly as possible, without allowing any government or independent agency to seriously examine any of the “evidence.”  One widespread speculation is that, had such an investigation been permitted, someone would have discovered traces of thermite - the explosives used in controlled demolitions - on the steel beams and in the pulverized dust.  [N.B.  Actually, one scientist did find traces of thermate, a precursor for thermite.  Here is his (very long) paper: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/
WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf.]

Finally, for a very good overview of the twin tower collapses, go to: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html.

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

(4 of 9)

2.  WTC 7

At ~5:20 on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 - a 47-story steel and concrete building - collapsed, just hours after WTC 1 and 2.

The 9/11 Commission Report does not address the collapse of WTC 7 at all.  This is an incredible oversight, given what its collapse almost certainly signifies.  FEMA did do a “report” on the collapse of WTC 7, as did NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).  The FEMA Report is a joke, as almost none of the “facts” in the report are backed up by any evidence - and, indeed, almost all of the visual and other evidence clearly undermines that report.  The NIST Report was more “thorough,” but ultimately does not conclude what caused the collapse.  (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/).

Here are some of the facts that point to a controlled demolition, and what that means in the “bigger picture”:

-WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-and-concrete building.  It was not hit by a plane.  Prior to its collapse, there were two or three small fires on various floors of the building. None of them was severe (i.e., uncontrollable), despite what firefighters later claimed.  And although the building was hit by some of the debris from the collapse of the north tower, this did not cause the fires.  Indeed, the origin of the fires has never been ascertained: they could have been set deliberately.  (For photos of WTC 7 w/fires, see http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm and http://www.rense.com/general65/911m.htm.)

-At ~5:20, WTC 7 collapsed at “free fall” speed, completely into its “footprint.”  As noted above, a building cannot collapse at “free fall” speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed first.  And the only way that can be done is by explosives.  Similarly, as above, a building rarely if ever collapses perfectly into its “footprint” unless by controlled demolition with explosives.  These two facts alone point to a controlled demolition.  Yet the most direct evidence that WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition comes from WTC owner Larry Silverstein himself, in an interview done for a PBS documentary on 9/11.  In that interview, Silverstein clearly states that he and the fire department made the decision to “pull” the building: “pull” is construction industry terminology for a controlled demolition.  And you need only watch any of the numerous videos of the collapse of WTC 7 to see that it was unquestionably a controlled demolition: it looks exactly like all the controlled demolitions they show on TV.  See, for example, http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/pp_fdny.htm.  If you play the second video (click on the second “play” button), you will see the clip from the PBS video and hear Silverstein say that it was “pulled.”  Note that some people are claiming that he meant that he was pulling the firefighters from the building.  However, it is very clear from his last sentence that that was not what he meant: he clearly meant “pull” the building.

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

(5 of 9)

-WTC 7 had some very interesting tenants, including the IRS, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM).  Re OEM, this was the famous “bunker” that Giuliani built as a command center for crises.  There are many who believe that this was actually the command center for coordinating the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, and that the building was destroyed to cover up all evidence of this fact.  [N.B. There are also reports that a tunnel led from WTC 7 to WTC 4, where hundreds of millions of dollars in gold was stored.  See e.g., ]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html.]

Indeed, given that the collapse of WTC 7 was almost certainly a controlled demolition, there is a further critical fact to consider: setting the charges for a controlled demolition takes day, if not weeks - it cannot be done in just a few hours, especially for a 47-story building, and especially when there are active fires in the building.  This means that the explosive charges had to have been set prior to 9/11.  And this leads to two conclusions, the first one obvious: if the explosive charges were set prior to 9/11, this means that someone - indeed, many people - had prior knowledge of the attack.  And the second conclusion is that if explosive charges were set in WTC 7 in advance of 9/11, this makes it more likely that explosive charges were set in the twin towers - which means that the collapses were not the result of plane impacts and fires, but of controlled demolitions.  Indeed, the semi-annual “power-down” of the two WTC buildings occurred just two weeks prior to 9/11, and required that no one be in either of the twin towers working late at night; i.e., both towers were empty.  (See, for example, http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html).  As if that were not incredible enough, the company that provided security access to the towers was owned by…George Bush’s brother!  (See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html).

Finally, consider that the BBC began reporting the collapse of WTC 7 almost half an hour before it happened!  WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm.  Yet the BBC reporter begins discussing the collapse at about 4:50pm!  Note that WTC 7 is still visible behind her left shoulder (as she begins speaking), and is fully visible as she moves aside!  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s.)

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

(6 of 9)

3.  The Pentagon.

Here we have the most clear-cut case of a cover-up, and the most complicated set of events, facts and possibilities.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that a Boeing 757 crashed into one wing of the Pentagon at over 500 miles per hour, causing a fireball and virtually disintegrating.  Here is both factual evidence and strange occurrences that lead to a different conclusion.

-A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet, a length of 155 feet, and a height (at the tail) of 44 feet.  (See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html).  The hole that was made in the side of the Pentagon measured 60 feet across and about 30 feet high.  It does not take a genius to realize that a plane with a wingspan of 124 feet would make a hole much larger than 60 feet across, and that the tail section would create a hole higher than 30 feet.  (See http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm).

-There was very little debris of any type found.  No seats, luggage, personal effects, or large sections of plane wreckage.  Note that even if a fireball occurred at impact, all plane crashes leave wreckage of some type.  And what little wreckage was found was very suspicious: the largest pieces were found quite a distance from the impact zone, and did not appear in early photos of the scene.  Also, the wheel base found at the site did not match a 757.  (See, for example, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html).

-There is some question as to just how large the fireball was.  The only photos released are official Pentagon photos from a single closed circuit camera some distance from the imact zone.  As an aside, it is suspicious that all other closed circuit cameras at the Pentagon happened to be shut down at the time of the impact.  And the Pentagon has only released a handful of frames from the Pentagon video camera.  Setting aside the additional suspicion created by the fact that the “time-stamp” on the photos is 9/12, the photos are not in sequence, and it is impossible to tell what hit the building.  Yet a careful look at the photos shows two things.  First, whatever hit the building was not large enough to be a 757.  Second, the fireball was not nearly as large as one would expect from a 757 fully-laden with 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel.  In fact, if you compare the fireball with the one we saw when the second plane hit the twin towers, it is clear that whatever hit the Pentagon could not have been the same size plane.  (See, for example, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm.  Scroll down about 2/‘3 of the way to see the video stills.)

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

(7 of 9)

-Note also that there was video footage from at least four other cameras in the area, including a gas station and a hotel.  However, all of these videotapes from confiscated by the FBI within less than an hour of the crash, and while some of it was finally released to the public (almost 7 years after the event!), it is totally inconclusive, and only raises even more questions.

-Despite the impact, the windows on the third floor directly above the impact zone were undamaged.  This is highly unlikely if a plane with a height of 44 feet hit the building.  (See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/building.html).  Second, despite the fireball, items directly next to the impat zone were undamaged by fire, including a wooden desk with an open book.  (See http://www.physics911.ca/Omholt:_9/11_and_The_Impossible_Pentagon.  Scroll down about 3/4 of the way and look for a daytime shot of the collapsed section of the building.  On the second floor, in the third room back, is a wooden stand on which is sitting an open book.  Neither of these items - nor anything in the rooms adjacent to the impact zone - was even singed.)

-Whatever hit the building left an “exit” hole that was perfectly circular.  (See http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm, first and second photo).  If a plane had hit the building, it would not have left a perfectly circular exit hole, since the nose of the plane would have been the first thing smashed.  In addition, the exit hole is a long distance from where the internal end of the impact zone occurred, and even if the nose of the plane survived, it would not have travelled that distance.  Third, there is no nose cone wreckage at the exit hole.  (See also http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/exit_hole/ and http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/11 September 2001/pentagon.htm).

-The lawn in front of the impact zone was completely untouched.  In other words, despite the claim that a 757 was flying virtually only a few feet above the ground when it impacted the building, there is no damage to the lawn at all, either from exhaust or “sliding” or the impact itself.  (See http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html and http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/lawn.html.  Both of these websites have great photos of all aspects of the crash.  As you look at the photos of the building from different angles and at different times, you will see - without any question in your mind - that it could not have been a 757 that hit the building).

-According to the official Report, whatever hit the Pentagon did a 270-degree turn at over 400 miles per hour.  Every professional commercial pilot who was asked about this said that such a maneuver is virtually impossible - especially for a novice flyer (which the alleged Arab pilots were).  (See, for example, http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm).

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

(8 of 9)

-It is highly suspicious that, despite having one of the most comprehensive and complex video, defense and anti-aircraft systems, all of these systems were inactive when the Pentagon was hit.

-It is additionally suspicious that the wing of the Pentagon that was impacted had been undergoing a “strengthening” at the very time of the impact: i.e., blast windows were being put in, and other measures were being taken to “shore up” that part of the building.  (And, as noted above, the company that was doing this was one of the four companies that just happened to be chosen for the clean-up of the WTC site.)  In addition, that wing was the furthest place possible from where all the “brass” were - including Rumsfeld himself, who was in the building at the time.  If you were a hijacker with enough info to be able to penetrate the Pentagon’s defense system, you would certainly also know what part of the building had the greatest number of “important people.”  So why would you deliberately avoid hitting that part of the building - making a complicated and dangerous 270-degree turn at high speed to do so - in order to hit the part of the building that would cause the least damage and loss of life?

-The sole “proof” that the alleged hijackers were “Middle Eastern” men and were armed with “knives and boxcutters” comes from a single source: two alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson (a passenger on Flight 77) to her husband, then-solicitor general of the U.S., Ted Olson.  However, there are at least three serious problems with this.  First, the airphones on Flight 77 were inoperable that day, so Ms. Olson would have had to be using her cellphone - which Mr. Olson did in fact claim.  Second, the FBI investigation of Ms. Olson’s cellphone records shows that only one call was placed from her cellphone - but that even that call did not connect.  Thus, Mr. Olson (by coincidence a Bush crony) may well have been lying.  Third, consider: Mr. Olson allegedly gets not one but two frantic calls from his wife on an allegedly hijacked plane, and what is his first reaction?  Call CNN.  Does that sound logical, or even reasonable, under the circumstances?  He doesn’t call 911; he doesn’t call the White House (whose private line he has); he doesn’t call some sort of emergency services; he doesn’t call his family.  He calls CNN.  Not only is this highly suspicious, it is also against the law; i.e., he violated serious national security protocol by giving information to the media as an apparent attack on the U.S. was occurring.

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

(9 of 9)

4.  Flight 93.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that a “titanic struggle” occurred when passengers on the plane stormed the cockpit to try to overpower the hijackers, and that this was what caused the plane to crash into a field in Pennsylvania.  However, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the belief that Flight 93 was shot down by one or two military planes, and that no such passenger heroics ever occurred.

-Numerous eyewitnesses claim to have seen a “white military plane” following Flight 93 just prior to the crash.  And at least one military veteran believes that the sound he heard just prior to the crash was a missile.  (See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&).

-A photo of the alleged crash site speaks for itself: where is the plane?  Indeed, where is anything?  No plane, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, no debris.  Compare that photo with other crash site photos.  (http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html.  Compare against: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6425671.stm.)

-The FBI and Pennsylvania Police cordoned off a second site where wreckage was found - almost eight miles from the crash site.  The only way that wreckage could have been strewn that far is if the plane were blown apart in mid-air.  (See http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html (second quote on right side of home page, reported by CNN) and http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html (see 5th paragraph)).

-In a speech to the troops in December 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld actually stated that Flight 93 was “shot down.”  The Pentagon later claimed that Rumsfeld “misspoke,” but given the other evidence to support a shoot-down, it would seem that he “accidentally” spoke the truth.  (See
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/).

Finally, it is incredibly suspicious that the FBI took possession of both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the “black boxes”), and refused to release any of the evidence from either of them for quite some time - until they coincidentally released recordings (almost certainly “doctored”) regarding the alleged heroics of some of the passengers.  Indeed, the alleged cellphone calls made from Flight 93 (which alleged calls were used as “back-up” for the government’s claim about passenger heroics) would have been scientifically impossible, since, at the time (2001), cellphone techology would not have permitted any call to be placed above 8,000 feet, and the plane was cruising at ~30,000 feet.

Report this

By SteveL, May 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Right after 9-11 there were TV programs speculating on whether or not a plane could penetrate the containment wall on a nuke plant.  The programs showed experiments in the desert where small and large planes were crashed into wall like those containing reactors.  No penetration was possible.  This blows up two lies.  When Rice and Cheney said who would have thought about planes flying into buildings they lied (they were experimenting with this very thing).  Also those heavy walls at the pentagon could not have been penetrated by an ordinary airplane.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 7, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

I admit I was running short on time and did not look more closely at the data points used to compute the trajectory. I will try to do that today. But I am not at all sure that will change my views on this.

As far as competing “internal contradictions:”

I have a person who was in charge of the department that did this type of analysis for a good part of the Cold War with the Soviets. A highly credible source. Not sure of the sources you call up as they are unnamed. And if current military sources are calling Stubblebine’s analysis into question, given the military leadership’s complicity with Bush’s highly controversial (in my view, criminal) policies, I would expect naysayers to be coming out by the hundreds. Douglas Feith’s new book reveals in part how complicit some of the current military leadership has been with the neo-con agenda, even throughout the Clinton administration.

As gruesome as it may sound, the body parts recovered… can you be absolutely certain they are from the pentagon? And, if so, what gives you that certainty?

The debris… there may be a pissing contest going on, but no large aircraft crashes that I am aware of were ever void of large pieces of debris… tail sections, wings, engines. No large aircraft crashes disintegrated into pieces that could not at least be partially reassembled to gather forensic information. I recall reading about a crash outside of Pittsburg some years ago where a large jet took a sudden dive into the ground. A failure in a mechanism that operates the tail flap. Even then there were parts that were recoverable, though much of the plane was shredded. I don’t recall how much was reassembled, if any, but large sections remained, and this plane accelerated into a ravine nose first.

It would be a simple matter for the government to disclose whether the video technology was standard or not. Such information would likely be revealed in a criminal investigation, had one been carried out.

Your last two points are not terribly conclusive either in proving my theory has internal contradictions. In the case of the eyewitness accounts, some of those seven that positively ID’d the plane as a 757 must be held with at least a certain amount of suspicion being military. That is not to say they are biased, just that a bias CAN exist because of their affiliation. Again, a plane painted to look like an AA aircraft suddenly appears, flying very fast, very low… the time it is in view is only a matter of seconds… making a judgment with absolute certainty, given those conditions, arguably difficult. In this case the eyewitness accounts certainly have some bearing on what happened, but must be analyzed very carefully and cannot be accepted as absolutely true at their face value.

Finally, you say,”it is not enough for me to decide the whole event was a lie…” Nor is it enough for me to decide the government’s conspiracy theory is not a lie. There is so much about the government’s explanation about the events of September 11 that is rife with internal contradictions for me not to question it. There needs to be a thorough criminal investigation, where the remaining videos, and FBI/FAA records are revealed.

Report this

By niloroth, May 7, 2008 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

Ah cyrena, the ignorance you bring to any thread on 9/11 you are in is always funny to see.

Lets see what you got wrong this time.

Emergency responders: So in other words you are saying that all the following people were in fact not there at all during the aftermath of the attack? Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff’s Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

Body parts: You are really wanting to see pictures of the morgue?  Wow, you are sick.  So i guess all the emergency response people who pulled body parts out and the morgue workers who identified the victims are all lying right?  Just in this post how many people are you going to accuse of covering up a murder of their own countrymen?  I figure at this point you are up to at least about 1,000.

Airport: It would have taken you about one minute to hit google maps and discover that in fact Reagan National Airport is about 1 mile away from the pentagon.  Your intellectual laziness never ceases to amaze me.

The hole: sure there are people who think the hole is to small.  But keep in mind that there are also people who think that ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ are real.  However, much like the ones who think the hole in the pentagon is to small, they are in the minority.

Report this

By cyrena, May 6, 2008 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

Some other equally obvious things that are NOT consistent with a 757 PASSENGER aircraft striking the Pentagon..

There was NO EMERGENCY RESPONSE!

There should have been dozens upon dozens upon dozens of emergency response personnel and vehicles on the site IMMEDIATELY! Why don’t we see a single solitary news clip or photo of ANY?

Niloroth speaks of body parts that were identified. BY WHOM? We’re just taking the Coverup’s word on ALL of that. Where were the bodies taken? Supposedly to a makeshift morgue in the area. Did anybody see that?

WHICH airport is supposedly within a mile of the Pentagon? NOT one that handles passeger traffic, because the Pentagon is surrounded by it’s own restricted airspace, just as the White House and other areas are off limits to commercial air traffic.

Niloroth conveniently fails to appreciate the obvious in his tortured logic to explain what cannot be explained away. For instance, FAR MORE than ‘one’ person or expert can see, and has noted from moment one, that the ‘hole’ in the Pentagon allegedly created by a 757 is far too small. Only Houdini could perform such a feat.

Report this

By niloroth, May 6, 2008 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

Your getting all upset about my comments on the data points used to compute the trajectory of flight 77 all but proves you did not in fact even look at the information i liked you to.  The data points i was talking about were the ones used by the people at pilots for truth, and the issues with them using the ones they chose.  It was not an attack on you.  You would have realized that had you read the link.

You say “The best theories are those that do not have internal contradictions.”

But yours contains just as many as you claim the official story does.

1) The size of the hole in the pentagon.  Fine, you have one person who thinks it was to small, but there are hundreds who don’t think that.
2) The body parts recovered at the site.  All but one child were identified.  Did your smaller plane or missile carry the dead on it’s way to the pantagon?
3) The debris at the site.  You claim it was to little, but many many others do not agree with you. 
4) The video you claim is missing 17 frames with the plane in it.  Right off the bat you jump to conclusions by stating “...if the recording camera at the parking lot was using standard video technology which records at 30 frames per second, and there is not much reason to think it wasn’t,...” Do you have any source for this, or is it just a theory you have?
5) The angle of the plane as far as the FDR shows.  The only way the plane would have missed the light poles and the pentagon was if it was not accelerating in the last few seconds, however, the data before the last few seconds shows it was being accelerated, and that matches up with eyewitness testimony.
6) The eyewitness testimony itself.  If you read over the link i provided, you will see that 26 mentioned it was an AA plane, 7 said it was a 757, 104 saw it hit, and 8 witnesses were in fact pilots. (Not that strange since there is an airport about a mile away.)

In the end, the only thing i have to give you is the fact that the government will not release info on the identification process with regards to the aircraft debris.  I am still rather puzzled by it, but in the face of all the rest of the evidence for the fact that flight 77 hit the pentagon, it is not enough for me to decide the whole event was a lie.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 6, 2008 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

There has not been a positive identification of the aircraft that hit the pentagon. What has been given publicly by the government is innuendo. And the fact that they vigorously refuse to provide positive identification is highly suspect. I will look through the list of witnesses when I have more time later today, but at first glance I fail to see anything that is definitive, and can be said with complete certainty as to the identity of the aircraft. The speed of approach, the suddenness of such a highly unusual phenomenon makes extremely plausible a cleverly camouflaged paint job on a smaller aircraft a very real possibility.

The damage to the building was not extensive enough to have been from a 757 traveling at 400 mph. The photographs from immediately after the strike, as Major General Stubblebine said, show something hit the pentagon but not something the size of a 757.

And competent analysis of the Judicial Watch clip leaves some very big questions unanswered. As I said below, if the recording camera at the parking lot was using standard video technology which records at 30 frames per second, and there is not much reason to think it wasn’t, the aircraft in that clip, if a 757 flying at roughly 400 mph, should have been recorded in about 17 more frames, given the time and distance it had to travel from the time it first appears until the time it strikes the building. As it does not appear, either the clip was editted, or else a much faster aircraft struck the building. Your certainty is suspect because you leave a lot of questions unanswered.

The best theories are those that do not have internal contradictions.

Your theory has a BIG problem. Your theory is AA 77 crashed into the pentagon. You have NOTHING to back up that theory, no positive ID of the aircraft or aircraft parts, eyewitnesses that saw something hit the pentagon, but which have no way to verify with certainty exactly what.

My theory is something hit the pentagon, but given the damage initially recorded, not extensive enough to have been due to a 757. The damage recorded in photographs is more consistent with a smaller aircraft. The last known data point from the FDR places the speed and direction of Flight 77 too high to strike the pentagon where it was struck. The FDR has no serial number associated with it and so cannot be positively identified as belonging to Flight 77. It may be, but without the serial numbersof parts of the rest of the fusilage collected from the wreckage it can not be matched as having come from within the pentagon. The damage inside the building is not consistent with a large aircraft strike, but with a much smaller aircraft. The lack of large pieces of aircraft outside the pentagon is not consistent with a 757, but with a much smaller aircraft. The damage to the C-ring is not consistent with the known structure of a 757, or of the trajectory.

I could enumerate more points, but the main point is, without positive identification of the aircraft, the certainty with which you talk about what struck the building is based on pure HEARSAY.

My theory is incomplete, but lacks the internal contradictions that cripples yours.

It is entirely consistent for me to not say with certainty what hit the pentagon, because the evidence is not complete enough to make that determination. But the evidence does favor something different from a 757, because there are too many contradictions to that theory. Your rather insulting remark that I am simply trying to make only certain data points fit my theory is unwarranted and adds nothing to this discussion. In fact, it appears, niloroth, that what you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing yourself. You are trying to make only your selective data fit your theory. Bad form. And completely inconclusive.

Report this

By niloroth, May 6, 2008 at 5:38 am Link to this comment

Thank you for the links, it will of course take me a while to work through them, but it is at least somewhat refreshing to have new material rather than the outdated drivel than most of the 9/11 deniers seem to post on this site. 

” The eyewitnesses saw many things. How you fail to see the importance of eyewitnesses seeing a commuter size plane, a C-130 military plane following a 757, or an F-16 or A3 Skywarrior just prior to the explosion is your problem. Your claim that the eyewitnesses clinches it is completely inconclusive. The eyewitnesses saw many things”

Yes, the eyewitness saw many things that day, i know because i have read about every interview that was printed or taped about the crash at the pentagon.  The funny thing is, that while the c-130 is mentioned as being in the area of the pentagon, no one actually says it was the one that crashed into the building.  And no one mentions the same issue with any A3 or F-16.  However, at least 104 people actually witnessed the plane hitting the building, and amazingly enough, none of them mention a c-130 or an a3, or anything else.  Even more people saw the plane heading towards the building but didn’t see the actual collision.  And none have made a credible statement that the plane pulled up at the last second.  Or that a military jet or missile hit the pentagon. 

Witness list, fully linked and sourced.

So quite frankly, i am curious how you have decided that something else must have hit the pentagon, other than for the simple fact that it doesn’t jive with your theory.  Obviously you can’t have eyewitness testimony you believe, since if you put stock in that, then you have to also value the other eyewitnesses, or at the least, debunk them all.  And since as we have already shown, none of the video from that day show anything useful for identifying what hit the pentagon.  So in the end, you really have no evidence that supports your theory, other than the fact that you want it to be something other than flight 77. 

I will look over the links you supplied.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 6, 2008 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are collectively one of the most significant events in world history. And because of the absence of complete information regarding various aspects of this event, many scenarios contrary to the U.S. government’s account of events, have evolved within a large percentage the collective public’s imagination.

Release of requested defendant agency records than can better clarify events of that day, are thus in the greater public interest.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 5, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15029

F.B.I. Counsel Apparently Disputes N.T.S.B. Information Regarding 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage Recovery

This posting is long and has lots of information. In the comments section, Monahan lists two possibilities:

1). NTSB/FBI investigators did undertake a collection and identification operation for 9/11 aircraft wreckage and did not generate any related records.

2). NTSB/FBI investigators did undertake a collection and identification operation for 9/11 aircraft wreckage and did generate related records that were later eliminated.

It is difficult to imagine that the recovery and identification of the murder weapons used to take 3,000 lives on 9/11 was not documented.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14447

The Court orders the FBI to respond by April 14, 2008:

Civil Action For Release Of 9/11 Aircraft Records
The following is a March 17, 2008 court order pertaining to Federal defendant’s motion and also plaintiffs response. (See attached PDF court order)

Background:

http://www.infowars.com/?p=886
Court order reads in part:

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint (#20), filed on March 14, 2008. On February 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (#15). Defendants request an enlargement of time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and LR 6-1. For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint (#20) is granted. Defendants shall serve and file their answer or responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s amended complaint in this case on or before April 14, 2008.

So what exactly are they hiding?

Report this

By sdemetri, May 5, 2008 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

In Part:

Aidan Monaghan

Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 ‘black boxes’ are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.

NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:

http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf

The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.

The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:

- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).

With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.

The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:

“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon.”

A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.

Background:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149

A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:

“It is unusual and unlawful for them to not cite an exemption. “[W]e are not in a position to release the said records at this time,” certainly isn’t an exemption any where in the Freedom of Information Act, and I can’t think of any case law that supports that answer either.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/12735

Aidan Monaghan

In an effort to end speculation surrounding the events at the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, a Freedom of Information Act request was made of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeking confirmation of the process by which recovered debris belonging to the 4 aircraft used in the 9/11 terrorist attacks was identified. This request was denied. An appeal of that decision has also been denied. Court action is pending.

There is much more at the link.

The eyewitnesses saw many things. How you fail to see the importance of eyewitnesses seeing a commuter size plane, a C-130 military plane following a 757, or an F-16 or A3 Skywarrior just prior to the explosion is your problem. Your claim that the eyewitnesses clinches it is completely inconclusive. The eyewitnesses saw many things.

Report this

By niloroth, May 5, 2008 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

“The last data point puts flight way too high to meet the building where something did meet the building. This is perfectly in line with eyewitnesses who saw more than one aircraft in the vicinity.”

As far as the data points go, i find the work done by pilots for 9/11 truth to be very open to dispute.  While they can bend the flight angles to miss the lightpoles and the building, it is at the expense of the data leading up to the seconds before the crash, as well as at the expense of the eyewitnesses. 

A good write up of the FDR info.

As for other planes in the area, i fail to see how that is an issue.

” And as the FOIA request being handled by a court in Illinois makes very clear, the FBI is hedging on the positive identification of the aircraft that DID strike the pentagon.”

I am actually not to familiar with this one.  Have any links you could set me up with?  It is at times hard to keep up with all the things that the 9/11 deniers come up with in their search for something that will actually stand up to investigation.

Report this

By cyrena, May 5, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

I have to agree with you that as ugly as your scenario is,  it is JUST AS LIKELY AS ANYTHING ELSE, which of course is what has given me a permanent case of PTSD in reference to the attack perpetrated against us that day, and by our own government.

I spent over 25 years in the commercial airline industry, and that’s why I know that none of those airplanes did what the US claims they did, ON THEIR OWN, or under the ‘guidance’ of any amateur Arab terrorist pilots. Period. Dot. End of THAT story.

So yes, it’s highly likely that they were instead escorted out over the Atlantic,(via pre-loaded flight plan or other remote means) and while it MAY have been at higher altitudes, it wouldn’t necessarily even have NEEDED to be. In fact, pushing this just a little bit further, it only needed to be within an area that is already highly secured by the feds anyway. In other words, where no other airplanes or ocean-going vessels were likely to witness such a ‘downing’ of a commercial aircraft.

You find the same ‘convenient’ location for the alleged crashing of UA flt 93. What, a hole in the ground in a deserted area of Pennsylvania? Nope…I’m not buying that either. So, as I’ve said before, I’ll have to say again…ANY aircraft that comes to disastrous ends, LEAVES WRECKAGE. The thugs want us to believe that 4 airplanes managed to disappear in the course of an hour, with all of their passengers, crew, and cargo, without leaving a single identifiable trace. What, a single black box that showed up ages later? Come on.

Anyway, as much as it pains me, I have to consider yours as much a possible explanation as anything else. I should also remind that my own belief is that the original crews of all 4 of those aircraft lost control of their ships as soon as they reached a cruising altitude and were on track of the programmed flight plans. In other words, after the initial take-off and ascent to cruise, the control was removed (from the pilots) and at that point, they were remotely piloted to follow whatever plan had been devised and preloaded. Note they were all Boeing aircraft, and that is something easily accomplished from the ground, even PRIOR to departure, as well as once the airplanes are airborne. In short, all of those aircraft could easily be turned into the equivalent of drones, to follow a pre-loaded flight plan, and WITHOUT the knowledge of the crew.

THAT is far, far, far more reasonable than an assumption that 19 amateurs (and I don’t care if they DID take a few flying lessons) could actually pilot those craft without help and ‘guidance’ from some other source.

Meantime, good luck with Niloroth. I don’t know what to suggest on that, since we’ve heard from the likes of him on this before, and he doesn’t give up or give in to facts logic, or any connection of the dots on this subject…not an inch.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 5, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

The last data point puts flight way too high to meet the building where something did meet the building. This is perfectly in line with eyewitnesses who saw more than one aircraft in the vicinity.

And as the FOIA request being handled by a court in Illinois makes very clear, the FBI is hedging on the positive identification of the aircraft that DID strike the pentagon.

A real criminal investigation should answer these questions.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 5, 2008 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Except eyewitnesses saw at least three different aircraft, not simply one. Some described it as a commuter jet, others like a 757. And what some eyewitnesses saw was not one plane but three in the vicinity.

And furthermore, as pointed out below, if the surveillance camera which recorded the Judicial Watch clip used the standard format of 30 frames per sec. there should have been at least 17 more frames showing the aircraft that struck the pentagon. If the camera WAS using the standard format, the aircraft recorded had to be travelling much, much faster than what has been reported to avoid being recorded at 30 per sec, or else the clip was doctored.

And furthermore, the FOIA requests that is now making its way through the courts, with appeals from the FBI to dismiss, what the FBI has claimed in a US court is that they have no records of the wreckage of what we are given to assume was 77 being positively identified by the serial numbers of parts as that of a 757. The NTSB is on record as having assisted with the identification, but it is the FBI that is responsible for the records in this case. And in this case, they are saying they have no records positively ID’ing the aircraft that crashed into the building. That is the case with each of the planes. Now isn’t that curious.

One thing is quite clear, it was not likely to be a 757, eyewitnesses seeing SOMETHING notwithstanding.

Report this

By niloroth, May 5, 2008 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

manni, you amaze me.  But first, i am glad you now admit the existence of more than one video of the penatagon attack.  Welcome to 2007, most us us were there last year.  but i guess better late than never.

“Are you aware who Scott Bingham (the founder of Flight77.info) is?  He is ex-military, connected with the Pentagon, and a long-time Bush supporter.  As well, if you go to the site, it is clear that he is no longer running it,”

Source for that?  Well, other than the fact that he is no longer in charge of the site, because it says that right on the front page of the site.  But how about a source for the bush supporter and pentagon bit?  I probably shouldn’t hold my breath i guess.

” and has simply given it over to government sources to run, since every link provided is a government source.”

Uh, what? Of all the links off that front page, 37 of them, only 2 go to government sites.  Thats what, roughly 5%? 

” As well, you might be surprised to find that the government has removed the two videos that Judicial Watch had obtained; you can no longer view them on the site.”

Yes, you can, in fact, i just did.  They are right there on the front page.  In fact you can download them right from the site.

Serious question, are you trying to set a record by most lies in a single post?  You can’t really be this dense.

” Finally, the Citgo, Doubletree and Sheraton videos are not simply inconclusive; they are useless.”

Yep, thats true.  They prove nothing.  I have no idea why the government held them for so long, but whatever, they did.  However, if they were monkeying with them, don’t you think they would have made sure they did in fact show a plane hitting the building, just to support that version of events, why would they alter them to be inconclusive?  The fact is they are not needed in any way to prove the fact that flight 77 fit the pentagon.  The physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony of the people there are more than enough. 

” Your lack of any critical thinking or open-minded discernment is what makes your position impossible to accept.”

Wow, that is really funny coming from you.

Report this

By Maani, May 5, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

I’d like to offer a theory as to what happened to Flight 77 - an admittedly ugly theory, but, given the other events of the day, perhaps no more ugly than anything else that happened.  (It will also be fun to send niloroth into paroxysms of raving and denial! LOL).

I base my theory on three facts:

1.  Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, nor has it nor any of its passengers been heard from since 9/11.

2.  Flight 77 was lost to radar contact for over half an hour before it “reappeared” over DC.

3.  Two fighter jets were scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia, but rather than intercepting Flight 77, they were sent out over the Atlantic, where they “hold” for about 20 minutes.

Facts #2 and #3 are included in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Given these three facts, it is conceivable that what actually happened is that the jets DID intercept Flight 77, but then escorted it out over the Atlantic, where it was shot down. (Keep in mind that this would have been done at high altitude, which would explain why there are no eyewitnesses to it). And since this would have been planned in advance (as were all aspects of 9/11), it is equally conceivable that there was already a “clean-up” team in place to deal with the detritus of the crash, and “sweep” the crash site so that nothing was left to wash up on shore.

A truly ugly scenario, to be sure.  But as likely as anything else, given the facts above and the other aspects of the “attack.”

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 5, 2008 at 5:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“the first casualty when war comes, is truth”,

Senator Hiram Warren Johnson (R) California

Report this

By cyrena, May 5, 2008 at 3:23 am Link to this comment

Ah, so I’m joining this conversation late…which is good. I get to read all of your comments. And…NOT to my surprise, I see that some of you have discovered Niloroth…Ah yes. Niloroth can be expected to show up in VERY FULL FORCE, anytime the truth might stand to be revealed about the events of 9/11. He’s committed to making sure that never happens…a true warrior in protecting the lies and the whitewash cover up of those events. I do believe he’s devoted his life to it. And Patrick Henry has noted the same thing that I’ve noted long ago…it’s the ONLY time that Niloroth comments on anything here at truthdig..to protect the cover-up of 9/11.

Meantime, as I read the first several comments, (albeit in reverse order, since I was reading from the top) I thought to myself that I may have stumbled upon something that I’ve been searching for, for over 5 years now…some proof via video or any other photos, that an American Airlines 757 had actually hit the Pentagon. Believe me, I’ve searched, and searched. And, I’ve seen many videos and photos. Not a single one shows that a 757 passenger aircraft hit that building. Not a single news clipping gives any indication that an air disaster involving a commercial passenger jet liner, actually occurred there, on that day.

I have witnessed such disasters and their aftermaths, and the emergency responses involved. NOTHING is available from that alleged incident. So as I read, (at least at first) I thought..WOW, so there IS one, at least ONE something, that actually shows it. And then I continued on, and discovered that it was just more of Niloroth making claims with absolutely no proof, (as usual for him) and that’s because of course we all surely know by now, (and some of us knew from day one), that AA flight 77 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

I don’t know what actually DID happen to that flight. I don’t know what actually DID crash into the pentagon. I only know that it was NOT AA flight 77.

Patrick Henry, thanks so much for the very excellent link. It’s got some new stuff as well as some old stuff that I’d lost when my computer crashed.

Nilo…get a life.

Report this

By Maani, May 4, 2008 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

CY:

Thank you (sincerely) for reminding me of history I should have remembered.  You add a sobering reminder for all of us.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 4, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maani says:

“Yes, the Reichstag fire is probably the first true “false flag” operation that we know about”

If you do not count the sinking of the battleship Maine (as justification for the Spanish American war) The endless mis-reported “Indian attacks” as an excuse for Genocide, The murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914,

In point of fact, most wars are started with a “false-flag” incident.. I believe this is due to people’s reluctance to give their lives for what is often the real reason…. money…. and someone elses money at that!

Report this

By sdemetri, May 4, 2008 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

An interesting point about the released video footage from the Pentagon attack: the standard format for most video recording creates a record of events at 30 frames per second. Given the reported speed of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon, and the distance from the building of the aircraft when it first appears as indicated by the surveillance camera in the parking lot entrance, the aircraft should have been recorded in at least 17 more frames before striking the building. It is not. Either the format used by that recording device was unusual, and not 30 frames per second, or the speed of the aircraft was much, much higher than what has been recorded, indicating something other than a 757, or the clip released was doctored. Another question in need of further investigation.

Report this

By sdemetri, May 4, 2008 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

An enormous fallacy in the government’s conspiracy about the September 11 attacks is that the attacks were a surprise. Hardly.

The statement by then National Security Advisor Rice: “I don’t think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center” is naked disinformation.

There were numerous specific warnings detailing a significant attack, and in some cases that very type of attack. The Aug 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” mentions a 1998 report by the FBI that Bin Laden was seeking to hijack US aircraft, and that also mentions the FBI had evidence of suspicious activity “consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks…” The Sunday Times in London in 1999 reported that al-Qeada had plans to use commercial aircraft in “unconventional ways,””possibly as flying bombs…” In 2000, Italian intelligence from wiretaps started in 1999 revealed a plan to use aircraft in a massive strike.  In June of 2001, rumors are spreading around Afghanistan of an attack on skyscrapers. German intelligence in June 2001 warns the CIA, MI6, and Mossad of hijacking plans involving commercial aircraft for an attack on “American and Israeli symbols.” In July 2001 even the Taliban warns that there is a major attack planned on the US by Bin Laden. In July 2001 Egypt supplies intelligence from informants having infiltrated al Qeada warning the CIA of attack plans. Jordan in the summer of 2001 warns of aircraft related terror attack. Jordan communicates this directly from King Abdullah’s men to Washington, and through an intermediary to German Intelligence. An Ex-CIA agent is given information about a “spectacular terrorist operation” by a military associate of a Saudi prince, which is then ignored by senior CIA officials. In 1995, plans are discovered by Philippine investigators the commercial airliners are part of plans for an attack on buildings, including the Pentagon and World Trade Center. In 1999 the National Intelligence Council reports of possible plans to crash an aircraft laden with explosives into the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, or the White House. In July 2001 Richard Clarke, national security advisor to Condileesa Rice warns that agencies should prepare for a response to the likelihood 3 to 5 simultaneous attacks.

This doesn’t take into account the war games taking place on September 11 in the NEADS region with the scenario of planes flying into buildings, of which there is much speculation, but relates the news accounts, in the public sphere, showing foreknowledge of the attacks.

So, not only was the type of attack well known having been previously contemplated, but specific potential targets were known, and planning for such attacks using aircraft was contemplated and actions taken previous to September 11 were put into place. During the Gulf War a battery of surface to air missiles was permanently installed on the roof of the White House for just such an eventuality. The September 11 attacks were by no means a complete surprise, either in method or specificity. Furthermore, given the visit by Pakistani ISI chief, Mahmoud Ahmad, from whom at least $100,000 was wired to Mohammed Atta before the attacks, was in country meeting with US officials on September 11, the pre-placement of FEMA officials in NYC on September 10, and the very large, and very specific financial transactions that took place in the days prior to September 11 involving United and American Airlines, there is strong reason to believe the very day of the attacks was known as well.

Given this, two explanations are left. Some in the Bush administration let it happen on purpose. Or they made it happen on purpose. There are significant reasons to believe the latter, but at the very least the available evidence strongly supports the former notion. What is quite clear is that the official conspiracy theory is by no means true.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 3, 2008 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Once again it is you Nilroth who are ignorant.

http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/911/wtc7demolition.htm

Report this

By Maani, May 2, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

JS/CY:

Thank you for your additions.  Yes, the Reichstag fire is probably the first true “false flag” operation that we know about, followed, of course by Pearl Harbor (FDR knew a U.S. military target was going to be hit, but probably didn’t know which one, yet he allowed it to happen (LIHOP) in order to have an excuse to fight Hitler), then the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never occurred), and now 9/11.

Niloroth:

I am surprised by your gullibility.  Are you aware who Scott Bingham (the founder of Flight77.info) is?  He is ex-military, connected with the Pentagon, and a long-time Bush supporter.  As well, if you go to the site, it is clear that he is no longer running it, and has simply given it over to government sources to run, since every link provided is a government source.

As well, you might be surprised to find that the government has removed the two videos that Judicial Watch had obtained; you can no longer view them on the site.

Finally, the Citgo, Doubletree and Sheraton videos are not simply inconclusive; they are useless.  Given this, why would the FBI not simply have released them right away?  In this regard, it stretches credibility to the breaking point that the FBI would have held them for over FIVE YEARS if they were not “monkeying” with them in order to make sure they did not show whatever they ORIGINALLY DID show.

You are FAR too trusting of your own government (just as JS notes that many were far too trusting of the Russian government, and CY notes that far too many were trusting of the National Socialists).

Your lack of any critical thinking or open-minded discernment is what makes your position impossible to accept.

Peace.

Report this

By Ed, May 2, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TruthDig has featured some excellent reviews in the past. Chalmers Johnson’s review of the book on Korean War comes immediately to mind. This one, however, doesn’t just not live up to TruthDig standards, it would stick out for its obtuseness even in a student paper. The reviewer is too intellectually insecure for irreverence, and instead ends up couching his word of two of criticsm in racist assumptions about Muslims and the causes of their resentment. I do expect better from TruthDig editors.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 2, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My mother was visiting Germany on the week of February 27, 1933. She was in Berlin meeting family members whom my grandmother was advising to leave Germany.  Turns out it was a great week to make that case.

The German lower house, The Reichstag was burned. Officials claimed it was the Communists. Most Germans kept their doubts to themselves. Officials captured a man with communist ties, Marinus van der Lubbe leaving the scene of the fire. They tortured a confession out of him and executed him the next year.

Most historians believe that although van der Lubbe was no doubt involved, he did not set the fire which destroyed the building. S.A. Troopers entering through Herman Goering’s presidential apartments are suspected to be the true arsonists. They were subsequently murdered on the Night of the long knives, the ultimate “silencer”. 

Although I am a doubter about the alternate theories concerning the poorly built towers in NYC, my mother is not. Like Jackpine above, she saw the incident in NY as the replay of a bad movie.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 2, 2008 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

Maani’s heard this story before, but i’ll relate it again…

I was living in Russia in the fall of 1999.  Times were exceedingly bad; Yeltsin was far out of favor, grandmothers were selling the meager contents of their kitchen cabinets on street corners, and an unknown man named V.V. Putin had just been given the Prime Minister position.

Apartment buildings in Moscow started blowing up.  The world paid attention for a few minutes and many were shocked.  Several Western governments offered to provide forensic teams to analyze the wreckage of the buildings, but Mr. Putin declined the offer.  Instead, he had the buildings bulldozed immediately and the scarp carted off.

After 70 years of Soviet rule, the Russian people gained a serious mistrust of their own government.  That the FSB was the real perpetrator was commonly spoken by Russians within days of the first attack.  Because Putin quashed any investigation, several Western governments and pundits also wondered aloud about FSB involvement.

Putin brushed these “conspiracy theories” aside rapidly.  He blamed the Chechen “terrorists” and almost immediately launched the Second Chechen War.  If you think Bush was wrong to use the word “crusade”, he didn’t go nearly as far as Putin.  V.V. Putin used an old Russian saying in public that translates roughly to, “We will exterminate them sitting on their toilets.”

The West (mostly) hung it on Putin’s neck that he had started a war based on an uninvestigated terrorist attack.  And of course, after the attacks there was a preponderance of military men patrolling Russian cities with assault rifles to keep us safe.

I happened to be back in the States, temporarily, on 9/11/01.  For me, the whole thing was like watching a Hollywood remake of a movie that i had already seen.  I knew the storyline and the ending; consequently, it wasn’t very “exciting”.

Family and friends had tried to get me to leave Russia after those attacks, saying that it wasn’t “safe”.  I laughed at that, but few saw the humor in me suggesting that they should leave the States after 9/11 because it wasn’t “safe”.

The moral of the story is that terrorist attacks that lead to starting wars without being seriously investigated tend to raise questions about the attacks themselves…especially when they also provide the impetus for a leader to grab broad new powers.  And even more so when they look almost exactly like attacks that occurred elsewhere just two years earlier.

Report this

By niloroth, May 2, 2008 at 4:19 am Link to this comment

My god you are living in your own little world aren’t you?  I wonder about both your memory and your reading comprehension.  Here, let me quote myself, FROM A FEW POSTS AGO!  In fact, it was in post #152738. 

” Again, source please?  I would like to know what the half dozen videos are, since as far as i know, all videos from that day have been released.  Notice that i said Videos? Well, you probebly didn’t, you seem to miss a lot.  You said “only released a single graint on-site c/c video which does NOTHING to support their case.” But in fact there are multiple videos.  So you are either lying or misinformed.  Here, go read up kid.”

Oh, and then what did i do, oh yeah, i provided a link to my source. Here, i will give it to you again.

Source

So, um, yeah.  Once again you are wrong, and once again you are fully ignorant, not only of the events surrounding 9/11, but also of the events of the past few days surrounding the events on Truthdig.

You never cease to amaze.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 2, 2008 at 3:50 am Link to this comment

While the official version of events is somewhat sketchy and was rushed, there is growing evidence to support a more sinister plot.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

Report this

By Michael Gass, May 1, 2008 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

You say that, “in fact”, “they have been released for over a year”.

Here’s a clue.

First… this would mean that the videos you say “were released”, were released in 2006 at best, a good 5 years AFTER the fact, IF, they were in fact released.

Second… IF there were “numerous” videos released 5 years later, what enhancements/changes were done to them?

Third… please provide links to these videos so I can see them.

and last… why weren’t these videos released in MONTHS instead of YEARS?  Hmmmmmmm?

Do you think I’m and going to trust a video released 5 YEARS after an event to be ACCURATE by an administration that has lied about EVERYTHING it has ever done?????

Here is a test… YOU name the things that Bush has claimed that has been right… I will name things they have lied about… let’s see who has more…

Report this

By Michael Gass, May 1, 2008 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment

You are correct.  Only ONE video, from numerous sources available, was ever released.  It was a snippit of video from ONE camera that showed NOTHING.  NO other videos were released. 

If the videos clearly repudiated the “conspiracy theories”, you’d think they would have been released.  They haven’t.

Yet, die hard “bushies” still insist all is right in the world.

Report this

By Maani, May 1, 2008 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:

“But in those 4 years you have missed the fact that more videos than the one from the pentagon have in fact been released. In fact, they have been released for over a year.”

Interesting that you do not provide links to support this statement.

The only video released by the government re the Pentagon crash is the c/c video from one camera in the parking lot of the Pentagon.  Yet within an hour of the crash, the FBI confiscated videotapes from a gas station, a hotel, and at least one other establishment - all of which were pointed directly at the Pentagon - and none of these tapes has been released.

As noted, if these tapes show, without question, that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon - and this would put to rest ALL of the conspiracy theories (at least re the Pentagon) - then why would they not release them?

You have yet to answer that question.

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, May 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

Okay, you are still kinda not getting it are you?

Lets just pick on thing you brought up.  Like the video of the pentagon attack that you claimed was the only video released by the government.  And you claimed in another post to have done 4 years of research on the events of 9/11.  But in those 4 years you have missed the fact that more videos than the one from the pentagon have in fact been released. In fact, they have been released for over a year.  But you either didn’t know that, or you lied about it. 

So yes, in this case, i am right and you are wrong.  Please stop spreading your ignorance, you are making those of us on the left who are sane look really really bad.

Report this

By lethal77, May 1, 2008 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

there is no conspiracy theory if you can prove it !
Marshall do you work for a government agency? really i cant believe you are saying this without your tongue firmly in your cheek,the evidence is overwhelming in favour of government complicity,debunking 9/11 debunking would be a good start for you highly informative and does not get emotional,straight facts that demolish the official story

Report this

By Maani, May 1, 2008 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:

Your blindness to your method and your arrogance is scary.  All you do in responding to others who disagree with you on this issue - other than call them names and insult them - is to provide alternative links and info that YOU consider to be “correct.”  Having done that, you strut away believing that you are right and everyone else is wrong.  Thus, your approach is: “I’m right, you’re wrong; my information is unimpeachable and your information is ‘lies.’”

Why on God’s great earth would anyone WANT to discuss this issue with you when you approach it with such an attitude?

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, May 1, 2008 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

Manni: 
Cherry picked?  If by that you mean that i actually back up what i say, then yes.  You just rehash the same old lies and then slink away from any request for proof. 

PatrickHenry,
No, you will find my comments in most any topic that has to do with religion as well, especially if Hedges is making a fool of himself again.

And no, i have many many reservations about the events leading up to and after 9/11.  However, i have this silly tendency to challenge people who post lies and BS without the facts to back them up.  Prove what you say, and be honest, and i will have no issues with you.  Lie and hide from questions like manni, and i will prove you wrong.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 1, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

This is the only topic I’ve seen him comment on at truthdig.  His position is that this is an open and shut case irregardless of other professional’s opinions. 

Closed mind.

Report this

By lethal77, May 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

the ex prime-minister of australia one day after 9/11 said “the world has changed forever” what did this man know that the rest of us didnt? i simply cannot look at any aspect of that day and not find a hole in the official story.
And this was sold to the public ?
i met an australian navy intelligenge officer on a flight from the states and he told me there is not an intelligence angency on the planet that accepts the official story.This is so big it simply will never be allowed to come out.
Nixon was shafted on a simple break-in,the Dems have solid impeachable evidence and wont act,why?
Both sides of the same coin dont want this to come out,it is up to the people to act.

Report this

By Maani, May 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Steve:

You may want to read niloroth’s prior posts before responding.  Because debating him on this is a hopeless task, given the absolute certitude with which he makes his (ultimately) myopic and cherry-picked case.

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, May 1, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Well, thats a whole lot of unsubstantiated and flat out wrong bits of information.

Care to back any of that up, or are you going to be like manni and disappear as soon as someone asks you to actually back up what you say?

Report this

By SteveL, May 1, 2008 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

No viewing of pictures of what flew into Pentagon,  black boxes, or what was on black boxes.  Reinforced wall at Pentagon penetrated by aluminum bodied aircraft along with support columns and two more reinforced walls.  No recognizable wreckage left from Pentagon crash or Pennsylvania crash.  World Trade Center Towers support columns covered with asbestos fire proofing (that cannot burn) were melted to the point where there was virtually a simultaneous failure of all columns in the towers.  Building 7 has this same simultaneous failure of fire-proofed columns when WTC buildings closer to the towers did not completely collapse….This is not a conspiracy theory just a story full of holes and impossibilities.  What happened during 9
11 was used to justify all that happened after 9-11 The government and the news media which has all the resources needed should take their story back and get it right.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 1, 2008 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

A sub-note on the quote from Troy Jollimore about the bombings of Germany and Japan.  Statistical evidence gather and analyzed at the time showed that those bombings had very little strategic affect.  (My apologies for not remembering the Sec of Defense who did the analysis during WWII as a lowly Army Air Corp mathematician.)

They amounted to inflicting massive civilian causalities and reducing cities to rubble…but that’s about it.

The only definite strategic influence that they had was early.  According to B.H. Liddell Hart, the U.K.‘s aircraft production/maintenance capability was between one and two weeks from being zero during the Battle of Britain.  Churchill ordered the bombing of German cities.  Hitler was infuriated and switched the Luftwaffe’s strategic goal from destroying the RAF to bombing London proper.  The Blitz began.  And while the people of London (in particular) took the brunt of the offensive, the RAF was able to reconstitute its fighter wing without relentless German pressure. 

Quibble not about Hart’s credentials.  He was the man who designed the Blitzkrieg…only his own country scoffed while Heinz Guderian sold it to Hitler.

Report this

By GaryA, April 29, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Inter alia, Troy Jollimore writes:

“Moreover, the substantive issue is not quite as straightforwardly obvious as Amis would appear to think. One needs at least to acknowledge that both the U.S. and Britain have engaged in the intentional mass killing of civilians: the indiscriminate bombings of German and Japanese cities in World War II. This is not to equate the two cases from a moral point of view. The bombings of German and Japanese civilians were strategic, and seen as means to an end—means, indeed, toward the end, that is, the end of the war. The architects of September 11, by contrast, killed as an expressive act, in which what was expressed was a passionate and genocidal rage, expecting nothing to come of it but death, destruction and terror. They killed to increase killing, indeed to inspire it, not to end it ... .”

His gist, it seems to me, is to note the higher ground on which we in the West stand, as opposed to the Muslims, and to ennoble our our acts of barbarity during WW II as reluctantly taken to end violence.

Can Troy be so certain that the events of 9/11 were not precisely the sort of asymmetric warfare the vastly less powerful are constrained to wage, and that the attacks might, indeed, have been intended to discourage our continued, despised meddling in the Middle East?

Did the USA not topple Iran’s democracy in ‘53 to stand foursquare with the Shah, who ran the country via the death squads America helped him create?

Has America not stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the ghastly and brutal Saudi monarchical plutocracy, against the hopes and aspirations of the Saudi people?

Did the USA not encourage radical muhajadeen fundamentalists in Afghanistan to attack the then-secular govt. in Kabul in hopes of drawing the USSR into war on the side of it’s Afghanistan ally, done so we could secretly give the USSR its own “Vietnam?” [Google, “Chalmers Johnson, Charlie Wilson’s War”, or “Brzezinski, Nouvelle Observatore”]?

And in what the USA regards as a huge victory for freedom in Afghanistan, were not 1 million Afghans killed in a war that ended with the radical muslims in charge and morphing into the very Taliban and al Qaeda who returned our kindness using our own airliners on 9/11?

Is it impossible for Americans to wonder if the attacks of 9/11 are reprisals for real misdeeds? Is it impossible for Americans to even countenance the thought that our dreadful meddling not only has inflamed the passions of our victims, but that they put us on notice that September morning that they, alone, will not be the only victims if the USA continues its meddling ways?

Report this

By weather, April 29, 2008 at 2:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

nothing happens to America.

Report this

By Maani, April 28, 2008 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment

Marshall:

“Maani - you’re reading my last reply to you ever.  I can see that this topic is a litmus test for gullibility and, frankly, sanity.  So you go right ahead and believe what you want.  You’re in great company too.  Just look at… say, Major General Albert Stubblebine who’s touted as one of the credible ex-military 9/11 non-believers.  Fact is, he retired over twenty years ago and is now senile, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be used as a reference for the 9/11 conspiracy movement!  Take a look at his Wikipedia entry.  Yup, he’s the guy staring at goats.”

So you pick ONE person out of over 1100 people (and a Wiki entry, no less!) and use THAT as your “litmus test?”  Geez!  Lotsa research and intellectual honesty THERE!  It musta taken you AT LEAST a few minutes to pick him out and dismiss him!

Oh, and I really must ask: are you a psychiatrist or a psychologist or something?  Because if you aren’t, on what basis are you diagnosing him as “senile?”

Peace.

Report this

By Marshall, April 28, 2008 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

Maani - you’re reading my last reply to you ever.  I can see that this topic is a litmus test for gullibility and, frankly, sanity.  So you go right ahead and believe what you want.  You’re in great company too.  Just look at… say, Major General Albert Stubblebine who’s touted as one of the credible ex-military 9/11 non-believers.  Fact is, he retired over twenty years ago and is now senile, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be used as a reference for the 9/11 conspiracy movement!  Take a look at his Wikipedia entry.  Yup, he’s the guy staring at goats.

So enjoy your fantasy.  It proves that given enough time, absolutely any historical event, no matter how well documented, will attract a cult of earnest loons who insist that it never happened.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 28, 2008 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

Independent researchers would be required to get the government sponsered stench off the previous rushed investigation.  It worked for the JFK assasination.

This issue is bigger than Iraq and needs to be given as much time to resolve.

The Israelis position in all this would have to be closely looked at as more and more info concerning their involvement was not covered in the first investigation.  Consultation with the worlds other intelligence agencies could give a new commission some insight and objectivity.

The Patriot Act was canned and appeared out of nowhere, single handedly gutting many liberties guarenteed by the Bill of Rights.  It has served as the stepping stone for bigger more instrusive government, because of 9/11.

To believe the governments theory in all of this after the multitude of lies they have told the American people would be foolish.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 28, 2008 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

Torture a person long enough and they will say anything you want them to.

Report this

By niloroth, April 28, 2008 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

And about the FBI not having hard evidence against OBL for 9/11, did you even actually trace those sources back to their origin?  Because it is kinda funny, if you do, you just end up with a supposed conversation that happened between a conspiracy theorist and someone who works with the FBI.  No tape, no witnesses, no credibility.  Yeah, thats about par for the course for the reporting of the 9/11 denial movement.

” Still, as noted, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind, since, as we see, you can always rationalize, justify or simply gainsay it.  And we can play the “my expert is better than your expert” game, but that would leave us nowhere as well.”

Actually, a lot of things have changed my mind since i have started to investigate the events of 9/11.  You on the other hand, have so far shown that you have done 0 actual research, other than to read prisonplanet.  And no, we can not play “my expert is better than your expert”.  You don’t have any to play
with, i can list thousands of actual scientists, engineers, physicists, demolition experts, pilots, and educators who support the events as they happened on 9/11.

Go do some learning.  Stop being ignorant, and stop being used as a cash cow by some dishonest people.

Report this

By niloroth, April 28, 2008 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

“As well, the FBI continues to refuse to release at least half a dozen videotapes of the Pentagon “crash,” and only released a single graint on-site c/c video which does NOTHING to support their case.  If those videos would, in a single stroke, stop the alternative theorists in their tracks, why do they refuse to release them?”

Again, source please?  I would like to know what the half dozen videos are, since as far as i know, all videos from that day have been released.  Notice that
i said Videos? Well, you probebly didn’t, you seem to miss a lot.  You said “only released a single graint on-site c/c video which does NOTHING to support their case.” But in fact there are multiple videos.  So you are either lying or misinformed.  Here, go read up kid.
Source on that

” As for eyewitnesses, I suggest you read the testimony of William Rodriguez, who saved dozens of people at the WTC, was the last one out of the North
Tower, and was honored by Bush - but also KNOWS that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition BECAUSE HE WAS THERE and not only saw the aftermath of the subbasement explosions (required to loosen the foundation for a proper collpase), but heard the squibs going off as he left the building.”

William Rodriguez is a true hero for his actions on 9/11.  He saved lives, and showed bravery and heroism in a time of trouble.  However, he is seriously mistaken on the events of the day, including the reasons for the explosions in the building.  And please keep in mind that he was not the only witness there. Plenty of firefighters, policemen, and regular people were there that day, and they don’t support the controlled demolition theory.  In fact, while the 9/11 deniers love to jump on the quotes from people saying the collapse sounded like an explosion, 6 times as many claimed it sounded like a rumbling, and just as many said it sounded like a train.  Does that mean that Amtrack brought down the towers?

Read up on Rodriguez a bit

And a bit on what the people who were there heard

Report this

By niloroth, April 28, 2008 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

“Yet all of this is academic, since the government does NOT claim that they know the hijackers were “Middle Eastern” as a result of their DNA, nor have they claimed to find any DNA of the hijackers.”

Source please, you are really short on those it seems.  And I will bet that any source that you have on the government not knowing who the hijackers were is from before november 2nd 2001, because by then the had gone public with the identities of all of them:
Source on that

” Re flight manifests, NONE of the hijackers’ names appeared on ANY of the manifests, either as such or as aliases.  And all of the manifests were posted to the Internet by the airlines on 9/13/01 - just after the FBI miraculously posted the names and photos of all 19 hijackers - so this is something that was EASY to find.”

Not easy enough apparently.  The lists of VICTIMS listed by CNN do not include the HIJACKERS.  The key in that sentence is in the capitalized words.  Hijackers would not be included in the victims lists, and the list was put together by CNN, not the FBI.  the FBI did in fact list the terrorists on the flight manifests.  You would know that if you had bothered to check into it.
Source on that

Report this

By niloroth, April 28, 2008 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Sorry in advance for this being in pieces, but it won’t post correctly, even under 4,000 words, and i can’t for the life of me figure out why.  So in pieces is it.

“consider that the crash at the Pentagon apparently vaporized almost the entire plane, including both titanium engines, and the crash in Pennsylvania

apparently vaporized - EVERYTHING!  It would be physically impossible for DNA to survive if titanium engines and other metal parts were vaporized.”

the basis of your claims are wrong at the core.  Neither crash vaporized the planes.  As such dna evidence was readily available.

Link to a site detailing the wreckage found at the pentagon:


PDF of the studies on the remains found at the pentagon:

All victims of flight 93 identified.

Write up of the flight 93 remains found

Report this

By Maani, April 28, 2008 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

Marshall:

“Thanks, but I prefer to go with what we actually know.”

But that is EXACTLY the point: what DO you “actually know?”  Simply what was TOLD to you?  Have you done any independent investigation into what the government has “told” you, or do you simply take everything your government tells you at face value?

I have spent over four years intensively investigating the events of 9/11: I have read more books and articles, seen more videos, spoken with more people (including scientists) - on BOTH sides of the story - than anyone else I know.  My resource base is among the most comprehensive to be found.  And while I have my own beliefs and feelings about the attacks, I pursue my investigations in a non-partisan manner: reading, comparing, finding common denominators.  And yes, as a result of this I have discarded beliefs that I had held earlier.

In this regard, Michael has it exactly right: one need not subscribe to any particular alternative theory, or the specifics thereof.  One need only realize that “there are inconsistencies in the ‘official story’ that have never been explained, investigated, or pursued to the satisfaction they should have been.”

Indeed, the number of well-known people who are calling for a completely new, independent, non-political, COMPLETELY thorough investigation into 9/11 - following ALL of the evidence, WHEREVER it leads - is growing exponentially.  And while many of these people do not subscribe to any particular alternative theory, what they all have in common is that they believe that the 9/11 Commission did NOT do the job it was supposed to do, and that FAR too many questions remain unanswered.  An excellent list of many of those who support a new, independent investigation - including military, law enforcement, intelligence service, engineers, architects, pilots, academics, media professionals, artists and entertainers, and survivors and family members - can be found here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

In this regard, I believe it is YOU who lacks critical thinking, not those of us who actually spend time looking into the ALLEGED “facts.”

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, April 28, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

i keep trying to reply to this, but for some reason i can’t seem to.  This is mostly just a test, hopefully it will post.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 28, 2008 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When a school-yard bully goes around putting his foot on the necks of others, eventually, even the weakest person is going to revolt. The US has pushed its big white nose into an area where it knows little. They happen to have oil, so it is in the government “sphere”

Anyone who writes a commentary like the one above and fails to use the names Mossadaq, Muhammad Raza Shah Pavlevi, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Abdul Karim Qassim and of course Henry Kissinger is an academic lightweight, OR a spin doctor, take your choice.

it was the Americans, who had the Shah installed by overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadaq government in Iran. 

In 1963 The Kennedy Administration supported a coup in Iraq by the Ba’ath party (eventually headed by Saddam Hussein) and gives them names of communists to murder. They also send Saddam to Egypt for “training”.

They bargained for resources, and used the threat of political overthrow to negotiate contracts.. the list goes on and on.

Were I a middle-easterner, I’d have difficulty saying nice things about Uncle Sam…

Report this

By Michael Gass, April 28, 2008 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

Do not confuse investigatory techniques and stages with conspiracy theory.  There are plenty of criminal crimes committed in the United States that become “cold cases” for lack of evidence.  BTW, those cases aren’t considered to be “conspiracy theories”.

Let me reiterate; I have pulled 4 Presidential Protection missions for 3 Presidents.  I have sat in a post 9/11 FBI “law enforcement” briefing about what they knew and didn’t know.  Have you?

Whether or not you believe Al-Qaeda attacked America; that our government did or did not know about the coming attack; whether or not our government turned a blind eye and allowed the attack to happen or not; or even if you do or do not believe that our government actively assisted in said attack; what you cannot deny is that there are inconsistencies in the “official story” that have never been explained, investigated, or pursued to the satisfaction they should have been.

1)  The Secret Service team at the elementary school allowed President Bush to remain in that building for 30 minutes after being told America was under attack.  This is a fact, not a theory.  The question is why?  And there has never been an answer to that question.  You cannot dismiss this fact because the Secret Service team in the White House hustled Cheney to the secure bunker.  If Cheney was in danger, why was Bush NOT in danger?  The FAA couldn’t track the planes.  NORAD couldn’t track the planes.  They knew multiple aircraft were hi-jacked and no way to know if the number was 1, 2 or 8 until the incident ended.  So, why was there no sense of urgency for the USSS in Florida?

2) Within 24 hours after the attack, the FBI released all 19 hijackers names with photos, and then qualified it in fine print that there was NO EVIDENCE to support their claim.  This is a fact, not a theory.

3) Within 24 hours, the FBI was raiding apartments, etc, in Florida of the “terrorists”.  This is fact, not theory.  But, a month, an hour, before 9/11 they didn’t have this information?  Or did they just not act on it?  Which was it?

Here, let me put this in terms you can understand:  You get your car hit by another driver who takes off and you call the cops.  The officer looks at you asks you what happened.  You tell him it was a hit and run.  Do you have any EVIDENCE of it being a hit and run?  Video?  No?  Why are you bothering an officer of the law with your conspiracy theory????  And, instead of trying to get them to do an investigation, why aren’t YOU doing it?

You’re arguments usually are much better than this Marshall.  Facts are facts.  An uninvestigated fact is still a fact.

Report this

By Marshall, April 28, 2008 at 12:43 am Link to this comment

By Michael Gass, April 26 at 11:34 pm #
(27 comments total)
no… it’s evidence… just never investigated…

“Why is it that not 24 hours after the attack…blah blah blah…”

Thanks, Micheal, for a response that exactly illustrates the point of my original post.  All you have are “questions”, as though questions somehow prove your 9/11 conspiracy theory.  Thanks, but I prefer to go with what we actually know rather than with what you personally haven’t bothered to figure out or choose to ignore.  Your conspiracy musings have earned you my coveted “Lack of Critical Thinking Award”, and the prize is that you’ll never have to read any of my future replies to your posts.  Mainly because there won’t be any.  Congrats!!!

Report this

By Michael Gass, April 27, 2008 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

There is also one other aspect to 9/11 that has yet to be discussed: the few “trials” and “confessions”.

Torture was, and forever will be, used to garner a confession.

After 9/11, the rendition program kicked into high gear.  We know, that as early as 2002, the Bush administration was pushing for torture to be used.

If the FBI had “evidence” that others were involved in the 9/11 attacks, why were there no trials or charges for years afterwards?  The answer is clear; you cannot have a public trial until you know that the person will say everything you want him to say.

Was Sheik Khalid really involved, or, was he waterboarded into a confession?  The same question can be asked of Atta and Moussaoui.

Report this

By niloroth, April 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

uh, what?

Report this

By God?Freedumb?, April 27, 2008 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Bin Laden’s motivation?
This title Questions it All?Hardly.
Money is the root to all evil.
so, Re: Bin Laden’s motivation?
M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Y !

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2008 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:

“However, the 9/11 denial merchants have no claim to anyones money, except those who fall for their unsupported claims.  You obviously have, and i really feel sorry for you in that regard.  But it’s not my money you are wasting, so whatever.”

That would be true if (i) I spent one penny on any books, videos, etc. that I later found to be “wasted, or, indeed, (ii) I spent even one penny AT ALL, and did not simply read the books at bookstores, see the videos free, and read articles and other information online.

Nice try.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2008 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

Niloroth:

“Seriously, what about the DNA evidence, eyewitness reports, flight manifests, video from the airports?”

Actually, you raise some good - and fully debunkable - issues.  Re the DNA evidence, consider that the crash at the Pentagon apparently vaporized almost the entire plane, including both titanium engines, and the crash in Pennsylvania apparently vaporized - EVERYTHING!  It would be physically impossible for DNA to survive if titanium engines and other metal parts were vaporized.  As for the WTC, it is beyond unlikely that DNA would survive the explosion of 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in close quarters.  Yet all of this is academic, since the government does NOT claim that they know the hijackers were “Middle Eastern” as a result of their DNA, nor have they claimed to find any DNA of the hijackers.

Re flight manifests, NONE of the hijackers’ names appeared on ANY of the manifests, either as such or as aliases.  And all of the manifests were posted to the Internet by the airlines on 9/13/01 - just after the FBI miraculously posted the names and photos of all 19 hijackers - so this is something that was EASY to find.

Re video from the airports, all we have ever seen is a single video of two or three of the alleged hijackers going through security at Logan.  No other videos have been released.  As well, the FBI continues to refuse to release at least half a dozen videotapes of the Pentagon “crash,” and only released a single graint on-site c/c video which does NOTHING to support their case.  If those videos would, in a single stroke, stop the alternative theorists in their tracks, why do they refuse to release them?

As for eyewitnesses, I suggest you read the testimony of William Rodriguez, who saved dozens of people at the WTC, was the last one out of the North Tower, and was honored by Bush - but also KNOWS that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition BECAUSE HE WAS THERE and not only saw the aftermath of the subbasement explosions (required to loosen the foundation for a proper collpase), but heard the squibs going off as he left the building.

Re the FBI OBL poster vis-a-vis 9/11, and the spokesman’s comment, here is the poster (note NO mention of 9/11):

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

And here is the quote (about seven short paragraphs down):

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3246

As for Moussaoui, you must be kidding!  You REALLY believe that he had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?  And you REALLY believe that his trial was not undertaken for the VERY REASON that the U.S. government NEEDED SOME kind of conviction in order to pacify the masses?  If so, you are far more gullible than those you accuse of being so.

Still, as noted, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind, since, as we see, you can always rationalize, justify or simply gainsay it.  And we can play the “my expert is better than your expert” game, but that would leave us nowhere as well.

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, April 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

way to once again dodge the fact that i countered your statements on the 9/11 denial fairy tale you believe.  Wow, you sure showed me. 

The government bilks us all through poor use of our tax $‘s, that is obvious.  However, the 9/11 denial merchants have no claim to anyones money, except those who fall for their unsupported claims.  You obviously have, and i really feel sorry for you in that regard.  But it’s not my money you are wasting, so whatever.

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

Niloroth:

To JS’ query re why one is a conspiracy theory and one is not, you say “Because one is supported by the evidence that we have, and another is a cash cow for conspiracy theorists to bilk the gullible out their hard earned money.”

Excuse me?  Who “bilks” you - or anyone else, for that matter - more: the government or the 9/11 alternative theorists?

Talk about someone needing to get out more…

Peace.

Report this

By niloroth, April 27, 2008 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

You don’t get out much do you? 

” But the official story is, in fact, a conspiracy theory.  Nothing about it has ever been proven; hence it is a theory.  There have been no trials, no convictions, nothing.  And the whole thing rests on some guys living in caves half a world away dreaming up a grand plan to attack the United States: a conspiracy.

So no trials?  Maybe you missed a little thing called ‘Fourth Circuit decision in U.S. v. Moussaoui’?

Here, go read up, i know it is hard to actually research things, but the benefit is that you end up being smarter when you are done.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

And again with the whole “guys in a cave” thing.  That premise shows very little understanding of the facts of the hijackers and planners.  You should do some reading on that topic as well.  Hey, fun fact of the day, there were planners and hijackers with college educations, even a masters degree. 

” So my question is: why is one set of beliefs a conspiracy theory and the other is not?”

Because one is supported by the evidence that we have, and another is a cash cow for conspiracy theorists to bilk the gullible out their hard earned money.

Report this

By niloroth, April 27, 2008 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

damn, hit submit instead of preview.  No matter, i think i hit all the points i wanted to.

Report this

By niloroth, April 27, 2008 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

” That said, niloroth’s link addresses only one aspect of the Flight 77 airphone question; whether or not the phones were activated at the time.  But it does NOT address the second, and far more important, aspect: that Mr. Olson claimed specifically that his wife was calling from her cellphone, and NOT from an airphone.”

I never said i was addressing the airphone issue, i was simply pointing out that you were either lying or horribly misinformed about the validity of D.R.G.‘s research.  You are trying to switch the focus because you were wrong.  If you want a full and in depth accounting of the errors that D.R.G. has made in his “research” i would highly recommend Ryan Mackey’s paper debunking all 18 major claims made in ‘debunking 9/11 debunking’.  Griffin himself requested a copy from Mackey before he released it, but has yet to respond to even one of the points that Mackey made.  He was probably to busy reordering the chapters into a new book that he will sell to you suckers. 

” Yet as critical as the claimed Olson calls are (since they are the ONLY “proof” that the hijackers were “Middle Eastern” and had “knives and boxcutters”)”

Don’t you ever get tired of typing all this BS?  seriously, it only takes a few minutes to do some research to correct yourself.  Seriously, what about the DNA evidence, eyewitness reports, flight manifests, video from the airports? 

” The evidence supporting alternative theories of what occurred on 9/11 is huge and growing”

Oh, really, thats funny, because i have been asking to see anything that supports the 9/11 denial theories for about a year now on this site, and no one has shown me anything.  Not one single piece of valid evidence that the events of 9/11 happened any way other than the way they were reported.

“while the evidence supporting the “official story” (the 9/11 Report) is increasingly debunked”

Umm, where are you finding that?  I mean other than on sites for crackpots like prisonplanet and stormfront? 

“But don’t forget that OBL was a critical CIA “asset” for almost a decade: he was “our man” in Afghanistan when we were propping up the mahujadeen against the Russians.  This is why his alleged (by the U.S.) “masterminding” of 9/11 is highly suspect.  [N.B. There is also evidence that Mohammed Atta was a CIA asset from way back.]”

Again, could you please post some evidence to support your claims?  The only sources for the “Bin Laden was a CIA operative” are shady conspiracy websites.  and if you are going to make that accusation, please do something more in depth than just rehash the “OBL was in the mujahideen, the CIA supplied the mujahideen, therefor OBL is a CIA operative”.  That is very very weak reasoning.

” In fact, the official FBI “Wanted” poster of OBL (which you can see online) does not mention 9/11 AT ALL.  When asked why, an FBI spokesman said that it was because “we have no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11.” Quote unquote.”

Again, sources please.  Mostly for the quote. 

” The question that needs asking here is, which is more likely: that a guy who lives in a cave, and 19 guys with boxcutters, were able to foil the entire military, intelligence and airline apparatuses of the U.S. - for almost two years (including planning)?  Or that they were assisted (or even directed) in their efforts by “insiders” here in the U.S. government?”

ah yes, the borderline racist and highly disingenuous “guys in a cave” bit.  A simple bit of research on who the hijackers actually were would do you some good here.  There were multiple college graduates in the group that planned and hijacked the planes, most were educated, and middle to upper class.  These people were not stupid, and they were not hiding in caves banging rocks together to create fire. 

Could you please stop making us dumber by posting now please?

So lets see, i have proved you wrong what,

Report this

By felicity, April 27, 2008 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Maani, I agree that a guy operating from a cave could pull off what Bin Laden did without the aiding and abetting of operatives in this country seems pretty fantastic.  The only argument I’ve heard which casts a reasonable doubt on the theory makes a good case that when a lot of people must be involved in what would have to be a very elaborate plan, somebody is eventually bound to talk. Seven years is a long time for anybody to keep such a potentially explosive revelation to himself.

But, hey, maybe the CIA/FBI have systematically offed all the potential leakers?  Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 27, 2008 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Moreover, it seems likely that if there was some hard evidence implicating bin Laden in the attack, then he likely would have been tried in absentia.

However, i’ve read conflicting reports about bin Laden’s ties to the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan War.  Cole does not give him much of a role in Shadow Wars.  The links are shadowy, and tenuous (by design, if they exist).  The funneling of money through the Pakistani ISI from the States and Saudi Arabia make the real connections a lot of guesswork.

Circumstantial evidence does suggest connections; after all, Osama bin Laden was not just any Arab fighter.  His father’s connection to the House of Saud…and also the United States power structure…certainly makes him suspect.  As does the apparent unwillingness of the United States to kill/apprehend him.

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2008 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

Felicity:

Perhaps.  But don’t forget that OBL was a critical CIA “asset” for almost a decade: he was “our man” in Afghanistan when we were propping up the mahujadeen against the Russians.  This is why his alleged (by the U.S.) “masterminding” of 9/11 is highly suspect.  [N.B. There is also evidence that Mohammed Atta was a CIA asset from way back.]

In fact, the official FBI “Wanted” poster of OBL (which you can see online) does not mention 9/11 AT ALL.  When asked why, an FBI spokesman said that it was because “we have no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11.”  Quote unquote.

The question that needs asking here is, which is more likely: that a guy who lives in a cave, and 19 guys with boxcutters, were able to foil the entire military, intelligence and airline apparatuses of the U.S. - for almost two years (including planning)?  Or that they were assisted (or even directed) in their efforts by “insiders” here in the U.S. government?

Although it does in fact usually hold true, there are times when Occam’s Razor is hopelessly unsharpened.

Peace.

Report this

By felicity, April 27, 2008 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Perhaps if we understood that we might be able to view 9/11 as a rational act - and thereby ‘deal’ with it.

Bin Laden wants to unseat the Saudi royal family because he believes it is ‘corrupting’ the land of Islam - the home of Mecca and Medina.  He attacked where he did and what he did to weaken the US which he believes, rightly or wrongly, is responsible for keeping the Saudi royals in power.

His mode of operation is to first exact revenge, 9/11, then wait for retaliation, then reap the benefits of reknown.  We’ve, of course, obliged.

He believes that by our retaliatory actions we will bankrupt our country thereby making it effete on the world stage, which includes Saudi Arabia.  He’s a very patient man.

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2008 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Michael, JS:

Thank you for your words of support.

Niloroth, DKIA:

Like many people, you approach this subject from the point of view of: “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”  This is why it would be fruitless to attempt a debate with you; NO amount of evidence contradicting the “official story” will EVER convince you.  I mean this with no disrespect or combativeness, only as observation.

That said, niloroth’s link addresses only one aspect of the Flight 77 airphone question; whether or not the phones were activated at the time.  But it does NOT address the second, and far more important, aspect: that Mr. Olson claimed specifically that his wife was calling from her cellphone, and NOT from an airphone.  And an FBI investigation of Ms. Olson’s cellphone records does show that one call (NOT two, as claimed by Mr. Olson) was placed by Ms. Olson during the flight - but that this call did NOT connect.

Yet as critical as the claimed Olson calls are (since they are the ONLY “proof” that the hijackers were “Middle Eastern” and had “knives and boxcutters”), there are so many equally (if not more) critical aspects of the attacks, and the whitewash 9/11 Report.  Michael brings up one; the actions (or inactions) of President Bush when he was told specifically that the U.S. was under attack.

Niloroth seems to be invested pretty heavily in my comments on the 9/11 Report.  What he fails to get is that it is not whether “the criticisms of the members of the commission go against the events of the day of 9/11.”  Rather, it is a matter of whether the companies, organizations and agencies in question were PROPERLY INVESTIGATED at all.  That is, with Bush crony and neocon Zelikow in charge of deciding which lines of evidence to follow and which witnesses to depose (that was his job, on behalf of the Commission) - and with Commissioners who had blatant conflicts of interest vis-a-vis those very companies, organizations and agencies - the question is whether a proper investigation was done.  It was not.

Keep in mind that it took years before we knew that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag; that Roosevelt had advance notice of an attack on a U.S. military base (though he may not have known the specific target); and that the infamous “Gulf of Tonkin” incident - the raison d’etre for the escalation of the war - never happened.  And I suppose niloroth and DKIA are going to tell me that they believe that Oswald acted alone.

The evidence supporting alternative theories of what occurred on 9/11 is huge and growing, while the evidence supporting the “official story” (the 9/11 Report) is increasingly debunked - even by the two chairs of the Commission who oversaw it, who have now stated that they were lied to by (at least) the FAA, the Defense Department, the CIA and the White House.

You can believe whatever makes you happy and comfortable to believe.  But given that the events of 9/11 were the impetus for the unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change in Iraq; the never-ending “war on terror” and the “climate of fear” that is used to control the masses; the Dept. of Homeland Security; Patriot Acts 1 and 2; wiretapping of American citizens; Guantanamo; Abu Ghraib; the evisceration of habeus corpus and posse comitatus, and the shredding of the Constitution, it damn well IS important that we know the ENTIRE truth, including how our own government was complicit in the planning and execution of the attacks.

Peace.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 27, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

I particularly enjoy the tossing back and forth of the term “conspiracy theory”.

Maani defined it.  Now, on one side, any suspicion that the government (or portions thereof) knew about the attack before hand…or even played a role in planning the attack…is dismissed as “conspiracy theory”.  On the other side, the official story of what happened is considered to be gospel (or outright lies, depending on where you stand).

But the official story is, in fact, a conspiracy theory.  Nothing about it has ever been proven; hence it is a theory.  There have been no trials, no convictions, nothing.  And the whole thing rests on some guys living in caves half a world away dreaming up a grand plan to attack the United States: a conspiracy.

So my question is: why is one set of beliefs a conspiracy theory and the other is not?  To my mind, they sound like competing conspiracy theories.  In which case, the operative question would be: which conspiracy is more likely to have been executable?

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 27, 2008 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

When you were barely more than a toddler, you heard many government propaganda stories.  One was how Washington couldn’t lie about chopping down his folk’s cherry tree, another was how Abe, the Great Emancipator, walked many miles to return a couple pennies change to one of his store customers and,  perhaps the greatest of all, we would not be subject to British tyranny and empire building because they were morally wrong.

To you well-intentioned people who continue to push the 9/11 conspiracy theory, I’d like to offer you some words of encouragement and perhaps a step toward recovery.  Just what is it that you are trying to prove?  Those myths about our governemnt planted into our minds decades ago, we know, are just that.  We are well aware of the moral fallibility of our government and the evil it is capable of doing.  If it turns out we all become convinced of your 9/11 conspiracy theory, what then?

You must certainly understand we are all complicit.  Complicit in 9/11.  Complicit in Iraq.  Proving the Bush cabal guilty of planning and executing the 9/11 attack on the WTC will only serve to immplicate youselves and all of us. 

As for Bush being or not being in danger on 9/11, I say Poppycock!  It’s in the best interests of our enemies and their agenda to allow him to continue to further their agenda, as he has for the last 8 years and as his father before him.  As Amis suggests, they’re not stupid.

As Wright said, “the chickens have come home to roost,” and they’re not just the 9/11 variety. 

This election is about “change we can believe in.”  I’ll believe that when I see it. I don’t believe that the people in this country yet have the slightest idea about the real change that is indicated for this country.  We’re far too brainwashed.

Report this

By Michael Gass, April 27, 2008 at 12:34 am Link to this comment

Why is it that not 24 hours after the attack, the FBI knew who all 19 hijackers were by name and photo… yet, the FBI’s own website states that they REALLY didn’t KNOW that these WERE the people?

Why is it that not 24 hours after the attack, the FBI were in Florida, in a town near where President Bush made a speech?

Why is it that within 24 hours… all of this occurred… yet, during MONTHS prior to 9/11, NOTHING was “found out”, “figured out”, despite ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT AN ATTACK WAS FORTHCOMING?

There is PLENTY of evidence that the Bush Admin KNEW about the plot… if only it would be INVESTIGATED properly.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.