AlterNet / By Joshua Holland
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 410

9/11: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns

Even when you cut through the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and head straight for the facts, the government's version still seems fuzzy.
June 5, 2006  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
According to a recent Zogby poll, less than half of all Americans agree that "the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about U.S. government involvement is nonsense."

You could almost hear a wail of frustration rising up from the gatekeepers of acceptable discourse.

Just after the Zogby poll was released, William Arkin, the Washington Post's normally circumspect military affairs columnist, had a fit of apoplexy over some e-mail from 9/11 skeptics. "National security is men's work," he wrote -- absurdly bringing gender politics into a debate that's already quite muddled -- and conspiracy theorists are, presumably, not real men, but "predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system [and] contemptuous of anything that even resembles the 'truth.'"

One wonders what he really thinks.

Outside of the world of punditry, the 9/11 conspiracies should come as no surprise, especially when you consider how ripe the events of 9/11 are for "alternative" analysis.

That begins with the basic premise that underlies the most common conspiracy theories. I, for one, have no problem accepting the notion that a small group of true believers -- people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocon "cabal" -- used the attacks of 9/11 to seize and consolidate power. And I'm comfortable accepting that they view liberal democracy as a threat, their political opponents as a national weakness, and American militarism as the best hope for humanity.

They've proved, to my mind, that they're happiest when governing in secrecy -- a prerequisite for a conspiracy. Think about the administration's obsession with classifying everything under the sun, or Dick Cheney going all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid divulging who, exactly, crafted America's energy policy.

The administration's hardliners also represent a nexus between the more authoritarian end of our political spectrum and the anti-egalitarian business Right; the administration and its backers, allies and former partners are making an unprecedented fortune in all corners of the "war on terror," and that goes to motive.

It's a group of ideologues that knows its prescriptions aren't popular. The Project for a New American Century, where a "White House in waiting" of hard-right operatives weathered the Clinton years, urged a massive "rebuilding" of America's military capabilities (PDF), but warned that it wouldn't be easy unless there was a major attack on the American homeland. "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor," they wrote.

And while Arkin might consider the preceding paragraph evidence of the most "predatory and devious" kind of fringe thinking, I’d say it’s simply naïve to dismiss the many occasions in history when exaggerated or false external threats were used to rally a nation to a war footing (and abridge civil rights at home) -- from the explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor to the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin.

So you have suspects and motive, and they accord more or less with some distinctly mainstream progressive analyses. That's not, however, evidence of anything. So, to repeat, while there's a pretty clear record of Bush Republicans taking advantage of 9/11 - think Rudy Giuliani's 2004 GOP convention speech that mentioned September 11 four score times - there's nothing concrete to suggest that they were behind it.

Indeed the place to start considering the events behind 9/11 is to look at the federal government's official version of what happened and see if it's accurate. If there are holes or serious flaws -- and there are -- then we should try to get an accurate version of what happened and proceed from there.

Let's start with a simple fundamental problem with the 9/11 report:

We may not know who all the hijackers really were.

Three days after the attack, the FBI released the names of those infamous 19 hijackers (photos here).

But the following was reported, not on some fringe website, but by the BBC on Sept. 23:
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.
His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. …
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. …
Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.
Abdelaziz Al Omari "lost his passport in Denver." He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. …
Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.
Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive.
He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.
But if you go to the 9/11 Commission report, and look at pages 38 and 39 in section seven (PDF) you'll see the same 19 hijackers without any suggestion that there's a doubt about their identities. Mueller later said all the doubts were resolved, according to CBS. But what about the guys who are saying that the rumors of their deaths have been greatly exaggerated?

In my research for this article, I went through several websites dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, but was unable to find anything disputing the BBC story (and anyone who has contrary evidence is invited to send it to me or post a refutation in the comments section of this article).

Besides the doubt around the identities of the hijackers, there were also two passports belonging to the hijackers that were supposedly found, intact, near the World Trade Center. That was reported by the Associated Press (citing CBS News) and the British newspaper, the Guardian.

There's a pretty clear dividing line between the idea that the Bush administration's ideologues used the attacks of 9/11 to consolidate power and the idea that they participated in those attacks. The former is a fairly mainstream liberal critique; the latter is rank conspiracy theory, unsupported by any serious evidence.

Having taken a long bath in the world of 9/11 conspiracism, I still think the most likely scenario is that the Bush administration was obsessed with rival powers -- Russia and China -- and ignored the terror issue. After the attacks, the security agencies were under enormous, unrelenting pressure to show Americans they were in control and they needed to show that they were on top of the investigation at all costs. These things would certainly require sanitizing in the 9/11 report and other official narratives for the sake of expediency and creating the appearance that the government was on the job.

Having said that, I'd also be receptive to evidence that the Bush administration had a far greater degree of knowledge about the how and why of the attacks, and looked the other way and let them happen. All I'd need to buy that would be a bit of evidence. After all, we've recently learned in a report published on AlterNet that New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who had a direct link to the most powerful office in Washington (Dick Cheney's), said she had been warned of a terrorist attack.

But that kind of evidence is almost certainly not forthcoming; there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9/11. Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email

comments COMMENTS ( 410 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Controlled Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: David Blayne did it. Posted by: kooz

Comments are closed-

Just a sample of some questions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jun 5, 2006 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My favourite thought-provoker here is David Ray Griffin's book, "A New Pearl Harbour". He doesn't attempt to prove anything, he simply looks at some of the suggested 'evidence' that 9/11 was not as officially stated, and discusses what each implies in terms of degree of complicity. The foreword alone is well worth reading, because there he states clearly and precisely what he's doing and what he's not doing, which is more than most theorists can manage.

I find the physical aspects most persuasive. Having a little (very little) knowledge of engineering and the laws of physics, I couldn't credit that those buildings would fall straight down. Demolition experts work for years at learning how to demolish buildings that way, because it's damn hard to do. The slightest inequity in the forces and your building goes all over the damn shop, tipping one way or another and shaking it all about.

The fires, too. It's really hard to make the fires hot enough to deform the building sufficiently, and even if that had happened the damn things would have toppled over, not dropped straight into their footprint. Again, there's the engineering: if the fire story is true, then WT7 would have been the first ever case in about a century of a steel-framed building collapsing from fire. Which would mean a huge panic as all other steel-framed buildings would now be much less safe then previously thought. Griffin also mentions seismic data, which looks suspicious. At the very least all this stuff means the administration covered up what really happened, as Joshua pointed out. And it's not like this admin doesn't have a track record of lying egregiously.

The missile hitting the Pentagon I'm not convinced of, but this, like all the other points, needs looking into. If there's suggestions that the official story isn't squeaky clean, then a real investigation should have been done. The fact that the Bush admin tried so hard to block, and then choke, the investigation that finally happened, just feeds these theories. The fact that the terms of reference of the investigation were so constrained meant that the panel had almost no choice but to follow the official line from beginning to end. This is why so many people believe theories: they're building their suspicions on past behaviour.

» A couple more salient points Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Just a sample of some questions Posted by: Larry Brewer
» RE: Just a sample of some questions sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com

Comments are closed-

How much have you studied the subject?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hankgeorge on Jun 5, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I encountered Griffin's first book by chance in London. I read it as much out of boredom as anything else. That lead me to the second book...and so on. I have a hard time believing that you cannot find credible evidence supporting the "conspiracy theories" in the finely researched details. If the twin towers did not come down from controlled explosions, nothing in history ever has. As unbullied experts have shown many times now, what was said to have happened simply could not have happened. I think you have either some homework or some soulsearching to do. No one wants to believe anything but the official story. But I, for one, cannot, in the end, simply LIE myself to sleep.

Comments are closed-

A Conspiracy of Dunces
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DavidR95 on Jun 5, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with much of what Joshua Holland wrote in this morning's column. But there is evidence that The White House knew full well the attacks were coming, with fairly detailed information other than the date and specific targets. This is well-documented in an article, "ashington's Darkest Secret," which appeaed in April 2005 and can be found at the following link:

www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Charles0405.htm

In brief, the article quotes current and former national intelligence and security officers as saying that George Tenet's mad flight to Bush's Crawford ranch in August, 2001, was to inform him that a mole buried inside al Qaeda had passed word of the attacks sometime in July or early August. If there was a conspiracy of any kind, and I'm not sure there was, it might be that Bush, Cheney and the neocons decided to let it happen rather than mobilise the FBI, CIA, FAA and local police to prevent it.

In any event, as history has shown, it was a consiracy of dunces to borrow a phrase from John Kennedy O'Toole.

» Verifiable True Fact Posted by: ceti
» I would have to say.... Posted by: HeidiLockwood

Comments are closed-

The problem with conspiracies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oldsmobile on Jun 5, 2006 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have kept an open mind about the events of 911 but I can't help but be troubled by some of the conspiracy theories out there.

It seems they follow a similar pattern, usually a question that has not been answered adequetly or not at all by the official story is taken and speculated and guessed to death based on little more than assumptions and the total excaggeration of crumbs of information.

I agree there are many strange going ons around the whole affair, but stating theories as fact gets us nowhere. See how for instance the "did a plane or something else hit the pentagon" discussion ran wild untill someone pointed out that there were indeed pictures of airplane debris on the lawn, not good ones, but they are in the public domain.

What I am saying is, it is okay to develop theories, even wild ones, but don't be so damn sure of everything, it ruins your credibility, since many of the things can be totally disproven by the government simply by publsihing a single photograph or video.

» yeah deny the facts... Posted by: ShoShenQ
» RE: yeah deny the facts... Posted by: ShoShenQ
» RE: yeah deny the facts... Posted by: oldsmobile
» RE: The problem with conspiracies Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: the Kennedy assasination Posted by: oldsmobile

Comments are closed-

I never thought
[Report this comment]
Posted by: paulaH on Jun 5, 2006 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of myself as a conspiracy theorist until the Bush Administration came along. I'm still not in most things. I tend to be as far as 9-11, though.

When I saw the first plane hit, my first thought was, "it's started." My second thought was, "Bush and his friends are behind it." Why did I think this? I'm not sure. When I saw Bush's face when they told him, it looked to me like he was trying very hard not to smirk in pleasure. It's also interesting that everyone seemed to be missing from New York that day which is unusual.

Add to that we had a president that half the country didn't accept as president. Never mind his approval ratings, many people simply did not accept him as the president. What would be the only way for a president with his lack of support from the American people be able to garner that support? War, of course. But war on foreign soil wouldn't do it. It would have to be DOMESTIC. They didn't want to actually bring an entire war here, though, so what's the next best thing? A terrorist attack. Contained; relatively small loss of life and property; would achieve the desired result. Which it did.

This is far too coincidental. I do not believe in coincidence.

As for the explosions, I have a friend that is an explosives expert and according to him, those buildings are designed not to fall like that. He says the chances of those buildings coming down like that from the planes are practically nil.

So, sorry, although there's no physical evidence--which without the investigation the Bush Admin doesn't want--I am fully convinced

» RE: I never thought Posted by: wli
» RE: I never thought (neither did I) Posted by: SimmaDownNah!
» RE: I never thought Posted by: nitsua1023
» Bush smirk Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Bush smirk Posted by: mirimac

Comments are closed-

Government of secrets
[Report this comment]
Posted by: feduphoosier on Jun 5, 2006 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider that we still don't know what happened to either JFK or Robert Kennedy, in spite of an astounding array of 'irregularities' in the official versions of their deaths. I think we can safely assume that 9/11 will land in that growing heap of 'never to be explained' events. Make up your own mind – but don’t expect the government to give you truth. Keeping secrets is the one thing they do very well.

» RE: Government of secrets Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Government of secrets Posted by: feller
» RE: Government of secrets sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com

Comments are closed-

Richard McGinn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mcginn on Jun 5, 2006 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, Josh, it works like this. The government reports (what it wants) and you decide (what's rational). And NOBODY INVESTIGATES! Check your gut. How does it feel to lose your freedom and your dignity at the same time? They said it could never happen here. It just happened to you. Who is next?

Comments are closed-

How extraordinary are the claims, truly?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wli on Jun 5, 2006 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
False flag attacks are ancient; the name itself dates to state sponsorship of piracy from half a millenium ago. The false flags of the state being attacked would be flown by the state-sponsored pirates (e.g. Francis Drake, Henry Morgan) to disguise their ships as those of the nationality being attacked to allow closer approaches for the attacks.

Far from extraordinary, such methods are routine, and routinely employed by governments against their own populations. As recently as the Iraq conflict the US painted its fighter jets to remove or change their markings so that their provocations would have a higher probability of succeeding. The infamous "strategy of tension" in the 1970's Italy in featured secret agents of the Italian government, many of whom, granted, were acting on behalf of the CIA, carrying out acts of terrorism to "discredit the left." Need I say "Judi Bari?" The FBI is carbombing US citizens Iraq-style on US soil, getting caught doing it, and still getting away with it.

Furthermore, military attacks against a country's own population are routine in general. The numerous death squad dictatorships the CIA has installed did so mercilessly, to the point where numerous of their attacks have strong cases for being genocide (ethnic Mayans in Guatemala, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, numerous others). What were Hitler and Stalin so reviled for? Or Pol Pot? Or even (gasp!) Saddam Hussein?

It's far beyond hubris to claim that it can't happen here. Military attacks on the citizenry, assassination and framejob campaigns against dissidents, death squads, false flag terrorist attacks, and the like are the bread and butter of statecraft. Claims that the US government carried out 9/11 are as mundane as claims that Nike made a particular shoe or Shaquille O'Neal played in a specific game of basketball. One of the few differences is that the US government will deny it regardless of whether it did it or not.

That said, I shouldn't let the 9/11 truth people off the hook, either. What do they think they'll accomplish by proving beyond a doubt that the US government did something quite ordinary that it was quite probable it did in the first place? It's like proving beyond all doubt that earthworms live in the dirt, or that water is wet, except (of course) that it takes more effort to collect the evidence. The premises for the War on Terror and the Iraq War are blatant enough bullcrap even without adding that to the mix. The purported perpetrator is a CIA asset, so at worst not relying on the false flag interpretation of 9/11 embarasses the US into staging the capture of one of its own secret agents (who is probably even dead). Does anyone seriously think the perpetrators of 9/11 within the US government can or will be brought to justice? No way; not even the boldest 9/11 truth "activists" is calling for the arrest of specific officials. All that aside, despite all the independent investigation, the specifics of "whodunit" beyond vagueness like "the government" is still quite lacking, and not likely to ever be resolved.

It'll burn you up, and it well should, but they have already gotten away with it.

Comments are closed-

I believe Bush Co. was behind it all, but
[Report this comment]
Posted by: terradea on Jun 5, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what? We already know the GOP illegally manipulated the 2004 election, and that Bush was put into office even though Kerry won (see facts in Kennedy's research, Rolling Stone). Nothing is going to change, no one in power will be held accountable. When and if we finally get the facts showing Bush and his regime were the planners of 9-11, the same thing will happen; nothing. So...why all the fuss?

» Mom? Posted by: sln70

Comments are closed-

science and motivation not speculation or lies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 5, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should base our opinion on 9/11 not on speculation or lies but on science and motivation. Who had the greatest financial motivation for 9/ll? Who had the greatest political motivation for 9/11? Who did the most coverup on 9/11? Who holds the most secrets for 9/11? Who stage-managed the 9/11 investigation after fighting for no investigation at all? Who has resisted bringing true science into the investigation? Who resisted bringing bomb and demolition experts into the investigation? The answer is blowing in the winds of corruption and dominion. The answer is the Bushies to all of the above questions. The preponderance of the evidence to all the above questions points to the Bushies. If we had an impeachment trial for the Bushies proof and preponderance would squarely point to the Bushies. IMPEACH!

Comments are closed-

GaryWenkleSmith
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GaryWenkleSmith on Jun 5, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is much to debate about 9/11. Perhaps the easiest way to enlightment is answering how Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed on its own footprint. There is no mention of it in the 9/11 Commission Report, and apparently, according to the Zogby Poll, most Americans who believe that the 9/11 Commission Report was accurate were unaware of the collapse of Building 7.

» Good Point Gary Posted by: Neilium
» RE: GaryWenkleSmith Posted by: famouspipeliner

Comments are closed-

The Israelies knew it was happening
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kooz on Jun 5, 2006 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 9/11 strike wasn't a surprise nor was it brilliant execution. There is too much evidence that the plot was exposed, conspiritors were revealed and our intelligence (so-called) community did nothing. When the daily brief to Bush that said Bin Laden intends to hijack planes and fly them into buldings went comveniently ignored you have to believe that they knew it was coming and wanted it to happen. Which leads to the Israelis. In New Jersey a women reported a group of Arab looking men jumping up and down celebrating the attack as they watched from the infomous white van. When police investigated it turned out that they were illegal Israelis and they were eventually sent back to Israel as most of the Israeli criminalsl are when they get caught breaking our laws. Israelis knew 9/11 was coming and wanted it so we would get drawn into war against the Arabs with them.
Instead, we should make peace with the Arabs and blow the hell out of Israel and eventually there will be peace in the Middle East if we do.

Comments are closed-

for all who are wondering
[Report this comment]
Posted by: calibandita on Jun 5, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look up a movie called "Loose Change" on google or another search engine. It was created by a few professors at UC Berkley. It shows clearly, with the use of science & physics, how almost all of the claims of what went on 911 were highly unlikely if not flat out impossible. This movie opened my eyes like no other.

» RE: for all who are wondering Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: for all who are wondering Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: for all who are wondering Posted by: chipmunk stew
» Great stuff. Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

What total crap...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: John Rice on Jun 5, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it is for Alternetters and other posters to state it is impossible for meaningful change to occur, or to claim that 9-11 and other mysteries can not or will not be solved. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" (Albert Einstein). The sheep become self-fulfilling prophets by doing nothing--or worse yet, by proclaiming or feigning their own impotence.

Meaningful change of governance is not only possible, but more likely now than ever before, and it will succeed only if people believe it can. Ghandi said it best: "Be the change in the world you want to see." If you want change to occur--then help to make it happen by your own actions.

Just don't count on Dems or Reps to do it for you, because they are both unalterably corrupted. We need a new political paradigm and the best alternative I see (awaiting everyones' input) is the Neither Party. (www.neitherparty.org )

We look forward to your help.
Regards,,,John
( john_rice@neitherparty.org )

» Off the subject Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Off the subject Posted by: nehark
» RE: Off the subject Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Off the subject Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Re: Insanity / Franklin Posted by: TheySayImUnamerican
» RE: e: Insanity / Franklin Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

If there was no conspiracy before there has surely
[Report this comment]
Posted by: owlbear1 on Jun 5, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
been one After.

Comments are closed-

A possible solution
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jun 5, 2006 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many expert demolition companies throughout the world and the plans for these buildings are available. These experts can accurately calculate exactly how many explosive charges, where they should be placed, and the strength of each charge required to bring these buildings straight down.

It shouldn't be too difficult for them to calculate the effect of different strength charges placed at the crash points. We would then know the likelihood of these buildings falling as they did. If the government wants to dispel the conspiracy rumors they could hire one company to make this study and then hire several more to confirm or deny its findings.

» RE: A possible solution Posted by: Gravy
» The point being . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: The point being . . . Posted by: brunowe
» The point STILL being . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: The point STILL being . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: The point STILL being . . . Posted by: jobie1kno
» RE: The point STILL being . . . Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: zipper696
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: felix
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: chipmunk stew
» hey chipmunk Posted by: kellysgarden
» WRONG AGAIN Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: hey chipmunk Posted by: chipmunk stew
» The truth shall set you free Posted by: YogiBear
» BETTER STILL.. Posted by: Neilium
» A man convinced against his will Posted by: itzamirakul

Comments are closed-

Hijacker identities
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gravy on Jun 5, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, there'a s good examination of the "living hijackers" myth at www.911myths.com. The stories you referred to were in September and October, 2001, when there was still some confusion regardiing the hijackers' identities, partly because of identity theft, and partly because people with the same names as the hijackers were alive. Those questions of identity were resolved in November, 2001. Shortly thereafter a Saudi government investigation also concluded that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Comments are closed-

Christie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Christie on Jun 5, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought you had made a breakthrough in your thinking until the end of the article when you call the demolition theory fanciful. Read Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF ret., “our air defenses stood down” and Steven Jones, professor of physics, who after long study concluded the building collapses were due to “controlled demolition”. Then come back and talk about 9/11 “conspiracy theories” (Articles by each of these men are on 9/11truth.org.)

I certainly do not agree with all the theories. The fact President Bush read “My Pet Goat” for seven minutes after being informed about the second airplane is “so what, look how long before he responded to Katrina, and we know he did not conspire to cause that.” And, in my opinion, the Pentagon information is just too fuzzy to prove anything contrary to the official report.

I am sorry that apparently you were not more fully informed before you wrote this article. Or perhaps it is just too scary?

Well, here is the next installment. No need for another 9/11. This is just so much easier. After all, who would believe...

http://www.opednews.com
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written a brilliant new article about the biggest political story in the history of the United States: An American politician illegitimately took the office of president by outright theft and fraud. Although such high crimes and misdemeanors have been rumored in previous elections, none in the history of the republic have been so thoroughly documented. George W. Bush is not the legitimate president of the United States.

Why is this information not being reported in the mainstream media? Just press delete? Ahhh, there, time to start the barbecue grill. So relaxing. Not even any need to decide for whom to vote. All decided for us.

» STUPID WHITE MEN Posted by: Neilium

Comments are closed-

What about WTC7?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on Jun 5, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that the collapse of WTC Building 7 has all but been ignored by the MSM when there is any talk of 9/11 "conspiracy"? This building collapsed on it's own footprint 5 hours after the attacks, with only minor exterior damage, and 2 small fires. If you do just a little research, you'll also see that 2 buildings standing between WTC 1,2 and & 7 did not collapse. Watch the "Loose Change" video on Google, and read "Crossing the Rubicon". They'll open your eyes...

» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: Gravy
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: MarkyX
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: Skipper
» WTC7 = "smoking gun" Posted by: YinRising
» Alternet IS mainstream media Posted by: LeonDion

Comments are closed-

What about my pet goat?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: p4th on Jun 5, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't get me wrong, I don't put anything past Bush and Cheney but if they had REALLY known that 9-11 was going to happen don't you think they would have scripted a better photo-op for the president than reading "My Pet Goat" for 10 minutes after he was told what was happening.

» why ? Posted by: Tris
» RE: Exactly Posted by: kooz
» RE: why ? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: What about my pet goat? - good point Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: What about my pet goat? Posted by: fuzypupy

Comments are closed-

Joshua--What will it take....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: John Rice on Jun 5, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
before you could utter the words--our government betrayed us--(ie. the Maine; Tonkin Gulf etc.) again?

Instead you proclaim: "But that kind of evidence is almost certainly not forthcoming; there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9/11. Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account."

The above statement from you is in the same category of statements as blaming the victim for getting raped.

Tell us--what other differences from the stated official explanations would you allow before your rationality alarm goes off?
Would you have to stick your finger in the wound, so to speak?
What would it take before your refusal to believe all of these inconsistencies was overcome by what amounts to overwhelming evidence you and the official explanations were wrong?

WTC Building 7 was "pulled" (meaning intentionally imploded with explosives)--the owner said so on tape. It takes days and weeks of elaborate preparations and materials to "pull" a building in a professional manner. WTC#7 HAD TO HAVE BEEN PLANNED IN ADVANCE, and if that is true, then everything else connected to it is at least suspect and should be subject to our best scrutiny as well. And if saying this self-labels me as a conspiracy theorist, oh well--today's conspiracy theorist is also today's realist. (And today's realist is tomorrow's activist.)

Which brings me to this: “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. . . . We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (A senior White House advisor (Summer 2002) to Ron Suskind)

Joshua--what will it take for you to finish with this all-too-judicious studying, and call for a democratic rebellion?
Regards,,,John
( john_rice@neitherparty.org )

Comments are closed-

Of course they're guilty.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 5, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's all the fuss about? You know all that you need to know alraedy.

So what whether Bush et al. were actually behind 9-11? What matters is that we know for an iron clad fact (all argument s of "you don't know what blah blah blah" aside - yes, I do know!) that they would have if they had thought of it and that they thought that they could pull it off.

Furthermore, who that hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid would doubt for a nanosecond that these sociopaths wouldn't do it in the future? That's all that matters. You want people that consider such tactics abhorrent and immoral, not just merely too hard for them.

I never need to know for certain just how complicit these villains were. I know how depraved they are, and that says everything that I or you need to know. Is there anybody who doubts that knowing how it turned out that the Bush-babies would have lifted a finger to prevent it?

Do you think that if they had the opportunity to push it along that they would not because it was immoral? Or that if Wolfowitz or some other neocom golem came to Cheney and Rumsfield with blueprints for a 9-11 all worked out in detail that they would bristle at the thought or report such people to the authorities? [If you know what a spit take is, please envision one now]

Conspiracy theory? You mean conspiracy hypothesis, don't you? Who would make the suggestion that conservatives would meet behind closed doors and make secret plans? That's what a conspiracy is. Does that kind of thing ever happen, or do you suppose that the party of transparency has all of its meetings in public forums?

What kind of imbecile would doubt that there are 500 conspiracies being considered or implemented TODAY? Don't be ashamed or afraid of a conspiracy hypothesis. Be ashamed if you don't consider it a possibility. Embarrassing you for even suggesting it is a powerful proactive technique.

Comments are closed-

Some serious questions about conspiracy...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tris on Jun 5, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched 'Loose Change' and other movies about the conspiracy theories.... True, it's very interesting but still, there is a few thing bothering me.

First, it's not really possible for 'normal' people to check all the videos they show in the movie. So if it's possible to make 4 planes vanish from the sky and blow up the towers, it's also quite easy to temper with some video to show what ever you want, including funny pods under planes and demolition explosions...... In one word, if you can't trust the US government, can you trust this people ?

The second thing, far more important is a question they don't answer at all. How many people (and who ???) do you need for such a conspiracy ?
And I'm not talking about people looking the other way or covering evidences. I mean, people planting tons of explosives in civil buildings, people readying and flying missiles or remotly guided planes, people pushing buttons knowing full well what they are doing, and so on.... If there were 3 or 4 marksmen to kill JFK, we are talking here about 10s of people.
Where are they ? Why none of them surfaced yet ?
Until someone anwers this questions, it's really hard for me to belive in the full-power conpiracy......
So it looks like the same story all over again : poisonig-the-well - the conspiracy in the conspiracy. Make the conspiracy looking so big and unbelievable so anybody questioning the official truth looks like one more conpiracy-nut....
All in all, I believe the US government looked the other way (or maybe they even helped a little bit with money, visa, whatever....) while the terrorists were planning the attacks...... but I'm afraid we will never know......

» Ask Any Shooter Posted by: Neilium
» RE: Ask Any Shooter II Posted by: thorlives

Comments are closed-

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
[Report this comment]
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 5, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three towers, not two fell on September 11.

They all fell the same, SPLAT. Straight down into their footprints.

Tower 7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANYTHING AT ALL.

The second tower to be hit by a plane fell first. The plane that hit that tower hit it at a glance and ALL THE FUEL EXPLODED OUTSIDE THE TOWER. Yet somehow, the impact was enough to cause this tower to fall first, and to fall at the speed of gravity SPLAT.

The first tower to be hit fell last. True, the plane's fuel went inside the tower and there was definitely a fire going. But all the firemen rushed in to save the people and felt quite safe in doing so because fires don't make big, steel-reinforced towers go SPLAT.

Richard Grove, whistleblower on the Meria Heller Show: click here where we learn that Giuliana, Petacki and Spitzer were complicit in the take-down of the towers, and the trillions of bold bullion that was stolen the morning of the attack, how Marhsal, McClellan and others were in on it too.

Alex Jones documentary: 9/11- Road to Tyranny
click here


Listen to Alex Jones here on GCN radio. click heret

Watch Loose Change 2 video? click here

Have any of you googled Bush/Illuminati to see the photos of GWB and Laura flashing the Illuminati hand signs all during the inauguration -- with demonic smirks on their faces?

Bush is doing all this as a Christian (he's anything but) in order to bring down the United States and cause Christians to take the fall for it.

» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: resistance6
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: brunowe
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: brunowe
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: russianblue1
» See the discussion here Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

Joshua’s “belief” in a fascist administration’s innocence Part I
[Report this comment]
Posted by: IanA on Jun 5, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland comes off having written a pretty weak article this time. Usually his reasoning is clearer. The last paragraph conclusion “by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account.” (aside from the spelling – scepticism) is pure bunkum. A vacuum of fact is naturally filled with a full spectrum of speculation and “belief”. The questions remain though, did individuals at the White House know more or less? How can Mr. Holland say which notion is “fanciful”. We are talking about his belief. What we all need is facts.

The assertion that the Bush administration and some agencies of the government were in some way involved with the events leading to 9/11 and in the managing, hiding, and destruction of evidence after the fact is supported by evidence. Responsibility for coordination and control can only be established by proper criminal investigation.

Prior events:
Numerous prior warnings given,
Blocking of investigations and communications,
Connections between unusual “put” orders, and ex-senior CIA persons,
Bush family relations to security of WTC coincide with measures involving building
down time to specific areas of the building
Connection between Bush and Bin-Ladin
Prior changes in visa issueing in Saudi Arabia despite warned security risks in
Washington
Commercial flight travel warning given to State and Federal Govt. personnel
Stand down of military protocols
Purchase and special insurance of the WTC complex to cover such a specific event.

Post event:
Removal, destruction, hiding, or lying about forensic evidence from all sites.
Special transportation and removal of vital persons out of USA, while all other flights
grounded
Contradictions in denials of previous knowledge, latterly shown as lies.
Third party confirmation of building “demolition”.
Narrow-referenced, white-washed, and incomplete investigation in support government
contention.
Physical evidence that does not tally with events as described by report.
A concerted effort to prevent further transparent and independent investigation
(cover-up).


The above is only a partial list.

Comments are closed-

Michael Meacher's allegations
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tmwright on Jun 5, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a member of Parliment and Tony Blair's Interior Minister made the following allegation in a September 6, 2003 article in The Guardian

"First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested."

This guy is not a wild eyed conspiracy theorist but rather a government minister who resigned in protest over the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. As far as I can tell, his claims received little media attention in the USA.

Comments are closed-

You've taken a bath on this issue?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EricVerlo on Jun 5, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland says he's taken a long bath in the world of 9/11 and decries it as rank conspiracy theory, unsupported by any evidence.

It looks like you took that bath in a bird bath. Your usually insightful analysis offered nothing for us to look at this morning. You do us all a disservice by purporting to debunk 9/11 while giving us merely a broadstroke dismissal.

I've given your piece a luxurious read and found the language of a gatekeeper.

Comments are closed-

Brilliant my eye!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wilburnwilliams on Jun 5, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Muddleheaded rubbish. Shouldn't Iraqis, dying by the tens of thousands in a vicious conflict that might yet degenerate into all-out civil war, be numbered among the toll of 9/11? Did the citizens of Afghanistan give bin Laden permission to use their country as the base for attacks that have had horrific consequences for them? We are all diminished by the 9/11 attacks, all made losers--in New York, in Baghdad, in Kabul, and wherever else there are people who believe that murder, whether of the mass or single variety, is no solution to human problems.

Comments are closed-

Conspiracy Theory???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maturin42 on Jun 5, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only conspiracy theory I have heard has Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's signatures on it. The official commission report is a tissue of falslified timelines, mendacious and self-serving testimony, far-fetched defenses of the military and NORAD, and outright fabrication that seeks to tie the events of 9/11 into a coherent story that is consistent with what the thugs who run our government want us to believe. Things that don't fit are simply left out. Nobody else has tried to create a theory around the events of 9/11 to that extent. Most have just asked questions about things that don't add up or that are inconsistent with any "official" account. Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon does the best job of exhaustive questioning, and provides a great many answers through dogged pursuit of the truth. "Loose Change" is a good compendium of unanswered questions and challenges to the official line. If you are not a "conspiracy theorist" with regard to 9/11, you are not paying attention.

Comments are closed-

Joshua is putting in a good effort, but he's unqualified
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chuckville on Jun 5, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, I commend you on at least writing about this issue, but as someone who has studied this issue for more than 4 solid years, poring over both the Kean Commission report and hundreds of pages of independent research, watching a slew of documentaries, and having gone to a number of International 9/11 Truth convergences, (aside from being a former Board Member of 9/11 Truth.org) I have to say that just because you haven't seen good evidence does not mean there isn't any, and that it isn't there.

The evidence is overwhelming, but, unfortunateltly, much of it is, sadly, circumstantial. But this does not negate that evidence, it just makes it harder to wield. The very nature of the cover-up is as such that great pains were taken to remove any and all potential "smoking guns."

I liken this situation to astronomers finding a new planet somewhere in the galaxy. They can't actually see the planet, but they can clearly chart the influence of the planet's gravity on other celestial bodies around it, and the equations always add up. In 9/11 Truth, the issue of complicity is the unseen, but completely felt presense of the US establishment--and please understand, no credible 9/11 researcher thinks "THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION" planned and executed the attacks, the attacks were planned and orchestrated by rogue elements in the intelligence services of at least 4 nations, the DOD and its military contractors, the oil and corporate/banking sector, and the usual crew of patsies and useful dupes like Moussaoui, the delusional paranoid schitzophrenic, and Richard Ried, the partially retarded derelict who was produced by the MI-6 (British Intelligence) school for patsies at Finbury mosque in London. Moussaoui claimed the two were going to fly a plane into the White House, but in truth the two could hardly have hijacked a pushcart.

Joshua, there is so much you (and most) simply do not know, have not studied, or do not understand, enough for you to make the assumptions, and conclusions, you draw. I recommend you attend a Truth convergence (the most recent just ended Sunday in Chicago) and do some real investigating, not just putter around the web. Researchers like Steven Jones were actually backchanneled real physical evidence and information which helped them draw up their theories on the bogus collapse (controlled demo) of WTC7, and other areas of study. I am curious to see what official documents or physical evidence you have seen.

I don't want to condem you or pass judgement, because I respect the fact that you are the only Alternet writer willing to tackle this issue. But, you're tackling like a pansy, and you need to put your head down and hit the center of the issue.

There is simply too much evidence to claim that this was "blowback" and our response was "to hijack catastrophe". Here's a hint: look at the history and condition of the WTC itself on 9/11...

» F.Y.I. Posted by: aussidawg

Comments are closed-

Dr. Andy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DoctorAndy on Jun 5, 2006 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That 911 was an inside job is now no conspiracy "theory," rather a conspiracy fact. Let us move on:

How does a self-proclaimed FREE society exercise an almost ironclad suppression of the TRUTH in this matter for over four YEARS now?

» RE: Dr. Andy Posted by: Gravy
» RE: Dr. Andy Posted by: IanA
» Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

Would Republican's conspire to break the law for power and money? DUH!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 5, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the author implies that because he cannot PROVE from a distance that the administration was complicit in 911, that to think otherwise is "rank conspiracy theory, unsupported by any serious evidence". What constitutes serious evidence. The posters above have made compelling cases that bear further investigation by somebody with the power of subpoena and the will and ability to evaluate this matter, something which anybody familiar with this administration knows hasn't been done yet. Isn't that more evidence of complicity?

Couldn't I say the same thing about global warming? It's unproved, so it's rank speculation. Isn't that the right's usual comment?

For chrissakes, this isn't a trial (yet), so presumption of innocence or the need of proof indicating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt do not apply. I have to make decisions TODAY about what happened (like preparing to get the f**k out of this country) based on the available evidence, and because of the inconsistencies, the obvious whitewash by Congress, the administration's efforts to block the investigation followed by its unwillingness to comply with it and my knowledge of the values of the neocons are enough for me to conclude that they should be viewed as complicit until proved otherwise.

This stinks, and it makes me nervous that Mr. Holland would take the weak position that he did and to suggest that such ideas are rank conspiracy theories. "Prove it" is what he implies. Not possible from here. So I say, DISPROVE IT, and util you do, I'll be just fine with my "rank conspiracy theory"

A conspiracy is merely a secret plan. In a benign sense, a surprise birthday party is a conspiracy. Question: would the Republicans have discussions behind closed doors and make plans in them? If you think 'yes', then you think that they conspire (like everyone else). Question: Do you think such meetings include discussions that would be damning or incriminating if they got out such as planning unethical or illegal activities? These are no brainers. Anybody who tells you that conspiracy hypothesis equals paranoid lunacy is doing you a disservice.

Comments are closed-

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (more)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 5, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To correct my comment above, I said the first tower to be hit fell last. Actually it fell second. Tower 7 fell last (the one that wasn't hit at all.) And Tower 7 fell FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF GRAVITY. Why? The explosives gave it more momentum than it would have had in a pure free-fall.

A good place to buy bumper stickers that say IMPEACH BUSH and 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB/OUR NATION IS IN DANGER is

HERE


9/11 was an inside job. Buildings don't go SPLAT into their footprints because there's a fire in the top floors. Especially buildings like the Twin Towers and Building 7.

» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (more) Posted by: kellysgarden
» ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! Not really Posted by: YogiBear
» Newton knew Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Newton knew Posted by: chuckville
» RE: Newton knew Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

We Don`t NEED Proof !!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Jun 5, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story by Joshua will no doubt move over into the "most
commented" column. Perhaps most commented on ever!
After reading all posts so far I agree with most of them!
HeroesAll...paulaH....Wli..ect. As "wli" basically says.."staging
acts of terror is nothing new"! Been happening forever with
the result being a free ticket to do whatever! Surely we all
are aware that our government isn`t the the "all Holy,Pure and White " ...that it assumes itself to be!! But I agree with
paulaH more than anything when she said she "felt" this to
be our own doing! Although "feeling" something won`t hold up in a debate or a court case as absolute truth.....our basic
"intuitions,hunches,suspicions....FEELINGS" about our world
are really all we need.We don`t need PROOF!
We can argue till the next "blue moon" about conspiracies
and proof but I know without a doubt like millions more ....
our government had a hand in what happened that day...no proof needed! http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/researchgovresearch.htm
I found this site to be of particular intrest!

Comments are closed-

WTC7
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on Jun 5, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so, how did it collapse, then?

» RE: WTC7 Posted by: chipmunk stew

Comments are closed-

the 9/11 "truth movement"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: esactun on Jun 5, 2006 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9/11. Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account.

I think this thread adequately proves this point.

Comments are closed-

worried but willing to fight for life, and freedoms
[Report this comment]
Posted by: concerned Canadian on Jun 5, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the American public has been brainwashed into believing that being skeptical of the offically presented truth by this government and are being labelled 'conspiracy theorists' for doubting such officially presented truth. So,forget the fact that the admin team resorts to attempting to discredit unbelievers of its official 'truths' with the use of NAME CALLING. Forget the fact that the admin team resorts to attempting to discredit unbelievers of its official 'truths' by resorting to AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Forget that a freshman in university already has studied LOGIC 101 and knows that if he/she resorted to such arguments, he/she would fail the Logic 101 course. Forget the fact that the laws of Physics and Chemistry will now have to be revised completely and all engineering courses at all universities will have to revise their curriculums which is founded on these present laws of Physics and Chemistry. Come on now, you know that such professors who dare to side on the side of these laws are all 'conspiracty thoerists' if not in fact terrorists fighting to suppress the "mother" of all 'truths' - the 911 government's official version of 911. Forget the fact that the eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania would have had to lie in concert - all of these of course, according to Bush and Cheney belong to the conspiracy theorists whose sole purpose on the face of the earth is todiscredit this honourable adminsitration's version of its official truth. Come on, you know that all of Pennsylvania is full of conspiracy theorists, haters of Republicans for sure. So there. Forget what a closeup view of the planes' show you. Come on now, look at the truth eh? Check out those photos we, the admin team presented you our good people with. I remember well the photo of one Lee Harvey Oswald, a rifle in one hand, a Commie newspaper in the other in our LIFE magazine, presented to us as absolute gospel government presented truth that this lone Commie, democracy hater that he was, was solely responsbile for the assassination of your then President. Oh yeah, nobody said anything really bad about the perps who , as it turned out, had constructed that photo to make fiction seem to be the truth. So yes, forget that ! Forget what demolition experts would be willing to testify to. After all, demolition experts are wrong. The admin testifies to that and so shall you believe. Forget the fact that the 911 Commission only included in its report what would fit the facts as predetermined by the 'official version' of the honourable administration of this democratic nation. Forget the testimony of the brave firefighters who have pieced the puzzle together re the explosions and whose expertise in these matters has committed them to be willing to testify to the commission that the explosions did not come from the planes. Come on, please remember that the admin team has told you that such reports are to be ignored. Why? Well, for one, they contradict what the admin team has told you. Two? Come on, just forget them. Forget the fact that of the country's entire Air Force, not a single plane was dispatched to fight the so called terrorist attacks. Come on now, the Air Force can't do everything like listen to what our admin team tells them to ignore until we tell them otherwise AND defend the skies of the United States of American which they are pledged to defend. Come on, you know who the commander and chief is, yes? And you know that only by his authority would honourable men and women of the armed services stand down from doing their duty ? Ok, then. So think. Remember that and forget the facts that would force you to admit that there is a problem with all of this stuff you are being asked to forget. If you believe that 'aliens' were responsible, ok., only problem is that the responsible parties are alien to the truth. Or has truth telling been been officially decreed a conspiracy theory?

Comments are closed-

Conspiracy Theories, et al.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tiellis on Jun 5, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before 9/11, I was generally skeptical of most conspiracy theories, which often seemed shrill and paranoid, and begged the question "Who is 'They' and where did they get the awesome power to dupe so many people, with such precision and consistency, over so long a period?"

But then I read David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor." Griffin is the polar opposite of the wild-eyed conspiracy nut; he is a distinguished, retired theologian from Claremont Theological Seminary, with impressive academic credentials from the last 30 years, and a knack for closely reasoned argument backed by meticulous evidence.

Griffin's book points no fingers directly, but it does raise a series of compelling questions, utterly ignored in the official 9/11 report, which are impossible for any reasonable person to ignore, and which, taken together, point directly to high-level government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Among these, the most compelling ones for me are as follows:

(1) Why were all standard and frequently practiced NORAD procedures for intercepting hijacked airliners simply ignored (or suspended) on 9/11? Griffin makes a compelling case that if standard procedures had been followed, all four jetliners could easily have been intercepted.

(2) Why, without precedent and in complete violation of the laws of physics, did the two towers collapse, symmetrically and at freefall rate, into their own footprints--after the initial fires had already cooled and were mostly smoke?

(3) Why was there a 1000% surge of "put" options on the stocks of the airlines and other corporations most directly affected by 9/11, the day before it happened?

(4) Why did Building 7 collapse at all, considering that it was not even hit?

(5) Why were the remains of the steel girders of the Twin Towers immediately removed to a scrapyard, prior to any forensic investigation of them?

(6) Why were the Black Boxes of the airliners never (reported to be) found, while, strangely, an Arab passport turned up unscathed?

(7) How did a "plane"--a hollow aluminum tube--penetrate three layers of the best fortified (and best defended) building in the world (the Pentagon) at ground level, without its "wings" making any impact on the face of the building, without a yellow fireball (as was the case with the Twin Towers), and without any airline debris or corpses scattered on the smooth green lawn directly in front of the building? (Compare the photos of the Pentagon--if you can still find them on the web--with the photos of any other airline crash, and you'll see the vast difference: How could an airplane leave an oval-shaped hole in the building anyway, with no trace of wing impact (contrary to the obvious airline-shaped horizontal slits left in the Twin Towers).

(8) How is it that immediately after 9/11, there were no Arabic names listed on the available passenger lists of the lost jets? (They were added later).

These obvious questions only skim the surface. But no mainstream newspaper has asked them, or has even published a review of Griffin's tightly reasoned book, which abounds with meticulously researched evidence. Why has he not been interviewed on any mainstream television channels?

These glaring anomalies leave me without any doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job. But I doubt that the perpetrators will ever be discovered or prosecuted.

Comments are closed-

the buildings fell straight down, for god's sake...how much evidence..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ScottGregory on Jun 5, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see 911revisited
THREE buildings collapsed in free-fall. Only two were hit by planes. Go figure. You Holland are just another disinformation shill. The Americna people are catching on to the conspiracy of the entire class elite against them. It can only lead one direction.

Comments are closed-

A little primer in propaganda and cover-up
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting quote:

"Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account."

Now, why is it so hard for people to come to grips with the nature of government propaganda and corporate crisis management strategies? The last thing Bush, Rove, Mueller, etc. want is a clear analysis of the events leading up to 9/11. The '9-11 truth networks' have been among their most effective strategies to avoid this.

For example, there is yet to be an explanation as to why Ashcroft quit flying on commercial aircraft during the summer of 2000.

There is still no clear explanation why FBI field agents were refused access to the FISA court so they could search Zacarais Moussoui's computer - at the whim of their superiors at FBI headquarters.

Then, there were the numerous reports by different flight school owners about suspicious characters wanting to learn to fly 747s.

The CIA delivered a memo to President Bush warning of impending terrorist strikes within the US, but Bush took no action after receiving his August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing. If he had taken action, wouldn't there be some evidence? Warnings to airport security, at the very least?

Numerous foreign governments delivered warnings about high levels of activity in terrorist networks to the US government that summer.

Is it really any surprise that the hijackers may have used their Al Queda supporters to obtain false identification and visas? What about the Pakistani ISI involvement?

After watching this issue carefully, the scenario that seems to make the most sense is that the Bush team thought that hijcakings of US aircraft by terrorists were on the horizon, and that such hijackings would help them achieve their domestic and foreign goals. By Aug 6th, they knew that the #1 political sponsor of Bush was going belly up with fraud and corruption - Enron, that is. At the same time, the news about the stolen election was finally entering the mainstream media. They also wanted to invade Iraq and needed a pretext for that. Saddam went to the Euro in 2000 when it was 0.80 euro/ 1 US dollar; a while later (against the predictions of US pundits) the value was what, 1.30 euro/ 1 US dollar?

However, they appear to have misread the intentions of Al Queda. They expected a long drama on the airport tarmac or something like that. The put options placed against American and United from Sept 6-10 are very suspicious in this regard, as is the fact that the profits were never claimed. Note that put options were not purchased against the WTC.

Immediately after 9/11 they realized the need to cover up any investigation into the events leading up to 9/11. One of their strategies was to tar and feather anyone who wanted to look into the details - so they invented bombs in the WTC, building 7, missile hits the Pentagon, etc. This 'story' was widely promoted on the Internet and was then made a subject of discussion on the cable news networks, ensuring that the story of the '9/11 conspiracy nutcases' would be widely disseminated. Ever notice how these 'truth networks' religiously avoid mention of the Iraq war?

Any casual observer of these people would note that their central concern is 'image and perception' - a complete propaganda mindset.

In any case, the worst effect of 9/11 has been the Iraq war. (Which was also based on a lot of deliberate lies about weapons of mass destruction). Rather then wasting any more time on 9/11, I would urge people to put their energy into realizing a staggered military withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

Comments are closed-

WHY SO INCREDULOUS THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 5, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember the JFK Assassination and the "official" Warren Report?

Remember Pearl Harbor and how FDR was well aware of the impending attack?

Remember the Maine? (used as an example by the devisors of the Operation Northwoods Plan to rationalize their sick plans to blow up our own ships and kill our own soldiers).

Remember Operation Northwoods? In case you're not familiar with that, it was the "Plan" devised by the military to blow up our own ships and kill our own sailors so that we'd have an excuse to go to war against Cuba. The "Plan" made it all the way from the bottom echelons up through the channels until it finally landed on JFK's desk. The "Plan" had been approved all the way up the chain of command. JFK was horrified and trashed the whole idea. From then on, JFK was no longer willing to be a puppet for the Illuminati/Globalilsts to bring in their NWO.

That's why he was murdered.

Comments are closed-

Josh, look into...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jun 5, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the reports of financial transactions such as puts and calls on the airlines involved in 9/11 and some of the stock brokerage houses like Goldman, M Lynch etc.
someone knew this attack was coming and knew how to play it from the financial angle. from what I've read the transactions were traced to a bank in Germany that had an ex-CIA guy on it's board or something like that. it's worth looking into.
thanks for your article.

Comments are closed-

baldy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: baldo on Jun 5, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are so many ununswered questions and real evidence around 9//11 that it is very hard to believe some people still exist who talk about "conspiracy theories" !?!
How about who is behind the "put" speculations on UA, AA etc. on the pre-knowledge of the 9/11 events ??
It reminds me of the tale of the greatest dilemma of a Jewish man passing in front of a butcher shop and reading the sign:"today FREE pork" !!!
The temptation must have been too great !!

Comments are closed-

Focus on the real task
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DaveB on Jun 5, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The official explanations of 9/11 are clearly unsatisfactory. At the very least, they do not make us confident that we're being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But, shocking and tragic though it is, the "real" story is nearly irrelevant to what the American people must do. We must reform our government, our political parties, our media. This is the same urgent task we faced on 9/10/01. If we accomplish these tasks, then the truth about 9/11 will take care of itself. If we do not, discovering the truth of 9/11 will make no difference.

Comments are closed-

Scholar's for Truth is a nice place to look if one wants a more academic approach
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Jun 5, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found a little bit of the information on this website to be very interesting.
http://www.st911.org/
This web site has links to papers and talks given by a faculty member of BYU about the colapse of WTC7.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
This is a link to a video of a very interesting talk he gave. Its worth your time to watch it.
Steven Jones Talk
All of this stuff should be viewed with a skeptical mind because hard evidence is difficult to come by, but it would be bordering on irresponsibility and ignorance not to at least look and listen to the arguments of people who find the U.S. government’s explanation flawed (The 911 commission findings and the NIST report).

Comments are closed-

Quotes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Arvy on Jun 5, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
—Adolf Hitler, President of the Reichstag and Reich Chancellor, Nazi Party

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
—Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

Comments are closed-

I think it was squirrels chewing on the wires that caused 9/11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kooz on Jun 5, 2006 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why not?

» This isn’t something to joke about. Posted by: kungfoofighterx
» Or suicidal snakes Posted by: YogiBear
» It was da mob dat done it Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: It was da mob dat done it Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

video analysis available
[Report this comment]
Posted by: beausoleil on Jun 5, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a DVD going around called "In Plane Site: http://www.911inplanesite.com . It has a full slow motion video analysis, included footage shot by two French videographers showing the first plane as it hit. The underside of the plane clearly shows the extra fuel tank under the plane that is only found on military planes of that type.

There is no need for speculation. The facts are all there, 'plane' to see.

In the videos it is plain to see that no large commercial airliner could possibly have hit the Pentagon because the hole is way to small, among other discrepancies. The videos show plainly that the planes hitting the towers were not commercial airlines, they were gray military Boeings, and that a missile of some sort flew into the first building and exploded before the plane hit it.

It is an established propaganda technique to ridicule and discredit anyone who attempts to point out discrepancies in the 'Official Version of the Truth". Thus we have the term "Conspiracy Theorists", always accompanied of course by a roll of the eyes by those who are too 'reasonable' to fall for such 'nonsense'. Professional propagandists play on our need to feel intelligent and acceptable. The price for speaking an unpopular truth is ostracism and ridicule. But the price for not speaking it is the very price that we pay now, slavery and oppression. There are many people who've already died for speaking out. The assasinations have been disguised as suicides, plane and car crashes.

Even as I write I know that someone out there is reading this and adding me to a list of possible inmates at any of the enormous detention centers that our government is preparing to build.

News Analysis/Commentary, Peter Dale Scott,
New America Media, Feb 08, 2006

Editor's Note: A little-known $385 million contract for Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention facilities for "an emergency influx of immigrants" is another step down the Bush administration's road toward martial law, the writer says.

"Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo. Read more at

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?

article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

How much more do you need to know? What do we do? The first step is simply to accept the truth.

» RE: video analysis available Posted by: zipper696
» video analysis website Posted by: beausoleil

Comments are closed-

OFFICIAL 911 STORY DOES NOT ADD UP
[Report this comment]
Posted by: intothewild on Jun 5, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001

Background Issues: The Abiding Truth Deficit
1) The 9/11 Commission Fraud: Conflicts, Collapse and Cover-up
2) The Hundreds of Still Unanswered Questions, the Scores of Documented Lies
Motive Issues: Cui Bono - Who Profits Most?
3) Instant Fulfillment of Neocon Wish List
4) Political Bonanza for Bush/Rove team
5) Scale and Diversity of Profiteering
Means and Opportunity Issues: How to Make it Happen
6) Ignored Foreign Warnings
7) Quashed Domestic Investigations
8) Incapacitated Oversight
9) Disabled Air Defenses
10) The Amazing Disappearing National Chain of Command
11) The Pakistan Intelligence Chief Who Loved Everyone At Once
Aftermath Issues: How to Keep the Lid On
12) The Bitter Fight Against Investigations
13) The Amazing Disappearing Evidence
14) The Amazing Disappearing Demand for Accountability
Wildcard Issues: Just How Stupid They Think We Are
15) The Ripley Believe It or Not Sideshow of 9/11 Miracles

View Link

Comments are closed-

Believe the improbable or impossible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: scribblguy on Jun 5, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, Americans have become so brainwashed that many if not most of them always reject the obvious and accept the improbable or impossible. When a government spreads false stories to further its agendas or protect people within, it has to manufacture false stories and myths to keep the people in line. This is what most criminals do when accused.

Anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to study 911 beyond what the government has told them will undoubtedly come away with a whole new perspective and outlook on it. The problem is getting people to open their minds and accept that holding a government accountable for its actions is not only a democratic right, but a DUTY!

Comments are closed-

BUSH KNEW
[Report this comment]
Posted by: intothewild on Jun 5, 2006 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simply stated, Why!? Why when our nation is under attack, the
Commander and Chief of a Nation does nothing? The record shows
that Bush Knew for at least a full hour that these planes had
been hijacked, that they were flying into buildings in both New
York and Washington DC, yet issued no orders to defend our air
space, or stop the attacks until it was already over.

The big question is: Why was nothing done to stop them? This
administration had plenty of advance warning that such attacks
were going to occur, with FEMA even practicing for exactly this
same scenario, and were already stationed in New York the day
before 9-11 happened, while four hijacked plans were flying
right over various Air Force bases, yet not a single plane was
sent up to intercept them until it was all over?

Corporate Media tells us that only the President could order
jets to scramble to defend our air space (which is untrue by the
way!) yet what does Bush do? He continues on to his photo op at
a Florida grade school, sits around through a reading lesson,
even taking questions from children, when he SHOULD have been
directing our National Defense!

Heck, even the Secret Service drops the ball here! They are
responsible for the President's safety, and with America under
attack, should have physically picked him up and hauled him out
of there (like they did with Dick Cheney) regardless of his own
personal wishes. Neither NORAD, the FAA, the Air National Guard,
or President Bush did anything until it the planes had already
crashed, and by then it was far too late!

The Conclusion: Bush Knew. The time-line shows he certainly knew
these planes had been hijacked before he arrived, but issued no
orders to stop them beforehand. Also, if we are to believe Bush
didn't already know where these multiple hijacked planes were
going to impact, why was he allowed to sit reading stories in an
unprotected grade school full of children, endangering not only
his own life, but theirs as well?

The more one carefully deconstructs the official time-line, the
less it makes sense... unless of course, BUSH KNEW!!!

» RE: BUSH KNEW Posted by: intothewild
» RE: BUSH KNEW Posted by: intothewild
» RE: BUSH KNEW Posted by: intothewild
» RE: MARVIN BUSH KNEW Posted by: kellysgarden

Comments are closed-

ISLAMO-TERRORISM IN CANADA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MagmaReport on Jun 5, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story also stings.
From the http://MagmaReport.net

Seventeen Canadian Muslims were arrested in the week-end for plooting terror on Canadian soil.
Canadian troops are actually in the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, leading the war against the Taliban.

According to the police, these islamo-terrorists come from Canada:

[They are] young Canadian Muslims who have somehow become radicalized while growing up in Canada.
They are "homegrown." In other words, they have emerged from within Canada, rather than infiltrating it from abroad. They are insiders, not outsiders like Millennium Bomber Ahmed Ressam, who was behind Canada's last major terrorism scare in 1999.
Source: http://www.canada.com/...


The father of one of the accused, Shareef Abdelhaleen, an Egyptian refugee who came to Canada with his son 20 years ago, works as an engineer on contract at Atomic Energy of Canada; the man confirmed that he posted bail for Mohammad Mahjoub, who is currently in jail since June 2000, the last two years in solitary confinement.
Mahjoub is one of five people being held by the Canadian Security Intelligence, accused of belonging to the Vanguards of Conquests, a group with ties to al-Jihad.
Mahjoub has admitted meeting Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the 1990s when he worked in an agricultural plant owned by bin Laden.
It is important to understand, however, that the police operation was a sting; it's a setup: the accused nevertook delivery of that ammonium nitrate. Before making the delivery, the police switched the fertilizer with a harmless powder. After the deal was done, they were arrested:

The delivery of three tonnes of ammonium nitrate to a group suspected of plotting terrorist attacks in southern Ontario was part of an undercover police sting operation, the Toronto Star has learned.
The RCMP said yesterday that after investigating the alleged homegrown terrorist cell for months, they had to move quickly Friday night to arrest 12 men and five youths before the group could launch a bomb attack on Canadian soil.
Sources say investigators who had learned of the group's alleged plan to build a bomb were controlling the sale and transport of the massive amount of fertilizer, a key component in creating explosives. Once the deal was done, the RCMP-led anti-terrorism task force moved in for the arrests.
Souce: http://www.thestar.com/...

But STILL, if you intend to explode a bomb, and you attempt to obtain the materials to that end, then you're still guilty--regardless of whether the materials turn out to be baking soda.
And it's not "entrapment" because the police sold it to the guys. It's the guy's intent that counts. Surely, the police didn't plant the thought in theirs brains.

Read for more and update on the http://MagmaReport.net

Comments are closed-

I was going to donate to Alternet but now...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: incog99 on Jun 5, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have serious questions. I guess Building 7 committed suicide. Funny, there was no investigation by engineers of the structural failure which is required by law. Perhaps they would find sulpher on the I-Beams (which were sent overseas to be melted lickety split).

I guess I am no longer safe in a steel structure at all. Without a study, I no longer trust the construction method.

You have not done your homework and sound dismissive as if you are a plant on this website.

Donation in doubt as a result.

SKD

» Plant? Posted by: kungfoofighterx

Comments are closed-

CHENEY'S PRE 911 VISITS TO CIA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: intothewild on Jun 5, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Published on Friday, June 27, 2003 by the Hartford Courant
Cheney And The CIA: Not Business As Usual
by Ray McGovern

As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.

During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush and other very senior policy-makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.

The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy-makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well.

Link

Comments are closed-

CONTINUING DISBELIEF
[Report this comment]
Posted by: intothewild on Jun 5, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Described below are some psychological phenomena, very much
useful to the Bush/GOP regime, which enable their lies, crimes
and treasons to go unnoticed and unchallenged. Many people
accept being deluded for reasons that may be conscious or
unconscious.

Disbelief

* Many people won't believe alternatives to the official story
because they didn't read about it in the New York Times or hear
it on CNN.(unanswered 9/11 anomalies)

* Denial is widespread when the enormity of a situation is so
unprecedented that people lack past experience to base
acceptance. For example, many European Jews failed to recognize
their impending extermination. To quote an old German adage:
'Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.'
(Bush stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections)

* Many people are 'mystified' when a plausible misrepresentation
of reality in which forms of exploitation are presented as forms
of benevolence. (Bush's 'Clean Air Act' increasing pollution)
(Bush's 'Save Our Forests Act' permitting logging in national
forests) (Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security)

Conformity and Herd Mentality

* 'Unity' in a community comes as the phenomenon of 'One Mind'
develops.

* 'One Mind' is each individual in a community aligning their
thoughts with what the other members are thinking. This
occurrence is motivated by the sense of comfort it provides.

* It can be described as collective hypnotic induction, which
creates an illusion of a consensus that is hard to challenge.

* Many people lead their lives enslaved by artificial belief
systems imposed by others. The few that are courageously
critical are not heard, or else they are severely shamed,
ridiculed and viciously accused of causing problems. (thousands
of American soldiers unnecessarily killed and maimed)

Learned Helplessness

* Psychologist Martin Seligman's theory of 'Learned
Helplessness' explains how when one's repeated actions have no
effect, people learn that what they do doesn't make a difference
and give up, even in situations where they can potentially make
a difference. (Bush stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections)

» RE: CONTINUING DISBELIEF Posted by: intothewild
» RE: CONTINUING DISBELIEF Posted by: chipmunk stew

Comments are closed-

yet another day where Alternet refuses to bring populist economics issues to the fore
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cry0fan on Jun 5, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
where on this page is even ONE article about the populist economics issues like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, and mass immigration depressing wages???

Is this is Liberal - Leftist website or is it a CryptoRight-Pseudoleft website?

I already know the answer, and every single day Alternet reaffirms what I already know.

Comments are closed-

HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE = MYTH
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chipmunk stew on Jun 5, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua: But the following was reported, not on some fringe website, but by the BBC on Sept. 23
...*snip*...
In my research for this article, I went through several websites dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, but was unable to find anything disputing the BBC story (and anyone who has contrary evidence is invited to send it to me or post a refutation in the comments section of this article).

Joshua, I find it hard to believe that you couldn't find anything disputing that story. The story was written only 12 days after 9/11, and was basically a case of mistaken identities. I'll give you three sources that dispute the story, just for starters.

from CBS
from Spiegel
from 911myths.com

» RE: HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE = MYTH Posted by: resistance6
» RE: HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE = MYTH Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE = MYTH Posted by: KnowledgeMan
» RE: HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE = MYTH Posted by: chipmunk stew

Comments are closed-

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: intothewild on Jun 5, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.

He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said. Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.

"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.

But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation.

"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.

"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why," he said.

Cheney met last week in the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, according to a spokesman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, "agreed to cooperate with their effort."

The heads of both intelligence committees have been meeting to map out a way to hold a bipartisan House-Senate investigation and hearings. They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be.

Graham's spokesman said the committees will review intelligence matters only.

"How ill prepared were we and why? We are looking towards the possibility of addressing systemic problems through legislation," said spokesman Paul Anderson.

Some Democrats, such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, have been calling for a broad inquiry looking at various federal government agencies beyond the intelligence community. "We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong," Torricelli said. "The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an explanation owed to the American people," he said.

Although the president and vice president told Daschle they were worried a wide-reaching inquiry could distract from the government's war on terrorism, privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader investigation to determine possible culpability.

"We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal agents -- where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were missed?" a Democratic senator told CNN.

Link

Comments are closed-

How do you keep 'em all quiet?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Diego on Jun 5, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is obviously truck loads of fodder for 911 conspiracy theories and, as one who detests and distrusts the Bush administration, I am quite willing to accept any or all, but one thing keeps nagging at me: to pull off a deception of such magnitude would seem to require a cast of 100's if not 1000's. Demolition experts, logistical support, schemers, planners, and the like. Of all the people involved only one credible whistleblower with an attack of conscience could blow the whole contemptible bunch out of the water. How do they keep all those many conspirators quiet? Is it really possible that there is that much evil in the United States? This is a question I have not seen previously addressed. I would appreciate some thoughtful replies.

» See above comment thread Posted by: LeonDion
» You replace them with pod people - duh! Posted by: thoughtcriminal

Comments are closed-

Free 9/11 Documentary on Google Video
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chomsky on Jun 5, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Comments are closed-

What about Melvin Bush?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 5, 2006 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read every post, but has anybody mentioned the fact that the president's brother Melvin Bush'd security company had the contract for the security of the twin towers, a helpful fact for anybody who wanted access to the buildings to wire them with charges surruptitiously.

» RE: What about Melvin Bush? Posted by: intothewild
» RE: What about Melvin Bush? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: What about Melvin Bush? Posted by: chipmunk stew

Comments are closed-

CONDI'S COMPLICITY IN 911 LIES
[Report this comment]
Posted by: intothewild on Jun 5, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to
use a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice

Then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked just a few
months after the tragic events of 911 if she possessed any
foreknowledge regarding impending Al Qaeda attacks. At the time,
she was quoted by CBS on May 16, 2002 as stating that: "I don't
think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an
airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Or
only a few months later Dr Rice also said "I don't think anybody
could have predicted that these people would take an airplane
and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and
slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an
airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of
this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.
The overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an
attack that was likely to take place overseas."

Oh Really…..?

As far back as 1993, there was a $150,000 study commissioned by
the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being
used to bomb national landmarks. A draft of this document was
circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department and
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Also, for several
years prior to 911, there existed detailed foreknowledge
regarding specifics of intended Al Qaeda attacks. For example,
during the trial of those responsible for the first deadly
bombing within the basement garage of the World Trade Center
back in 1995, several suspected personal computers were seized,
revealing Project Bojinka: detailed plans by the terrorists
seeking to crash a hijacked plane into CIA headquarters at
Langley.

Beginning in 1996, and up to just before the attacks on 911, the
FBI had been investigating several suspected terrorists enrolled
in U.S. flight schools, leading to the now famous FBI, May 18
1998 memo which observed an `unusually' large number of Middle
Eastern men attending flight schools. Then, during the spring
and early summer of 2001, various government agencies have
acknowledge that intelligence had been filtering in for some
time concerning a pending Al Qaeda attack, which included the
use of commercial aircraft.

In September of 1999, the Federal Research Division, an arm of the
Library of Congress, prepared a little report titled "The
Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism" for U.S. intelligence. It
stated that suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaeda's Martyrdom
Battalion planned to crash-land an aircraft packed with high
explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, and
the White House. As recently as October 24 to 26 of 2000, Pentagon
officials quitely carried out elaborate emergency drills based upon
the premise of a hijacked airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

Comments are closed-

For credible and scientific research on 9/11 . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reader911 on Jun 5, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9-11 Reseach: An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001
http://911research.wtc7.net

Reviews:

Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Sifting Through Loose Change: The 9-11Research Companion to LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4032273D

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Video of the Pentagon Attack: What is the Government Hiding?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/video.html


Videos:

Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse
http://wtc7.net/videos.html

Videos of the South Tower Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#s outhtower

Videos of the North Tower Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#n orthtower

Comments are closed-

Stuart Davies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oregonstu on Jun 5, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so nice that Josh is open to suggestions that elements within the government knew about the planned attacks beforhand, but deliberatelyallowed them to happen - yet feels that some real research is required to back up this radical notion.
Let me do some digging in my mental archives a sec.... ahhh, here we go Josh. lets ignore all the mountains of evidence about the FBI tailing Mohammed Atta in Germany a year or more before 9/11 and magically producing his photo from an Atm - taken just before the attacks - immediately afterwards, forget about the FbI informant in the cell of hijackers living in L.A. prior to the attacks, and forget also about the reports of the field agents who urgently warned of the suspicious characters at the flight training schools, just to name a few items. Forget them, Josh obviously has.
To my thinking, one small fact speaks volumes and proves this premise beyond any reasonable doubt. Let me ask you all if you can think of the one simple step that has been taken SINCE 9/11 that will prevent any such future attempts from being successful, and that could have easily been taken BEFOREHAND to prevent them the first time? all the b.s. about increased security at airports does little or nothing to prevent this sort of attack.... but sealing the cockpit with impenatrable doors does.
Remember Josh, the intelligence community had originally gotten wind of the idea that was floating out there to hijack planes and fly them as guided missiles into stationary targets some three or four years before 9/11. The lame explanation you offer up about the administration being distracted by other matters prior to 9/11 just doesn't cut it. There had been an ongoing state of red alert on the issue of potential terrorist attacks within the US for years prior to 9/11. We have all heard about the CIA warnings to the White House just a few weeks before 9/11.
We have who knows how many thousands of presumably bright, well paid experts in the employ of various intelligence and security agencies focused on preventing such attacks. They knew of the plans afoot to hijack planes AND FLY THEM INTO TARGETS ON THE GROUND, and we are expected to believe that NONE of these smart folks could come up with the one simple expedient that would stop such an attack in its tracks? Give me a break.

Comments are closed-

Don't Pick & Choose, Mr. Holland
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Welfl on Jun 5, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland wrote: "I went through several websites dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, but was unable to find anything disputing the BBC story [that some of the "19 hijackers" are still alive]..."

I am willing to bet that you ALSO didn't find any evidence debunking the multiple firsthand eyewitness and ear-witness testimony of bombs exploding in the Twin Towers by firefighters, paramedics, police, WTC employees, TV reporters, etc. (more OFFICIAL accounts at this link). Loose Change and What's the Truth? are also full of such testimony. Why didn't you mention that fact also? Is it because it is more incriminating of those in power than finding some of the hijackers still alive?

Click this link to watch and to listen to a four-second clip of the south tower falling. Scroll down to the Trinity Church section. The first two links are audio and video versions of the same event. I encourage you to listen to the audio clip first (located just below the Trinity Church picture), then click on the picture itself to watch the video. Keep in mind the time it takes for sound to travel, so you can assume that the first explosion actually starts at about the same time as the building starts to fall.

Comments are closed-

9/11 Was An Inside Job
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jeff111 on Jun 5, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the following:
Google: WTC7 and watch the videos of WTC Buiding 7 which was never hit by a plane collapse straight down onto its own footprint at near free-fall speed.

Watch 911 Revisited for free at Google video (link can be found at www.st911.org )

Watch David Ray Griffin's Medison CSPAN Lecture for historical context (link found at www.st911.org )

The more facts you learn, the more you realize that the official government story about a conspiracy between Osama Bin Laden and 19 Muslims is a big, fat lie.

Learn the truth about 9/11. The future of this country depends on your educating yourself about this.

Comments are closed-

How About Canada?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: patvic1405 on Jun 5, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am totally willing to believe anything of this evil, criminal administration - up to and including 9/11 being an inside job. I just wanted to comment that while we were supposedly unable to stop 9/11, even after credible warnings, Canada just had no problem apprehending 15 terrorists who had 3 tons of explosives ready to unleash on that country. Is Canada's intelligence that much superior to ours, which is supposedly so wonderful? Guess so.

» RE: How About Canada? Posted by: MarkyX
» We'll kill you if you try... Posted by: Scientz

Comments are closed-

A well typed article.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 5, 2006 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because someone's unaware of something, doesn't mean it's not true.

Comments are closed-

one thing now makes sense
[Report this comment]
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Jun 5, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The victims' assistance fund *finally* makes sense to me. Can you say "blood money", boys and girls?

I'm very surprised to find myself a 9/11 skeptic, but there are too many reasons/discontinuities to accept the official story without question. I fear for our country and our rights under this administration, and find that it's difficult to put anything past them.

Comments are closed-

Screw Loose Change video
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MarkyX on Jun 5, 2006 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I've made a video debunking Loose Change, as well as linking numerous sources about the 9/11 theories. Let's just say the CTs like to quote mine and hide evidence. The WTC7? Got a nice list of quotes about fire fighters there all bailing out and describing the destruction of the building. On the "Screw Loose Change" video, I even have the southside of the WTC7 building with smoke coming out of every floor.

There is also links to articles done by a structual engineer, head of the material engineering at MIT, and several other websites debunking the myths.

If you truly call yourself a skeptic, you'll investigate.

» RE: Screw Loose Change video Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Screw Loose Change video Posted by: frederi

Comments are closed-

Canadian here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MarkyX on Jun 5, 2006 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the core reasons why our secret service works so well is because our agencies work together very well. I can't say the same about America's CIA, FBI, and numerous other agencies.

Comments are closed-

FEAR FACTOR (Sorry MarkyX, wasn't supposed to be a reply!)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Scientz on Jun 5, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The size of this thing is what makes people shut up.

If I were a 2-star general in the Pentagon who disagreed with Rumsfeld prior to 9/11, and they launched a cruise missile at the building that they claimed was a 757 when anyone investigating can see that it isn't, I'd be scared shitless.

Hitler once said the people will be more willing to believe a big lie than a small one.

This lie is SO big, most will go along with the official story out of fear--fear of accepting what it would mean if opposite were true.

Intense, mindboggling fear is also what is keeping the ones who know the truth in line. As in, "If they could do that to the Pentagon and the WTC, they could kill me without a second thought and make it look like an accident."

And those who aren't afraid and who try to tell the truth end up looking crazy people.

Does this not make sense?

Comments are closed-

Official story = conspiracy theory
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeonDion on Jun 5, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Josh Holland makes a false distinction between the official story and 'conspiracy theories'.

The official story is a conspracy theory.

Duh.

» RE: Official story = conspiracy theory Posted by: concerned Canadian

Comments are closed-

I don't believe a word they say
[Report this comment]
Posted by: favorites on Jun 5, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, there is only one question to ask. WHO BENEFITED?

My rule of thumb for the creatures now running this country is very simple. Whenever Bush or Cheney or one of the other crooks opens his mouth and says something, I NEVER believe a word they say. I ALWAYS know that the truth is the OPPOSITE of what is coming out of their lying mouths.

Given this, there is NO POSSIBILITY of believing anything other than that this gang of criminals engineered and carried out 9/11. In every single way they have benefited from the results of that day.

Incidentally, I recall reading an article afterwards in which some people who were working in the basement of the World Trade Center that morning who said they heard explosions INSIDE.

» RE: I don't believe a word they say Posted by: russianblue1

Comments are closed-

The can't shoot straight gang
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Deni on Jun 5, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amidst all the conspiracy information, and I have viewed and read much of it, one fact debunks the conspiracy thearies: the is the Gang Tat Can't Shoot Straight. W, Cheney, etal, have f'ed up every single thing they have attempted to accomplish. Who among that group would actually be able to pull together such a daunting mission without messing it up, or spilling the beans about it.

Comments are closed-

Follow the money
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hutch on Jun 5, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is touching to see how willfully naive even writers like Mr. Holland are when it comes to accepting some truths, as when journalists continue to emphasize the word "alleged" when referring to the Haditha massacre. My Lai is still an "alleged" event in many minds; atrocities are actually routine in any given war. Read your history.

And trumped-up reasons to go to war exist as far back in history as we have records to read. They are, in fact, routine, not anomalous.

I suggest you find Michael Ruppert's evidence about put orders and the gazillions of dollars made around the world in various stock markets trading in airline stocks. As I recall, opportunity and motive are the major criteria for conviction in a murder trial, and there are plenty of both.

We won't even get into the issue of the third building which also fell into its own footprint, hours after the attack, and the statement by the lessee that "we decided to pull it." Mr. Holland may feel good about himself by holding out for "evidence," but he must not really want any.

As T. S. Eliot wrote, "Go, go, go, said the bird/Mankind cannot bear too much reality"

Comments are closed-

Baudrillard
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kenneth_H on Jun 5, 2006 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jean Baudrillard, in "The Spirit of Terrorism" (Verso, 2002), said of 9/11 conspiracy theories:

"And what if it was untrue? If it was all faked up? A thesis so unreal that it deserves to be taken into account, just as every exeptional event deserves to be doubted: we always have in us a demand both for a radical event and for a total deception." (italics mine)

That is, to give into conspiracy theories is a way of denying that anyone besides ourselves are capable of executing such a powerful act. And that is an arrogance as potentially damaging as the Bush Administration's.

Comments are closed-

nuance
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jimbobuddy on Jun 5, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
dont want to get off topic...but, do some moral calculus. What's the difference between carpetbombing civ areas in WWII, knowing that 10's of thousands of innocents will be killed - I challenge the view that Dresden was a military target - and 9/11? My Dad flew in the Pacific, and he STILL to this day , has recurring nightmares over those he killed. To blithely gloss over those deaths w/o acknowleging that we committed outrages ourselves in the pursuit of a justifiable goal is to start down the same path of demonization of the 'enemy' on which our enemies have already preceeded us. War is truly hell.

Comments are closed-

sorry.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jimbobuddy on Jun 5, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I meant to respond to 'fifthworld'

Comments are closed-

djett
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willbjett on Jun 5, 2006 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to make two points.

First, when I read George's face watching him read "my pet goat". I read "my god it's happening"..... NOT "I need answers Scotty".

Second. A hypothesis is an educated guess.
A theory is a widely accepted hypothisis.


The phrase "conspiracy theory" is framing to prevent any real conspiracy from ever coming to light.
Further, it weakens the meaning of "Theory" and makes it easy to question theories such as evolution.

Why is it that we progressives so quickly by into conservative framing??

Comments are closed-

9-11 was a crime
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Skipper on Jun 5, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...so why not investigate it like any other crime, beginning with asking "who would benefit," "who had the means," and "who had the opportunity"?

That would immediately rule out the Iraqis, who the US tried to tie it to, through bin Laden. There is an old family saying, "watch where you point your finger; it often points right back at you." So who was pointing at Iraq? That tells you a lot.

Then consider all that we really know about bin Laden's role. He has never been brought to trial, but we have all accepted that he was the mastermind, only because of what our own government has told us. We do know that he despised the US, and if we look at his "Letter to America," released shortly after the attacks, we learn that all he ever asked for was for the US to get out of his country, and stop defiling his holy grounds. It is a fact that he got exactly that, one month after we used the Saudi air base to launch our attacks on Iraq. Evidently, those running things truly did believe we would be in and out of Iraq in a couple of months. In any case, in April 2003, the US turned the base over to the Saudis, moving our base to Qatar. And there is little talk of bin Laden anymore.

We have seen a video of bin Laden, purportedly taking credit for the 9-11 attacks, and expressing surprise that the towers fell to the ground. First of all, it is possible with new techology, to clone video and link words and syllables to make anybody say anything. We have all seen more primitive examples of this technology for a long time. Second of all, if we accept that the video was real, it gives a clue that those who orchestrated the attacks did not necessarily know that perhaps others had orchestrated the complete fall.

Even if you cannot imagine Bush (if he were in on it at all) approving the fall of the towers, you could probably accept that even he could accept two planes striking, causing fires, and perhaps killing a few hundred people. So it seems very likely to me that plans for the demolition, although coordinated with the attacks, may have been a separate act, unknown to the attackers. But one thing is for sure: those who carried out the demolition had intimate knowledge of the coming attacks.

But I don't think of Bush when I think of the sinister person who could've been involved. Cheney in his bunker looks way more guilty to me, along with the other neocons, and of course the suspects are all listed as signatories on PNAC, where the rest of their plans are laid out in good detail. In fact, at that time, I think we would all agree that Bush was pretty much in the dark about most things, his puppetry extending only to public appearances and the use of his name, from the election on. The fact that he was presented reading "My Pet Goat" sounds like a Rove private joke, illustrating the truth as he saw it, and I bet he is snickering to this day.

There's little doubt Rove was involved. The fact that 9-11 has such significance to us as a distress call, sounds like yet another private joke. And the two towers, like the two ones, a visual image, hails from a marketing mind. And the symphony of the two towers falling, almost together, would be like an arsonist's orgasmic moment. Numbers are important to this mad creator, so the hour of 9 AM resounds as well, plus the flights beginning with the number 9 and then the later attacks in London, on 7/7, which coordinates with flight 77, of course.

Also, consider, that on 9/12, before Bush's ground-zero talk, three barges of stadium lights were carried to the base of the statue of Liberty to light it for his backdrop. You have to wonder who was preoccupied with the thought of a backdrop on such an occasion.

» RE: 9-11 was a crime Posted by: MarkyX
» RE: 9-11 was a crime Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: 9-11 was a crime Posted by: MarkyX
» RE: 9-11 was a crime Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: 9-11 was a crime Posted by: MarkyX
» RE: 9-11 was a crime Posted by: Skipper

Comments are closed-

Do your work or find other work please.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mime on Jun 5, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland,

To say I am disappointed with your article is to put it mildly. Maybe it was written on a short deadline during a Memorial Day weekend hangover. Whatever the excuse, to write off those calling for a reopened 9/11 investigation--including the families of the 9/11 victims--so brusquely, so cavalierly shows a lazy lack of research into the known facts. It also reveals a blatant disregard for the vast, disciplined investigative research into those facts by hundreds of esteemed journalists, politicians, political candidates, engineers, scholars and concerned citizens.
The only confirmed "conspiracy theory" that is completely worthy of our disdain is the "official" 9/11 Commission published report.

Consider this:

1). Every national tragedy in our nation's very short history: Pearl Harbor, the Challenger disaster, the assassinations of Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK, et al had an investigative commission formed within the week. The Bush Administration sandbagged the forming of the 9/11 Commission for 454 days before grudgingly allowing an investigation, and then only with the caveat that they got final "line item veto" privileges before final publication.

2). President Bush only agreed to appear before the commission--MEMBERS OF WHICH HE HAD HAND-PICKED--in private, unrecorded and off the record, with a tiny group of insider croney Senators and VP Dick Cheney present.

3). Someone profited to the tune of millions of dollars from the deaths of those 3,000 innocent Americans through a rash of "put options" on American and United Airlines and various companies whose offices were in the towers in the week prior and especially the 24 hours prior to the attacks. You can't find out who received that blood money. I can't. No-one in the press can--even by attempting to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. Nor can Congress. Why?

Executive Privilege.

Two men and two men only have the authority to shut down any further investigation into the 9/11 profiteers, and they have done so: President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Those two "men" are standing in the way of the truth being known about who profited from A Priori knowledge concerning the creation of a horrible situation in which someone's loved ones were forced to hold hands and leap to their deaths on the cement below instead of being burned alive and hundreds of New York City's finest First Responders were crushed to death after heroically responding to the call to rescue those trapped in the towers.

Are they protecting Saudi Investment banker friends? Israelis? Invisible Halliburton/Brown & Root profits? We may never know because national "journalists" such as yourself have better things to do with your time than honoring your Fourth Estate calling--that of holding our nation's leaders absolutely accountable day in and day out.

Please consider a portion of the final pulpit sermon from a retiring pastor in Rockford, Illinois who stayed sober over the three day weekend--at least long enough to honor his calling on Sunday morning.

From:

"Treachery and all Ruinous Disorders"
A sermon by Dave Weissbard

I am not confident that I know what went on on 9/11. I am confident that I do not know, and that I need to know more than I do. To the fundamental question, "Do I really believe that people in the administration could even permit such an event to happen if they knew about it, much less encourage it, my honest answer is that believing it requires no strain. I believe we are being led by people who consider American citizens expendable for a "greater cause," which is American domination of the world economy:

(to be continued)

Comments are closed-

Fourth Estate, cont...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mime on Jun 5, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.uurockford.org/sermons/

I am entirely in agreement with that final sentence and entirely in agreement with the finding of a very recently published book that accomplished more in four months from inception to publication than some "journalists" may accomplish in decades-long careers:

"The Case for Impeachment" The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office - Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky (St. Martin's Press 2006)

In any criminal investigation, which is what an impeachment proceeding would be, the first goal of prosecutors is to establish motive, then reveal evidence of a plan. Allow me to do your homework for you:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I am also entirely in agreement with the fourteen point assessment about the direction our country is headed partially due to America's "Fourth Estaters" abdicating their essential role as holders of accountability of our government:

Fascism Anyone? - Laurence W. Britt
(from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2):

http://www.secularhumanism.org/

~ Mikael Rudolph, Organizer: Minneapolis Chapter of World Can't Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime!

www.ImpeachforPeace.org
Home of the "Do-It-Yourself" Impeachment Kit!

Comments are closed-

And Don't Forget
[Report this comment]
Posted by: doremi on Jun 5, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the Nazis who dressed as Polish cavalry to 'attack' Germany and therefore legitimize the invasion of Poland. This is a very, very old tactic but it still works for the perpetrators.

» RE: And Don't Forget Posted by: concerned Canadian

Comments are closed-

issuses of trust
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 5, 2006 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the sad truth is that no matter who was to blame (and i dont for one minute believe the "official" version of events), the fact remains that an open and civil society rests on the trust that the community places in the individual. 9/11 was the grossest possible violation of that trust, and thats still true even if bush&co could be proven to be ultimately responsible.

the questions we need to be asking now are not so much whos' to blame (although they must be held to account) so much as whether and how trust can be restored.

Comments are closed-

SILVER LINING
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 5, 2006 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least now the goverment knows what we know, so that's a good thing... Right?

Comments are closed-

Dear Joshua Holland--you have it all wrong
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SimmaDownNah! on Jun 5, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland,

I have to commend you for writing about 9/11 especially considering the flood of emails you will receive from people like me who are not satisfied with your treatment of the facts. Very few people are writing (seriously) about 9/11 and it is a huge concern for many people in America (since 9/11 was the lynch-pin of all of the decisions and policies of our government for the last 6 years--like invading Iraq)

I feel that your article is similar to many, many other articles that I've read which give only a quick glance at only a few of the cherry-picked facts. Honestly if you spent as much time on 9/11 web-site as you claim to have then you must have realized that the main crux of the argument for a new investigation is not that some of the the terrorists are still alive...

If you really meant to give the topic fair treatment then you would have at least mentioned in passing any of the following facts as documented in various forms all over the Internet:

1. Documented Explosions: multiple explosions were heard all around the WTC buildings (above and below where the planes hit) from workers in the building, fire fighters, police, pedestrians, and seismic listening stations. How is it possible for terrorists to plant dozens of bombs all over the buildings? The explosions happened and there's no denying the proof which is immortalized in video.

2. Why did WTC #7 fall? The explanation offered up by the commission is a non-explanation to begin with and warrants much scrutiny.

3. Why hasn't the Pentagon offered up the camera footage of the plane strike there? Without a doubt there must be 4,000 cameras at the Pentagon filming every conceivable angle. If the government wanted to quell the disbelievers then they would be open and honest.

These 3 question alone, which don't offer up much room for scrutiny are the basis for which many people think the govt. is hiding something, not recessarily what you isolated and discussed. If you'll excuse my imagery, your article struck me as more like a nanometer wide scratch just at the surface of a 300-ton turd.

With that being said, please continue to write about 9/11 and keep the topic alive.

Comments are closed-

Al Qaeda means...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: babs on Jun 5, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not sure if this is the truth but, "Al Qaeda" is reported as meaning "The Base". A nickname given by the Pentagon to a database of Taliban and other Islamic extremists/fighters who were cooperating with America's support of Afghanistan's war with the Soviets. "The Base" was supplied with U.S. arms and financial support in their successful push to get those commies out of oil country.

"All your base are belong to U.S." indeed!

» RE: Al Qaeda means... Posted by: Skipper

Comments are closed-

This is why we're losing elections....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brs04wsc on Jun 5, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We look like nutcases. Instead of sticking to the FACTS about the war in Iraq, the squeezing of the middle class, climate change and the failling of the labor movement we're seen prattling on with entertaining statements like:

"I'd also be receptive to evidence that the Bush administration had a far greater degree of knowledge about the how and why of the attacks, and looked the other way and let them happen. All I'd need to buy that would be a bit of evidence."

Can we wait UNTIL we have the evidence to say things like this? Becasue this tripe makes us all look like conspracy theorists and undermines the left as a whole. We have to decide what we want to do: have a pissing match to show who's the most liberal by coming up with the most outlandish charges/positions, or start to put this movement back together with a winning and real message.

The worst part is that Bush et al. have done so many things wrong that we don't need to pick at the fringes and sound like Oliver Stone - we have plenty of down to Earth stuff to pick over that could help us get these people out of office.

What the left has become is pathetic

Comments are closed-

WHOA NELLIE!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 5, 2006 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When this info finally DOES come out, a lot of "Rational-and-very-well-educated" people are going to feel REALLY stupid.

Funny, how evolution works.

Just a suggestion here...

Start coming up with your cover story so you can backpedal out of your kharmic torrent of "Told-You-So's", and pronto.

"I knew all along... I was just talking in code, you know, like Da Vinci... No? Okay, then I was practicing my positive visualization technique here, and picturing a world where that didn't happen... No? Okay, let's see... Uhhh... OH! Got it! I was taking Ambien!! Right, right, right... It was all a big dream to me! Yeah baby, that one works. I can still appear intelligent again after saying that. Sweet... "

» RE: WHOA NELLIE! Posted by: frederi
» RE: WHOA NELLIE! Posted by: Roverton

Comments are closed-

The official conspiracy theory
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Wild Outrage on Jun 5, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Four large commercial jets vanished within 80 minutes that morning, unprecedented events in the northeastern United States. This is so incredible that it rivals the first collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers on the same day at the same site, the first ever "caused" by fires in history. How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes, and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?

» RE: The official conspiracy theory Posted by: concerned Canadian

Comments are closed-

Lack of evidence
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yesman on Jun 5, 2006 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If, as the author asserts, there is not sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Bush crime cabal was anything more than incompetent and opportunistic in regard to 9/11, then why do the conspiracy theories persist?

Well, for one thing, the "official" version of the events leaves many questions unanswered, as the author notes. Why? if the full truth is known, there should be no unanswered questions. So, the holes in the official story could be the result merely of investigative incompetence or the unavailability of information--or it could be the result of failures in the cover stories of the US government/corporate conspirators. Why should we think that the "official" story is true--and all alternatives false--when the official story is at best woefully incomplete?

If you want to know the truth, follow the money (and power). Who has benefitted noticeably and concretely from the events of 9/11? Most obviuosly, Osama bin Laden and his criminal cronies (including violent Islamic extremists of all stripes), and George W. Bush and his criminal cronies (including all those with an interest in the big oil companies--American, Middle Eastern and otherwise). So, why should we think that the first group is directly culpable, but the second group were merely unwitting beneficiaries? Where's the evidence for THAT?

» RE: Lack of evidence Posted by: mime

Comments are closed-

cia + isi = al queda - the real cia please stand up?!?!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frederi on Jun 5, 2006 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cia created osama bin laden as well as islamo-fascism and the taliban. We trained him to do our dirty work in the late 70's. This is exactly what he did and probably still does if he is still alive. Now at that same time just look at how the Mossad took soldiers off the governmenet books and made them "dissapear" so they could work on top secret missions for decades and get real down and dirty with no legal consequence (see Munich). If caught in any act ( usually a bombing, or assasination attempt) they could never be traced to the source because they simply "didn't exist." Our government then and today, operates in the same way. Secretly, on a need to know basis. Look at Iraq and all the contracted "security." as well. This is the way around geneva convensions. Whatever happened with 9/11 was an integration of many things and runs deep into places no normal citizen has a freaking clue about. So we could all sit here and talk about it all day but the bottom line is most of our own government doesn't even know because that is how these things are planned. There is not much left to be traced back with 9/11 because the real terrorists don't exist, and those who knew where probably killed already or will be soon. Do yourselves a favor and read about John O'niel. He was a cia agent who knew a little bit too much about al queda and was killed in the world trade center on 9/11/01.

Comments are closed-

Time for Mr. Holland to Switch News Organizations
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blakesworld on Jun 5, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland. The prime reason I come to the AlterNet is for well researched news without the spin that automatically comes from the mass produced news factories.
Reading your article has got me wondering if you are writing for the wrong news organization.

I hope you’ve been sufficiently chastised by your editor for this poorly researched, spin-laden article.
If not, then the AlterNet may be falling into the mass produced haze, and I’ll get my news elsewhere.

Comments are closed-

THERE'S MORE TO PISS YOU OFF ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jun 5, 2006 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over in The Mix.

Comments are closed-

C'MON FOLKS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 5, 2006 2:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give the man a little credit.

Maybe he was just "Joshing" with us.

» RE: C'MON FOLKS Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: C'MON FOLKS Posted by: Roverton

Comments are closed-

prairiedog
[Report this comment]
Posted by: prairiedog on Jun 5, 2006 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google Indira Singh and learn about PTech.

Comments are closed-

Proof? Here are a few more hints. (The 9/11 report is only good for a**wipe...)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jun 5, 2006 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"I'd also be receptive to evidence that the Bush administration had a far greater degree of knowledge about the how and why of the attacks, and looked the other way and let them happen. All I'd need to buy that would be a bit of evidence."

O.K...

How about the fact that two 1200+feet-tall buildings, asymetrically damaged and with moderate fires, BOTH fell neatly into their own footprints – a feat only possible by controlled demolition – and that these buildings' collapse due to fire WAS THE ONE AND ONLY OCCURANCE IN HISTORY! And that the powers-that-be could not move fast enough to clear the site of the crime and destroy the evidence.
Or that WTC 7 supposedly collapsed due to fire as well, but as the fire (and the story) was too weak, the story was later changed to that the building was rigged for demolition – in less than 8 hours, an impossible feat to pull off. (That building held thousands of records in SEC investigations of corporate fraud, which were all destroyed.)
Or that North American air defenses stood down for the first time in history on that particular day. Or that an exercise identical to the actual "attack" was being run that particular day, and that what air defenses were available set new records for slowness of response (with unarmed aircraft in some cases at that.)

Add to this the following:
-That there was a similar plan put forth in the sixties, called "Operation Northshore," which was to replace an actual airline flight with an identical, remotely-piloted unoccupied dummy plane and then blow it up over Cuba and blame Castro, giving the U.S. a reason to invade the country;
-That the new owner of the World Trade Center, faced with an asbestos abatement nightmare with those buildings, "cleaned up" with his insurance reward, which was, I've read, far more than his original investment;
-That "put order" trading on the two airlines involved and the maker of the planes skyrocketed the week before the "attack." A bunch of people (still a secret whom) were-a-bettin' heavily that there was going to be a tragedy just like what happened.
-Or that a bunch of flight school flunk-outs suddenly managed to precision-fly FOUR giant airliners they were completely unfamiliar with? (Oh, come on...)

There's more, a lot more, too much to list here... (Don't forget, the truth behind the Mafia's involvement in the Kennedy assassination, which turns the Warren Report into toilet paper, is just now coming out – 40 years late!!)

There might not be a 9/11 smoking gun just yet (and won't ever be if the neocons get their way), but there are bullet holes all over the place – and most of those holes are in the "official" 9/11 report. (Speaking of holes, the 9/11 report would only be useful if it was issued on rolls...)

The Big Lie is always the easiest one to sell. Can you imagine the reaction if the american people believed, really believed, that the Bush administration either let happen or caused to happen the 9/11 "attack?" CAN YOU IMAGINE?!

Comments are closed-

Question the Physical Evidence? Look at the Other Questions!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 5, 2006 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This country is entirely controlled by people that basically have one contribution to make, and that is investing money, not for the good of the many, but for their own good. Trickle down economics has been proven a failure. Not that it isn't a good idea, but unfortunately, the all too human characterisic of greed supercedes any possible benefit. We`are now a nation "at war", not for freedom, but for money, and the "warriors" leading the battle cry have never themselves even fought in a war, rather, did everything in their power to avoid it.

The tragedy of 9/11 was, at least in my opinion, merely a tool for the elite to further their agenda of controlling the world's most valuable resources, while sacrificing America's kids to secure these resources for them. A few questions that need to be asked and answered. How many friends and/or relatives did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, et al lose in the 9/11 attacks? How many of their children are fighting in Iraq or Afganistan? Who benefitted financially and/or politically from 9/11? Is there any other way that the American population would readily give up their Constitutional rights, Congress give up their power as a check against the Executive? With the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and the most sophisticated electronic evesdropping system in the world (Echelon) why weren't these attacks stopped?

In a society where if we, the average Joe on the street had evidence of this caliber against us for any given crime, we would be sitting in jail without bond prior to trial. Why aren't we holding these so called "leaders" to the same standard?

Comments are closed-

No excuses to refuse a re-examination of 9/11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pilou on Jun 5, 2006 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am a Brit living in France with some family in the US. I was surprised that it took so long to investigate 9/11, it was so clear that the bereaved were looking to the Bush Administration for that to happen, they needed and wanted as full an understanding as possible of all the events that led up to the horror of that day. The subsequent anthrax attacks that equally resulted in a loss of life seemed to go of the radar in terms of dealing with the emerging facts, I understood that it was shown to be US produced anthrax, not from Iraq as speculated. Where were the checks and balances, the good mainstream journalists ready to tackle the important issues like the clearing of the Twin Towers site without a thought to safeguarding evidence ? For an Administration that was in shock, you would simply have expected them to stick to the rules regarding the investigation of a crime and do their very best to reassure the American people that every aspect of that day was being looked into to as quickly and efficiently as possible, to make sure all lessons were learnt and the necessary steps being taken to protect the public. If there is unease about the 9/11 report, it is because it came too late and simply was not good enough. The Bush Administration want to argue that 9/11 came as a bolt out of the blue, I find their explanations and subsequent behaviour concerning. The absence of decent journalists seeking answers to questions that are not marginal or the stuff of conspiracy theories, is turning what should be a logical desire for facts into the 'search for the holy grail'. It is an insult to the bereaved who want above all things to make sure nobody else has to endure such suffering.

Comments are closed-

The chimp's expression on the morning of 9/11.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jimlup on Jun 5, 2006 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush team is far to inept and incompetent to have pulled off a covert 9/11. That leaves two possible alternatives that should concern us:

1. They knew and knew it would be politically good for them so they shorted UAL and American Airlines stock and sat tight. This would explain the expression on the chimps face when the attacks were finally realized. He knew they were coming, he just didn't know how serious they would be. They then proceeded to cover up their intentional ignorance and insider trading scheme by stalling, misleading and delaying investigations as obviously discovered.

2. They were totally incompetent and didn't know at all. They blundered their way through the summer of 2001 as implied in Michael Moore's F911 and were caught with their pants totally down, and dicks in hand, on the morning of 9/11.
They've proceeded with the coverup to forstall the public discovering their obvious incompetence.

I tend to lean towards explaination #1 but either seems to fit the available facts. Let's follow the money! Why does no one know the answer to the question: who profited from the insider trading??

In my opinion both 1 and 2 should result in the impeachment and subsequent removal from office of the whole ugly administration.

» They couldn't have... Posted by: jimlup

Comments are closed-

Dear Josh,
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2006 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about writing a short piece on strategies for withdrawing US troops from Iraq? It'd be very interesting to see how many comments that draws, compared to this thread.

» RE: Dear Josh, Posted by: jimlup
» RE: Dear Josh, Posted by: thoughtcriminal

Comments are closed-

"whodunnit"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aurora2484 on Jun 5, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To posters such as tiellis (conspiracy theories et al) - who ended by saying, "I doubt the perpetrators will ever be discovered". If you want to know "who" is responsible for something, then surely, begin by asking the relevant question, namely "Who.." Instead, the many questions being asked by tiellis and others all begin with "Why" or "How". Eg - The removal of the steel girders; the 1,000% surge in 'Put' options, and so on - these did not happen by some magical, personless force, - There were people involved - So, "Who?" is able to be applied in just about every instance. (and, who took the original video footage of the plane hitting the building?)

Comments are closed-

Kennedy story on stolen election
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PeaceLove on Jun 5, 2006 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Farhad Manjoo in Salon has a solid debunking of Kennedy's article here. May require you to watch a short ad, but worth reading (worth subscribing, too!).

Comments are closed-

No that doesn't work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jimlup on Jun 5, 2006 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They couldn't have done it. They just don't have the skill set.

Comments are closed-

Fear Factor - yes, time to get over it
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aurora2484 on Jun 5, 2006 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
scienz wrote: "Intense, mindboggling fear is also what is keeping the ones who know the truth in line." Whether fear or greed or apathy or whatever, FIVE YEARS have all but slipped by us without our ever really standing up and shouting out the obvious. By "us" I mean "we the people" - any and all of us who are confronted by the obvious, time and again, yet choose to pretend "we know nothing". It is time, people, - while we have voice, it is time to speak out, to use the freedom we still have, while we yet do.

Comments are closed-

Operation Northwoods
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jun 5, 2006 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember Operation Northwoods was a conspiracy that was offered to President Kennedy (he wisely rejected it) to carry out a false-flag attack on a US airliner to start a War with Cuba. Does any of that sound familiar?

Is it a conspiracy to lock up David Irving? Is a conspiracy to force book outlets to stop selling "America Deceived" by E.A Blayre III? Is the Iraq War a conspiracy because Powell lied through his teeth? You decide.
Here's the final link before Google Books breaks:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/
book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Comments are closed-

ljsullivan
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net on Jun 5, 2006 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did Holland look at anything but the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers? If not, this article is biased. I am not a gullible person, but I do trust my own eyes. I also trust demolitions experts to know their business, and engineers, physics professors, and highly responsible eyewitnesses -- firemen and police officers -- who have corroborated the multiple explosions, lakes of liquid steel in the basement five weeks after the event, the total absence of airplane debris at either the Pentagon or the Pennsylvania site and much else. By the way, jet fuel -- KEROSENE -- cannot melt steel.


Holland claims 'lack of evidence' for conspiracy. Where has he looked? And what are his areas of expertise? Actually, mountains of evidence point in the direction of something huge being covered up by a lot of people. I think that comes close to the definition of 'conspiracy'. (Google Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- something like 532,000 entries.)


Yes, there are conspiracy theorists/nuts, and then there are conspiracies. People are so afraid of looking foolish by considering conspiracy that they choose denial to maintain that 'cool' posture -- as though it couldn't happen here.


Yet history is filled with real conspiracies. The true stories of royal families in Europe are full of drama, intrigue, horror and murder. Catherine the Great of Russia. The Roman Empire. English royalty. Shakespeare wrote masterpieces around many of those stories, and no one doubts the truth of them. They didn't have telephones, radio, TV, Internet, daily newspapers, weekly news magazines, etc. to spread the word; yet somehow it always managed to get out.


Think we're too stupid to conspire? That's how conspirators get away with their crimes. Conspiracy debunkers are their greatest allies.


Or perhaps believing that our government could be so cruel and callous as to deliberately pull a murderous 'shock-and-awe' maneuver of this magnitude is just too scary. But they knew they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" so they could proceed with their pre-9/11 plan to invade Iraq with minimal interference from a stunned citizenry.


Shall we deny the reality of the carnage and devastation in Iraq, too? Has this government demonstrated any conscience there? How much compassion toward the people in New Orleans? In fact, they are just itching to spread war to Iran; and Bush has told us, "You're on your own" in the next catastrophe.


I had a stepmother come into my life when I was 13, a year and a half after my mother died. One of her first campaigns was to mock (debunk) the idea of the 'Wicked Stepmother' of fairy tales. "Oh, the Wicked Stepmother! Ha ha ha ... "


By doing that, she very neatly disarmed her two new stepdaughters; we couldn't possibly speak or even THINK of such a 'ridiculous' idea. That enabled her to become the prototypical Wicked Stepmother. Not just physically abusive but viciously verbally abusive. Many years later I came to understand her mental and emotional sickness. But the five years of abuse I took from her before I married at 18 contributed greatly to a breakdown I had later.


The point is, the psychopathic/sociopathic personalities now running this country know that most people won't believe what they are actually doing. That alone allows them to continue their path of corruption, murder and destruction. They believe their selfish, ambitious ends justify the means they are using, and they can do as they please. The rest of us? We're expendable.

Comments are closed-

9/11 - the miracles and the gods :)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aurora2484 on Jun 5, 2006 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If one accepts the "Official Version" of the events that occurred on 9/11 or in the days leading up to it, one can only conclude that a series of Miracles occurred suggesting the hand of higher powers..."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/handofallah.php

Comments are closed-

Hey, Josh....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Jun 5, 2006 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of the stuff here is good. But ya failed to mention the pResidents brother, Marvin P. who was in the mix. Since any post with a mention of his name seems somehow to get mysteriously deleted from Alternet, I'd say that's where the nut lies. But ya better act fast. These things have a way of 'never having happened.' Godspeed and luck, brother.

» RE: Hey, Josh.... Posted by: Larry Brewer

Comments are closed-

They either let it happen or made it happen
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Shakti on Jun 5, 2006 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading Griffin's book, scouring various websites and learning that several 9/11 widows are suing the Bush Administration under the RICO Act (something not covered at all in the MSM), I'm convinced that 9/11 was allowed to happen, if not made to happen by the Bushies.

Also, let us not forget the silencing of Sybil Edmonds, FBI whistleblower and translator, who has been trying to get some kind of truth out the people despite having been legally silenced by the government.

I recommend www.911truth.org. There is also a site called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. There are many reasonable people wholly unconvinced by the official story.

Comments are closed-

WHAT THEY SAID...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: namaste2you on Jun 5, 2006 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...as Congressman from the 5th district of Oklahoma, I will nominate Steven Jones for the Congressional Gold Medal!!!

Great turn out in Chicago folks!

Comments are closed-

what about insider trading of amer airlines stock before 911
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zombi on Jun 5, 2006 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for possible links to fore-knowledge of the attacks on 911, check this out.

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed firm that handled “PUT” options on United Airline Stock
by Michael C. Ruppert
go to: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html

for more go to:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=386

Comments are closed-

Where was our Air force?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harpy on Jun 5, 2006 4:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other than the money trail and seeing how the Bush crime family is profiting from 9/11, it seems the 'conspiracy theorists" are the only ones addressing the big huge glaring question of Where Was The Greatest Air Force In The World???!!! that can be anywhere else but defending our own country within minutes. Don't give out that tired B. S. that they didn't want to shoot the planes down. They wouldn't have hesitated for a minute at any other time. They were told to stand down and not respond. Cheney had them doing drills as far away as he could get them!

Comments are closed-

The Bush Family's 911 & War Profiteering
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Skipper on Jun 5, 2006 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The extent of Iraq contracts going to corporations which involve members of President George W. Bush's family is widespread and extensive involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Often these firms receive contracts where the corporations have no expertise and certainly the Bush family members have no expertise or experience in these areas. It is a world not of know how but of know who, marinated in campaign contributions. It seems like Bush family and friends are trading on their relationship to the President. The matrix of government contracts and Bush related corporations invites further investigation by the media...

...Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush, shares an interest in federal contracts held by companies in his firm's portfolio. Marvin Bush is also an adviser at HCC Insurance, formerly called the Houston Casualty Company, one of the biggest insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Bush was a director at HCC, which has benefited financially from the 9-11 insurance bailout legislation passed by Congress at the instigation of the White House. The departure of Marvin from the HCC board was announced the same day, November 22, 2002, as the passage of the bill.

http://democracyrising.us/content/view/57/72/

Comments are closed-

WRONG AGAIN
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chipmunk stew on Jun 5, 2006 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You jumped to this conclusion same as you jumped to the controlled demolition conclusion.

» RE: WRONG AGAIN Posted by: chipmunk stew

Comments are closed-

And space aliens are still stealing my lunch
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harrysf on Jun 5, 2006 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because there are some questions (or even a lot supposedly) about the official 9/11 story, it doesn't follow that the events were the result of a conspiracy.

People can spend all their waking hours detailing their own conspiracy "explanations", it doesn't make them true.

There is video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Do you think that people who work in D.C. planned to have plans crashing into D.C.? Or do you suggest that all the planners were on vacation that day?

And do you suppose that the supposed real planners of the attack could predict exactly the size of the devastation of the other plane crashes? And be sure none of their friends or loved ones (or the economy) would be hurt? And that they could accurately predict the reactions of an entire country and its government in advance of the crashes, that this would all play exactly into their supposed plans?

As I and others have pointed out here, many of the key, oft-repeated 9/11 consipiracy theories have been THOROUGHLY debunked by professionals with access to physical evidence. To cite one of many examples, civil engineering teams have created programs, aired on public TV, which show EXACTLY how the twin towers fell due to steel melting in the fires from the plane crashes.

You conspiracy theorists are really no better than people who wholeheartedly believe that space aliens conduct anal probes, that astronauts never went to the moon, and that the Rapture (or Apocalypse) is coming.

Comments are closed-

Can't handle the truth.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chomsky on Jun 5, 2006 7:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The facts all appear to point to the idea that there are explosives already wired into most skyscrapers as a precautionary measure to prevent the toppling of one onto another city block that has more skyscrapers on it.

If it takes weeks to plan and place these explosives then they were already there that day.
There was apparently a reason to pull building 7 but not 2.
If one plans to take down building 7 one would have to ask why not the building inbetween, so that appears to not be a "plan". The questions it brings up is too much to risk.
Ergo the option existed to do such a thing.
Ergos there exist more options to do the same.
The people can't live with that idea.

Maybe the towers were tipping and they had to bring them straight down. They won't admit to shooting down 93 how could they ever admit to pulling those buildings? And at the same time admitting most other buildings could be pulled at any time. Not a comfortable thought.

But that's just me playing devil's advocate. Most evidence points to an inside job.

"There will be no criminal investigation since this was an act of belligerence." Indeed.

"I sat there thinking about what it all meant." What what meant? All he knew was "We are under attack." Ask a question will ya? Or did he already know what was occuring?

Comments are closed-

A little confession
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2006 8:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone accused me of working for the CIA and the DHS in an earlier post - so I guess I should come clean. I actually work for the Heaven's Gate people - you think they're dead, but they are actually looking down on us now from their ethereal spaceships - waiting for us to join them. So come on, now - drink the CoolAid - what, are you scared? A glorious life awaits you in the offworld colonies - so drink it, already!

» RE: A little confession Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

Alternet does not accept BlogAds from 9/11 truth movement sites.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: matthine on Jun 5, 2006 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the record -

I would like to believe this article is written from the perspective of being constructively critical.

I have difficulty believing this because I have attempted to run a BlogAd for 9/11 truth movement web sites on AlterNet on several occations, and the ad has always been rejected.

I spoke with Liz Mullaney (associate publisher), and she told me that AlterNet's policy was to reject all such ads. When I asked her to review the sites in question, she told me that she did not have time to do so. I left a telephone message for Don Hazen (executive editor), and my call was not returned.

An example of the BlogAd in question (advertising 911TrueStory) is at

911Blogger.com

Web sites for which AlterNet has rejected ads include:

Scholars for 911 Truth

and

911TrueStory.com

Hopefully, AlterNet will change their policy.

Yours truly,
Matthew Hine, M.D.

Comments are closed-

Look to those who will profit.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cbishopp on Jun 5, 2006 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conspiracy of war is not to fight but to make money. Power and profit often dictate the actions of those responsible.
These obvious and seemingly oversimplified conclusions should not be overlooked as it is well documented that stocks rose and fell sharply as a result of these attacks and that specific people were poised and ready to gain in whatever way they could.
The large number of put-options placed on the stock of the airlines involved in the attacks is enough reason alone for a more focused investigation.
But this never happened.
To assume that there is no conspiracy or evidence of any governement involvement one would have to then assume that these attacks were orchestrated perfectly from abroad, over several years, with working Al Quaeda agents in the US in pilot training. The steel buildings imploded and demolished themselves perfectly in downtown New York and all the evidence was rushed off and destroyed by accident.
Once you have assumed this you will then have to stretch to the point of thinking that the attacks surprised our President, who did not stop reading a book on television about a goat to 1st graders, and that he and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove have manipulated this (AFTER the fact) perfectly for profit.
It seems also that they have not done one intelligent thing since.
This masterful quick wittedness has all but burned up and for a buch of guys who have vested interest in the biggest oil and construction companies on the face of the planet they sure did work out a successful plan pretty quickly.
"What great timing!!!" they must have thought.
A little too good to be true.
This plan and the resulting war reeks of years of preparation and manipulation.
A great deal of money was made on every aspect of it's instigation and those who have worked so hard to protect America will gain enough money and power not to have to worry about being "American" or "Saudi".
Much like other great conspiracy's there seems to be no one responsible and we are left to assume that with no explanation comes ease of mind.
As evidence continues to surface how long will people believe?

Comments are closed-

WhuThe?!?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Jun 5, 2006 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Putting aside all the witness testimonies ignored by the press and the 911 commission (Remember the secret "Able Danger" that gave specific warnings regarding Mr. Atta and were completely ignored by higher-ups in the pentagon, then ignored by the 911 commission afterwards?), it is just
unfathomable that those towers, which were engineered with fire resistance in mind (even planned against fires that burn as hot as jet fuel) BOTH fell in such a PERFECT fashion from fires that began so high up on their structures. Perhaps the following logical explanation of some physical concepts will make this easier to understand: It is only logical that for those buildings to fall so perfectly, A LOT (a lot more than those jets could have delivered, especially considering half of the fuel blew up on impact) of jet fuel (or actually something that burns much hotter) would have had to have arrived to the lower levels and burned intensely and uniformly around all the principal steel pilllars holding up the two buildings. In addition, anybody that has used a cast-iron frying pan knows, for the frying surface to be hot enough to cook something, the entire pan gets nearly as hot as that surface. Imagine that principle (This is valid; we're still talking of properties of iron-based metals here) applied to the twin towers: Nearly all the heat energy produced by that fuel that supposedly arrived to the bottom floors of those buildings would be spent heating up entire iron pillars, so for the bottom portion to melt (or seriously weaken), there would have had to be enough fuel to heat up the entire length of the
pillars. Of course, there would exist a gradient where ther part nearest the fire would be hotter, but most of the heat energy would be being transferred throughout the height of the pillar, which is also connected to floors and steel girders which would also suck away heat energy. It just seems logical that for the heat in those long pillars to become intense enough for them to melt, it would require an INCREDIBLE amount of fuel, fuel that arrived to the bottom of the buildings. Also, if the fire wasn't uniform
amongst ALL the pillars of those huge buildings, the buildings would have fallen over, not inward in such a perfectly orchestrated fashion. Imagine, for example, if only three of the four sides melted, the building would fall over as the one side would remain rigid and would simply bend as the rest fell over. The odds of all the steel I-beams heating up and giving in at the same time by a airplane crash near the top is 0%. Those buildings were imploded by highly skilled individuals, very little doubt about it, just like the building next to them the press never spoke about. It seems so obvious to me and I hope for justice, but that will never happen if the citizenry continues in their customary self-serving denial, and that is what it is. Who wants to waste time worrying about our "president" committing the worst act of treason in our nations history when SUV-fuel prices already have our puny little minds occupied to full capacity?

Comments are closed-

Rational Concerns
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Loose Nuke on Jun 5, 2006 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm one of the 42% who think there's been a coverup of what really happened on 9/11. It's obvious from the 70% of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's very relevant, important questions that were ignored by the Commission, that something is seriously wrong with the official 9/11 story. You are disrespecting the victims by suggesting the big questions have been answered and the ones left are not important enough to demand answers for.
http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

In addition, there are the 115 ommissions and distortions documented by David Ray Griffin
571 Page Lie

This timeline of people and events is composed from mainstream sources
Cooperative Research

How can anyone say that a new investigation is not warranted? A new investigation is only needed to determine exactly who knew and did what when. I was at the Chicago Conference. I saw a lot of good people, patriotic, seeking real answers to honest, obvious questions about 9/11, the "day that changed everything" every American needs to know have been left unanswered, before 9/11 is allowed to slip into history.

An enormous body of information has been compiled by independent researchers and it continues to grow. 9/11 Truth activists are taking numerous actions through the legal, political and media systems to get accountability and justice for 9/11. We've developed our own media- in this world of blogs, websites, forums, personal email contact lists and word of mouth, information can be rapidly and widely disseminated; the media blackout has become irrelevant. A grassroots movement is gathering from the left, right and center, as most people who critically examine the official story quickly realize it doesn't add up.

We as a people need to come to terms with the existence of this kind of threat to our lives and our Republic, and put the proper Constitutional safeguards in place to ensure this kind of tyranny cannot take hold again. America, the Earth and the human race hang in the balance.

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
Zogby Poll Press Release

» RE: ational Concerns Posted by: rockpicker

Comments are closed-

9-11 was just the beginning
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rockpicker on Jun 5, 2006 10:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has the USA got the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, or what? If your answer is yes, then explain how 19 poorly trained "ragheads" armed with box-cutters out-manuevered NORAD, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the FAA, and who knows what other agencies charged with the country's security, to carry out their attacks. That question needs to be addressed, as it is central to understanding that, absolutely, elements of the Bush/Cheney team were involved in helping this attack to succeed. They knew the attack was going to happen. They wanted it to occur so they could use it to further their ends. Which they have done. We've all been witness to the plan as it's unfolded.

It's an irrelevant, and damaging diversion, this late in the game, to be arguing the fine details of the 9/11 attacks. Everybody with half a brain knows the Kean Report is bogus, with unaddressed issues and testimony withheld. Yeah, the government's line is assinine. But to view the events of 9/11 as a single, isolated incident is to fail to see the broad picture. What we need to focus on is why the attacks occurred, who gained and how, and most importantly, we need to ask ourselves, "what else are these monsters capable of?"

KBR is building detention centers as I write. Who are those for? This is not idle conjecture. Haliburton's own website published news of the let contracts in Jan. We were told at the time that these facilities were for the housing of unwanted immgrants and "other new programs." You don't suppose that's code for "dissidents", do ya?

The people who run this country are truly evil men and women. We need to stand up to them. We need to organize. We need to realize they have no one's best interests at heart, except their own. They are ruthless, they have no conscience, no ethics, no God but Mammon, and they will not be stopped easily because they own Congress and the Courts and the Media and the Military/Industrial complex. We will have to be brave and act like the patriots we're so fond of idolizing or they will "protect"
us into voiceless proles.

The Elites declared all-out war against the lower and middle classes when they installed Dubya in 2000. The plan seems to be a) secure the energy their life-styles depend on and b) reduce the world population so that, proportionately, there are more resources to divy-up among those left. ( If I'm missing something here, please, clue me in.)

We have been at war. Not with terrorists or druglords, but with the rich and powerful who use the media to poison and weaken the masses. They lie to us deliberately, sit back and watch to see how much of their shit we will eat before objecting. They are gleeful. They revel in our apathy. They chortle all the way to the World Bank at our timorous self-indulgence.

We borrow their worthless money to pay for increasingly unaffordable education and health care. Their lackeys
outlaw our inevitable bankruptcies. They are laughing at us, patting themselves on the back, while lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills.

When the government is no longer responsive to the will of the people, it is the inherent right and solemn duty of the people to change the government.

We're there, folks. They don't even pretend to play fair anymore, so neither should we. Let's roll!

Comments are closed-

foxii
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Foxii on Jun 5, 2006 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really quite simple, the WTC was blown up. Gravity and the laws of physics preclude any other explanation. If you google janedoe0911 and select her "Case for controlled demolition" you will see a nice proof with graf and pictures for us simple folk.

Comments are closed-

Robert John White
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jun 5, 2006 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua's thoughtful report is perhaps too thoughtful. Physics, science, common sense, honesty and integrity aside, there is no current basis in the U.S. to believe anyone about any issue in the public domain. It has been that way since 11/22/63 and it will remain so because there is not sufficient outrage to evoke substantive change. The twin towers events are fodder for the tweakers of lucidity but the Pentagon hoo-doo is the topper. Quaere: the carefully edited photos show a plane part or two, but where are the bodies, body parts and the EMT apparatus that should have removed them? Answer: they're blowin in the wind baby. Where does that leave us? Well, I am "one of them damned trial lawyers" and I encounter the Nancy Reagan defense in every case that I initiate, i.e. "just say No!" Its time we adopted the defense and demanded proof of the 9/11 posit or prosecution of the real architects thereof. Are we ready for it as a nation? Money talks and suckers walk, you do the math.

Comments are closed-

To them, the end justifies the means
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxloen on Jun 5, 2006 11:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Five years after the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, and with no case being formally filed against any conspirators or many of the unknown number of detainees in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Irak, and the illegal jails in Eastern Europe, things are starting to be worked out by people interested in finding what happened during the fascinating inward collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world, a later one of WTC 7, although it was not hit by any airplane, or the complete vaporization of the jumbo airplane that hit the just reinforced wing of the Pentagon.

When you think -cynically, I guess- about it, almost every party to be affected by this event of September 2001, benefited from this 'disaster.' (Except, of course, those killed, their families and loved ones, and then us, the citizens and taxpayers footing the ongoing cost of the scheme.)

This are six of the ways right now I can think of :

WTC- The World Trade Center could have been attacked in an unexpected airplane terrorist act, so tall and alone it stood at the tip of Manhattan. Many people didn't like the towers; too large, and slowly becoming obsolete and expensive to maintain for its purpose. It had conveniently changed owners, what, six months before? It was fully insured, and the new owners coherced the insurance companies to paid them twice, arguing that the event was two occurrences (something like your car being rear ended but because then it hit a tree, you get AAA to pay you double the coverage. Dream on!)

POLITICS- I'm not even trying to go on the political save-ass implications for this administration, which already had an amazingly low approval rate, just eight months after seizing power. Five years later it's support is about 28%, but you bet that even if no one seems to support them, the next elections are going to be 'close' enough to allow them to keep steady pressure trough a miraculous evenly divided Congress. 9/11 it's still paying great dividends considering the practically zero-cost for the ones reaping billionaire benefits from it.

The MILITARY- We have very large bases and troops on or near the oil and gas regions of the old Soviet Union's Asian Republics. Just what a highly mechanized army needs! And the ones in Iraq, besides standing on top of a gas station, are commanding from the despised Saddam's Palaces. Its not like being home, but if you are a career military, at least makes you feel ... special?

(a little more on the second part)

Comments are closed-

To them, the end justifies the means, part 2
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxloen on Jun 5, 2006 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...
OIL- The US has control over the oil of Iraq, if they would only let us readily take it so we can use it to pay ourselves, eh, I mean, the rich guys at Halliburton, Carlyle, et al, and their subordinate contractors, for the their generous contribution of know-how for the 'reconstruction' of the hospitals, schools, power plants, water installations, roads, innumerable public and civil building of all kinds we unnecessarily reduced to rubble (even if they told us that the mission was accomplished with a minimum of resistance, didn't they tell us that?) North-Irak's Kurdish oil is really strategic, and Israel is positioning itself to become 'preferred' partner of the Kurds. Israel's sphere of influence and dynamic economy being fueled by loads of U.S. investments, loans and grants, and of course, cheap Palestinian labor, needs access to oil, non-arab if possible. The US will guarantee Turkey that they will keep the Kurds in line, and just in case, to make sure they don't turn on us, we'll try to convert them to some version of fundamentalist Judo-Christianity.

WATER!- The future 'clear-gold' of which the Middle East has few and precious sources, but is abundant in the Tigris and the Euphrates before they empty into the sea. It just happens that both are inside Iraq. Imagine that! Meanwhile Turkey is already selling water to Israel. That's good. More of Iraq's water can then be sold to the very rich states on the Arabian Peninsula.

About IRAN: China already has strong interests and investments in Iranian oil. The House of Al Saud and the House of Bush want to make it appear as if their interests are not so shamefully incestuous, so as a graceful -apparently- way out, China is being offered access to Saudi oil. In exchange, it may loosen its determination to safeguard its access to Iranian oil. Then, without China's foremost interest being in protecting Iran, wham! it's all for US to take: oil, and ... revenge on the Ayatollahs! Plus an excellent strategic territory near everywhere that matters these days: the Middle East, The Caspian basin and it's pipelines, and direct access to the Indian Ocean. Once in possession of the Iranian oil, Iraq's own can be gracefully shared ($$$) with Europe and Japan. We'll keep just enough to pay for the 'reconstruction' and, of course, a tidy profit for we know who, who in turn will invest it in buying assets in other places in the world. That way, they'll only have to use the troops just in case the 'natives' won't recognize the lackey's name signed on the bill of sale.

Comments are closed-

Still Got Blinders On
[Report this comment]
Posted by: haystack1317 on Jun 6, 2006 12:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland is inevitably going to convince himself that his instincts about the motivation behind this attack are correct and that some version of what is now considered a wild "conspiracy theory" is what actually happened. In my opinion, he should save himself further years of searching and doubting and accept, full-on, that there is no way that the official story is true. He enters this article like he's going to go through all the arguments and then stops after mentioning one or two. It's as if he's afraid of what he'll find out if he explores the facts fully and follows his intellect to the end of that course. Facts are facts, and the ones that are already set in stone completely refute the official account. There is film of multiple explosions going off just before the collapse of the towers. I won't go into the evidence, but perhaps Joshua Holland should have spent more time on the sites that support alternate theories rather than the ones that debunk those theories. My impression is that he's still scared of the truth. Somewhere, somone is thinking about all of us, like Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!" Let's put the pressure on so that the facts may eventually come to light. Articles that tip-toe around these issues might serve a purpose.... they might bring shades of the truth to a general audience..... but for someone attempting to lay the facts bare, this article falls far short.

Comments are closed-

Look at the number of responses!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rockpicker on Jun 6, 2006 1:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Must have hit a record for responses today. Not that the article is great, or even good. But it gets the topic to the front, where it belongs. We need to demand a complete and open investigation, with criminal trials for all involved. Hear me, Dick?

It may be too late. We may have surrendered too many rights and lost too much privacy. For a good place to discuss the future, try cyclone696.blogspot.com And do read Crossing the Rubicon. A must- read!

Comments are closed-

"No one could have seen this coming" was a complete lie.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Jun 6, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FEMA had been practicing this scenario for over 4 years and the US had several warnings from other countries. Go to Sibel Edmonds website "www.justacitizen.org" and get her letter to Keane. We know the administration was lying about being suprised. Start from there.

Comments are closed-

Disappointed
[Report this comment]
Posted by: probspub on Jun 6, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very surprised and disappointed at the lack of depth, as opposed to legnth of this article. The writer could have for example noted without embracing any "fanciful" theory addressed the very real physics that were defied by the way the World Trade Center towers fell, helpfully captured on video, if they were not demolished by neat explosive charge.
Far more dangerous than "rank" speculation is the acceptance of ridiculous Coincidence Theory that demands that we believe on this particular day different from every other day the entire NORAD and defense department infrastructure was led by incompetents and buffons from the command to the pilot level incapable of defending even the Pentagon itself from a single unarmed civilian aircraft or scrambling after the first attack to thwart the rest, and the the President received not one but 50 warnings about attacks -many in detail then went on vacation, that they had no idea who was going to attack but identified (misidentified) the hijackers withing 24 hours, that an airplane can crash land and evaporate. That Michael Hayden translated the Al-Qadea warning a day late and has been rewarded TWICE by the Bush administration (and congress). Et Cetera.
The fanciful conspiracy theory, or coincidence theory is the official version of the attacks on September 11. I don't understand why reasonable people feel compelled to tacitly defend the absurd and disparage common sense questions.

Comments are closed-

the danger of foxes guarding chickens
[Report this comment]
Posted by: steven andresen on Jun 6, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of warning us about foxes guarding chickens is that though one might hire foxes to guard chickens, thinking anyone who wants the job should have a chance at it, it has to be known that foxes are interested in eating chickens and not in protecting them. So, when chickens turn up missing, or the towers were blown up, it would not be wild speculation nor a 'conspiracy theory' to suspect the guards. The guards might be foxes.

I have been more and more suspiciious of the Bush administration regarding their story about 9-11 because they resisted efforts to determine whether the administration itself let it happen or ran it from the inside. I agree that evidence is important, and the lack of any effort to look at evidence, or the existence of an effort to cover up evidence, is important in the same way.

Comments are closed-

It's all about baby steps...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mn on Jun 6, 2006 10:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just investigate one thing at a time. Start with Building 7. Get the total 411 on that situation. It is obviously tied to Enron since the SEC stuff was there. And all the other spook crap that lived in that building. America is over. Stop trying to save it, utterly worthless effort. Constitutional democracies are coming to the world, Washington D.C. just has to get out of the way.

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Controlled Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: David Blayne did it. Posted by: kooz

Comments are closed-

Just a sample of some questions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jun 5, 2006 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My favourite thought-provoker here is David Ray Griffin's book, "A New Pearl Harbour". He doesn't attempt to prove anything, he simply looks at some of the suggested 'evidence' that 9/11 was not as officially stated, and discusses what each implies in terms of degree of complicity. The foreword alone is well worth reading, because there he states clearly and precisely what he's doing and what he's not doing, which is more than most theorists can manage.

I find the physical aspects most persuasive. Having a little (very little) knowledge of engineering and the laws of physics, I couldn't credit that those buildings would fall straight down. Demolition experts work for years at learning how to demolish buildings that way, because it's damn hard to do. The slightest inequity in the forces and your building goes all over the damn shop, tipping one way or another and shaking it all about.

The fires, too. It's really hard to make the fires hot enough to deform the building sufficiently, and even if that had happened the damn things would have toppled over, not dropped straight into their footprint. Again, there's the engineering: if the fire story is true, then WT7 would have been the first ever case in about a century of a steel-framed building collapsing from fire. Which would mean a huge panic as all other steel-framed buildings would now be much less safe then previously thought. Griffin also mentions seismic data, which looks suspicious. At the very least all this stuff means the administration covered up what really happened, as Joshua pointed out. And it's not like this admin doesn't have a track record of lying egregiously.

The missile hitting the Pentagon I'm not convinced of, but this, like all the other points, needs looking into. If there's suggestions that the official story isn't squeaky clean, then a real investigation should have been done. The fact that the Bush admin tried so hard to block, and then choke, the investigation that finally happened, just feeds these theories. The fact that the terms of reference of the investigation were so constrained meant that the panel had almost no choice but to follow the official line from beginning to end. This is why so many people believe theories: they're building their suspicions on past behaviour.

» A couple more salient points Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Just a sample of some questions Posted by: Larry Brewer
» RE: Just a sample of some questions sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com

Comments are closed-

How much have you studied the subject?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hankgeorge on Jun 5, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I encountered Griffin's first book by chance in London. I read it as much out of boredom as anything else. That lead me to the second book...and so on. I have a hard time believing that you cannot find credible evidence supporting the "conspiracy theories" in the finely researched details. If the twin towers did not come down from controlled explosions, nothing in history ever has. As unbullied experts have shown many times now, what was said to have happened simply could not have happened. I think you have either some homework or some soulsearching to do. No one wants to believe anything but the official story. But I, for one, cannot, in the end, simply LIE myself to sleep.

Comments are closed-

A Conspiracy of Dunces
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DavidR95 on Jun 5, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with much of what Joshua Holland wrote in this morning's column. But there is evidence that The White House knew full well the attacks were coming, with fairly detailed information other than the date and specific targets. This is well-documented in an article, "ashington's Darkest Secret," which appeaed in April 2005 and can be found at the following link:

www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Charles0405.htm

In brief, the article quotes current and former national intelligence and security officers as saying that George Tenet's mad flight to Bush's Crawford ranch in August, 2001, was to inform him that a mole buried inside al Qaeda had passed word of the attacks sometime in July or early August. If there was a conspiracy of any kind, and I'm not sure there was, it might be that Bush, Cheney and the neocons decided to let it happen rather than mobilise the FBI, CIA, FAA and local police to prevent it.

In any event, as history has shown, it was a consiracy of dunces to borrow a phrase from John Kennedy O'Toole.

» Verifiable True Fact Posted by: ceti
» I would have to say.... Posted by: HeidiLockwood

Comments are closed-

The problem with conspiracies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oldsmobile on Jun 5, 2006 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have kept an open mind about the events of 911 but I can't help but be troubled by some of the conspiracy theories out there.

It seems they follow a similar pattern, usually a question that has not been answered adequetly or not at all by the official story is taken and speculated and guessed to death based on little more than assumptions and the total excaggeration of crumbs of information.

I agree there are many strange going ons around the whole affair, but stating theories as fact gets us nowhere. See how for instance the "did a plane or something else hit the pentagon" discussion ran wild untill someone pointed out that there were indeed pictures of airplane debris on the lawn, not good ones, but they are in the public domain.

What I am saying is, it is okay to develop theories, even wild ones, but don't be so damn sure of everything, it ruins your credibility, since many of the things can be totally disproven by the government simply by publsihing a single photograph or video.

» yeah deny the facts... Posted by: ShoShenQ
» RE: yeah deny the facts... Posted by: ShoShenQ
» RE: yeah deny the facts... Posted by: oldsmobile
» RE: The problem with conspiracies Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: the Kennedy assasination Posted by: oldsmobile

Comments are closed-

I never thought
[Report this comment]
Posted by: paulaH on Jun 5, 2006 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of myself as a conspiracy theorist until the Bush Administration came along. I'm still not in most things. I tend to be as far as 9-11, though.

When I saw the first plane hit, my first thought was, "it's started." My second thought was, "Bush and his friends are behind it." Why did I think this? I'm not sure. When I saw Bush's face when they told him, it looked to me like he was trying very hard not to smirk in pleasure. It's also interesting that everyone seemed to be missing from New York that day which is unusual.

Add to that we had a president that half the country didn't accept as president. Never mind his approval ratings, many people simply did not accept him as the president. What would be the only way for a president with his lack of support from the American people be able to garner that support? War, of course. But war on foreign soil wouldn't do it. It would have to be DOMESTIC. They didn't want to actually bring an entire war here, though, so what's the next best thing? A terrorist attack. Contained; relatively small loss of life and property; would achieve the desired result. Which it did.

This is far too coincidental. I do not believe in coincidence.

As for the explosions, I have a friend that is an explosives expert and according to him, those buildings are designed not to fall like that. He says the chances of those buildings coming down like that from the planes are practically nil.

So, sorry, although there's no physical evidence--which without the investigation the Bush Admin doesn't want--I am fully convinced

» RE: I never thought Posted by: wli
» RE: I never thought (neither did I) Posted by: SimmaDownNah!
» RE: I never thought Posted by: nitsua1023
» Bush smirk Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Bush smirk Posted by: mirimac

Comments are closed-

Government of secrets
[Report this comment]
Posted by: feduphoosier on Jun 5, 2006 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider that we still don't know what happened to either JFK or Robert Kennedy, in spite of an astounding array of 'irregularities' in the official versions of their deaths. I think we can safely assume that 9/11 will land in that growing heap of 'never to be explained' events. Make up your own mind – but don’t expect the government to give you truth. Keeping secrets is the one thing they do very well.

» RE: Government of secrets Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Government of secrets Posted by: feller
» RE: Government of secrets sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com

Comments are closed-

Richard McGinn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mcginn on Jun 5, 2006 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, Josh, it works like this. The government reports (what it wants) and you decide (what's rational). And NOBODY INVESTIGATES! Check your gut. How does it feel to lose your freedom and your dignity at the same time? They said it could never happen here. It just happened to you. Who is next?

Comments are closed-

How extraordinary are the claims, truly?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wli on Jun 5, 2006 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
False flag attacks are ancient; the name itself dates to state sponsorship of piracy from half a millenium ago. The false flags of the state being attacked would be flown by the state-sponsored pirates (e.g. Francis Drake, Henry Morgan) to disguise their ships as those of the nationality being attacked to allow closer approaches for the attacks.

Far from extraordinary, such methods are routine, and routinely employed by governments against their own populations. As recently as the Iraq conflict the US painted its fighter jets to remove or change their markings so that their provocations would have a higher probability of succeeding. The infamous "strategy of tension" in the 1970's Italy in featured secret agents of the Italian government, many of whom, granted, were acting on behalf of the CIA, carrying out acts of terrorism to "discredit the left." Need I say "Judi Bari?" The FBI is carbombing US citizens Iraq-style on US soil, getting caught doing it, and still getting away with it.

Furthermore, military attacks against a country's own population are routine in general. The numerous death squad dictatorships the CIA has installed did so mercilessly, to the point where numerous of their attacks have strong cases for being genocide (ethnic Mayans in Guatemala, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, numerous others). What were Hitler and Stalin so reviled for? Or Pol Pot? Or even (gasp!) Saddam Hussein?

It's far beyond hubris to claim that it can't happen here. Military attacks on the citizenry, assassination and framejob campaigns against dissidents, death squads, false flag terrorist attacks, and the like are the bread and butter of statecraft. Claims that the US government carried out 9/11 are as mundane as claims that Nike made a particular shoe or Shaquille O'Neal played in a specific game of basketball. One of the few differences is that the US government will deny it regardless of whether it did it or not.

That said, I shouldn't let the 9/11 truth people off the hook, either. What do they think they'll accomplish by proving beyond a doubt that the US government did something quite ordinary that it was quite probable it did in the first place? It's like proving beyond all doubt that earthworms live in the dirt, or that water is wet, except (of course) that it takes more effort to collect the evidence. The premises for the War on Terror and the Iraq War are blatant enough bullcrap even without adding that to the mix. The purported perpetrator is a CIA asset, so at worst not relying on the false flag interpretation of 9/11 embarasses the US into staging the capture of one of its own secret agents (who is probably even dead). Does anyone seriously think the perpetrators of 9/11 within the US government can or will be brought to justice? No way; not even the boldest 9/11 truth "activists" is calling for the arrest of specific officials. All that aside, despite all the independent investigation, the specifics of "whodunit" beyond vagueness like "the government" is still quite lacking, and not likely to ever be resolved.

It'll burn you up, and it well should, but they have already gotten away with it.

Comments are closed-

I believe Bush Co. was behind it all, but
[Report this comment]
Posted by: terradea on Jun 5, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what? We already know the GOP illegally manipulated the 2004 election, and that Bush was put into office even though Kerry won (see facts in Kennedy's research, Rolling Stone). Nothing is going to change, no one in power will be held accountable. When and if we finally get the facts showing Bush and his regime were the planners of 9-11, the same thing will happen; nothing. So...why all the fuss?

» Mom? Posted by: sln70

Comments are closed-

science and motivation not speculation or lies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 5, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should base our opinion on 9/11 not on speculation or lies but on science and motivation. Who had the greatest financial motivation for 9/ll? Who had the greatest political motivation for 9/11? Who did the most coverup on 9/11? Who holds the most secrets for 9/11? Who stage-managed the 9/11 investigation after fighting for no investigation at all? Who has resisted bringing true science into the investigation? Who resisted bringing bomb and demolition experts into the investigation? The answer is blowing in the winds of corruption and dominion. The answer is the Bushies to all of the above questions. The preponderance of the evidence to all the above questions points to the Bushies. If we had an impeachment trial for the Bushies proof and preponderance would squarely point to the Bushies. IMPEACH!

Comments are closed-

GaryWenkleSmith
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GaryWenkleSmith on Jun 5, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is much to debate about 9/11. Perhaps the easiest way to enlightment is answering how Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed on its own footprint. There is no mention of it in the 9/11 Commission Report, and apparently, according to the Zogby Poll, most Americans who believe that the 9/11 Commission Report was accurate were unaware of the collapse of Building 7.

» Good Point Gary Posted by: Neilium
» RE: GaryWenkleSmith Posted by: famouspipeliner

Comments are closed-

The Israelies knew it was happening
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kooz on Jun 5, 2006 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 9/11 strike wasn't a surprise nor was it brilliant execution. There is too much evidence that the plot was exposed, conspiritors were revealed and our intelligence (so-called) community did nothing. When the daily brief to Bush that said Bin Laden intends to hijack planes and fly them into buldings went comveniently ignored you have to believe that they knew it was coming and wanted it to happen. Which leads to the Israelis. In New Jersey a women reported a group of Arab looking men jumping up and down celebrating the attack as they watched from the infomous white van. When police investigated it turned out that they were illegal Israelis and they were eventually sent back to Israel as most of the Israeli criminalsl are when they get caught breaking our laws. Israelis knew 9/11 was coming and wanted it so we would get drawn into war against the Arabs with them.
Instead, we should make peace with the Arabs and blow the hell out of Israel and eventually there will be peace in the Middle East if we do.

Comments are closed-

for all who are wondering
[Report this comment]
Posted by: calibandita on Jun 5, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look up a movie called "Loose Change" on google or another search engine. It was created by a few professors at UC Berkley. It shows clearly, with the use of science & physics, how almost all of the claims of what went on 911 were highly unlikely if not flat out impossible. This movie opened my eyes like no other.

» RE: for all who are wondering Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: for all who are wondering Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: for all who are wondering Posted by: chipmunk stew
» Great stuff. Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

What total crap...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: John Rice on Jun 5, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it is for Alternetters and other posters to state it is impossible for meaningful change to occur, or to claim that 9-11 and other mysteries can not or will not be solved. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" (Albert Einstein). The sheep become self-fulfilling prophets by doing nothing--or worse yet, by proclaiming or feigning their own impotence.

Meaningful change of governance is not only possible, but more likely now than ever before, and it will succeed only if people believe it can. Ghandi said it best: "Be the change in the world you want to see." If you want change to occur--then help to make it happen by your own actions.

Just don't count on Dems or Reps to do it for you, because they are both unalterably corrupted. We need a new political paradigm and the best alternative I see (awaiting everyones' input) is the Neither Party. (www.neitherparty.org )

We look forward to your help.
Regards,,,John
( john_rice@neitherparty.org )

» Off the subject Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Off the subject Posted by: nehark
» RE: Off the subject Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Off the subject Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Re: Insanity / Franklin Posted by: TheySayImUnamerican
» RE: e: Insanity / Franklin Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

If there was no conspiracy before there has surely
[Report this comment]
Posted by: owlbear1 on Jun 5, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
been one After.

Comments are closed-

A possible solution
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jun 5, 2006 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many expert demolition companies throughout the world and the plans for these buildings are available. These experts can accurately calculate exactly how many explosive charges, where they should be placed, and the strength of each charge required to bring these buildings straight down.

It shouldn't be too difficult for them to calculate the effect of different strength charges placed at the crash points. We would then know the likelihood of these buildings falling as they did. If the government wants to dispel the conspiracy rumors they could hire one company to make this study and then hire several more to confirm or deny its findings.

» RE: A possible solution Posted by: Gravy
» The point being . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: The point being . . . Posted by: brunowe
» The point STILL being . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: The point STILL being . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: The point STILL being . . . Posted by: jobie1kno
» RE: The point STILL being . . . Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: zipper696
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: felix
» RE: A possible solution Posted by: chipmunk stew
» hey chipmunk Posted by: kellysgarden
» WRONG AGAIN Posted by: chipmunk stew
» RE: hey chipmunk Posted by: chipmunk stew
» The truth shall set you free Posted by: YogiBear
» BETTER STILL.. Posted by: Neilium
» A man convinced against his will Posted by: itzamirakul

Comments are closed-

Hijacker identities
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gravy on Jun 5, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, there'a s good examination of the "living hijackers" myth at www.911myths.com. The stories you referred to were in September and October, 2001, when there was still some confusion regardiing the hijackers' identities, partly because of identity theft, and partly because people with the same names as the hijackers were alive. Those questions of identity were resolved in November, 2001. Shortly thereafter a Saudi government investigation also concluded that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Comments are closed-

Christie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Christie on Jun 5, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought you had made a breakthrough in your thinking until the end of the article when you call the demolition theory fanciful. Read Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF ret., “our air defenses stood down” and Steven Jones, professor of physics, who after long study concluded the building collapses were due to “controlled demolition”. Then come back and talk about 9/11 “conspiracy theories” (Articles by each of these men are on 9/11truth.org.)

I certainly do not agree with all the theories. The fact President Bush read “My Pet Goat” for seven minutes after being informed about the second airplane is “so what, look how long before he responded to Katrina, and we know he did not conspire to cause that.” And, in my opinion, the Pentagon information is just too fuzzy to prove anything contrary to the official report.

I am sorry that apparently you were not more fully informed before you wrote this article. Or perhaps it is just too scary?

Well, here is the next installment. No need for another 9/11. This is just so much easier. After all, who would believe...

http://www.opednews.com
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written a brilliant new article about the biggest political story in the history of the United States: An American politician illegitimately took the office of president by outright theft and fraud. Although such high crimes and misdemeanors have been rumored in previous elections, none in the history of the republic have been so thoroughly documented. George W. Bush is not the legitimate president of the United States.

Why is this information not being reported in the mainstream media? Just press delete? Ahhh, there, time to start the barbecue grill. So relaxing. Not even any need to decide for whom to vote. All decided for us.

» STUPID WHITE MEN Posted by: Neilium

Comments are closed-

What about WTC7?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on Jun 5, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that the collapse of WTC Building 7 has all but been ignored by the MSM when there is any talk of 9/11 "conspiracy"? This building collapsed on it's own footprint 5 hours after the attacks, with only minor exterior damage, and 2 small fires. If you do just a little research, you'll also see that 2 buildings standing between WTC 1,2 and & 7 did not collapse. Watch the "Loose Change" video on Google, and read "Crossing the Rubicon". They'll open your eyes...

» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: Gravy
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: MarkyX
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What about WTC7? Posted by: Skipper
» WTC7 = "smoking gun" Posted by: YinRising
» Alternet IS mainstream media Posted by: LeonDion

Comments are closed-

What about my pet goat?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: p4th on Jun 5, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't get me wrong, I don't put anything past Bush and Cheney but if they had REALLY known that 9-11 was going to happen don't you think they would have scripted a better photo-op for the president than reading "My Pet Goat" for 10 minutes after he was told what was happening.

» why ? Posted by: Tris
» RE: Exactly Posted by: kooz
» RE: why ? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: What about my pet goat? - good point Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: What about my pet goat? Posted by: fuzypupy

Comments are closed-

Joshua--What will it take....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: John Rice on Jun 5, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
before you could utter the words--our government betrayed us--(ie. the Maine; Tonkin Gulf etc.) again?

Instead you proclaim: "But that kind of evidence is almost certainly not forthcoming; there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9/11. Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account."

The above statement from you is in the same category of statements as blaming the victim for getting raped.

Tell us--what other differences from the stated official explanations would you allow before your rationality alarm goes off?
Would you have to stick your finger in the wound, so to speak?
What would it take before your refusal to believe all of these inconsistencies was overcome by what amounts to overwhelming evidence you and the official explanations were wrong?

WTC Building 7 was "pulled" (meaning intentionally imploded with explosives)--the owner said so on tape. It takes days and weeks of elaborate preparations and materials to "pull" a building in a professional manner. WTC#7 HAD TO HAVE BEEN PLANNED IN ADVANCE, and if that is true, then everything else connected to it is at least suspect and should be subject to our best scrutiny as well. And if saying this self-labels me as a conspiracy theorist, oh well--today's conspiracy theorist is also today's realist. (And today's realist is tomorrow's activist.)

Which brings me to this: “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. . . . We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (A senior White House advisor (Summer 2002) to Ron Suskind)

Joshua--what will it take for you to finish with this all-too-judicious studying, and call for a democratic rebellion?
Regards,,,John
( john_rice@neitherparty.org )

Comments are closed-

Of course they're guilty.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 5, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's all the fuss about? You know all that you need to know alraedy.

So what whether Bush et al. were actually behind 9-11? What matters is that we know for an iron clad fact (all argument s of "you don't know what blah blah blah" aside - yes, I do know!) that they would have if they had thought of it and that they thought that they could pull it off.

Furthermore, who that hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid would doubt for a nanosecond that these sociopaths wouldn't do it in the future? That's all that matters. You want people that consider such tactics abhorrent and immoral, not just merely too hard for them.

I never need to know for certain just how complicit these villains were. I know how depraved they are, and that says everything that I or you need to know. Is there anybody who doubts that knowing how it turned out that the Bush-babies would have lifted a finger to prevent it?

Do you think that if they had the opportunity to push it along that they would not because it was immoral? Or that if Wolfowitz or some other neocom golem came to Cheney and Rumsfield with blueprints for a 9-11 all worked out in detail that they would bristle at the thought or report such people to the authorities? [If you know what a spit take is, please envision one now]

Conspiracy theory? You mean conspiracy hypothesis, don't you? Who would make the suggestion that conservatives would meet behind closed doors and make secret plans? That's what a conspiracy is. Does that kind of thing ever happen, or do you suppose that the party of transparency has all of its meetings in public forums?

What kind of imbecile would doubt that there are 500 conspiracies being considered or implemented TODAY? Don't be ashamed or afraid of a conspiracy hypothesis. Be ashamed if you don't consider it a possibility. Embarrassing you for even suggesting it is a powerful proactive technique.

Comments are closed-

Some serious questions about conspiracy...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tris on Jun 5, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched 'Loose Change' and other movies about the conspiracy theories.... True, it's very interesting but still, there is a few thing bothering me.

First, it's not really possible for 'normal' people to check all the videos they show in the movie. So if it's possible to make 4 planes vanish from the sky and blow up the towers, it's also quite easy to temper with some video to show what ever you want, including funny pods under planes and demolition explosions...... In one word, if you can't trust the US government, can you trust this people ?

The second thing, far more important is a question they don't answer at all. How many people (and who ???) do you need for such a conspiracy ?
And I'm not talking about people looking the other way or covering evidences. I mean, people planting tons of explosives in civil buildings, people readying and flying missiles or remotly guided planes, people pushing buttons knowing full well what they are doing, and so on.... If there were 3 or 4 marksmen to kill JFK, we are talking here about 10s of people.
Where are they ? Why none of them surfaced yet ?
Until someone anwers this questions, it's really hard for me to belive in the full-power conpiracy......
So it looks like the same story all over again : poisonig-the-well - the conspiracy in the conspiracy. Make the conspiracy looking so big and unbelievable so anybody questioning the official truth looks like one more conpiracy-nut....
All in all, I believe the US government looked the other way (or maybe they even helped a little bit with money, visa, whatever....) while the terrorists were planning the attacks...... but I'm afraid we will never know......

» Ask Any Shooter Posted by: Neilium
» RE: Ask Any Shooter II Posted by: thorlives

Comments are closed-

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
[Report this comment]
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 5, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three towers, not two fell on September 11.

They all fell the same, SPLAT. Straight down into their footprints.

Tower 7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANYTHING AT ALL.

The second tower to be hit by a plane fell first. The plane that hit that tower hit it at a glance and ALL THE FUEL EXPLODED OUTSIDE THE TOWER. Yet somehow, the impact was enough to cause this tower to fall first, and to fall at the speed of gravity SPLAT.

The first tower to be hit fell last. True, the plane's fuel went inside the tower and there was definitely a fire going. But all the firemen rushed in to save the people and felt quite safe in doing so because fires don't make big, steel-reinforced towers go SPLAT.

Richard Grove, whistleblower on the Meria Heller Show: click here where we learn that Giuliana, Petacki and Spitzer were complicit in the take-down of the towers, and the trillions of bold bullion that was stolen the morning of the attack, how Marhsal, McClellan and others were in on it too.

Alex Jones documentary: 9/11- Road to Tyranny
click here


Listen to Alex Jones here on GCN radio. click heret

Watch Loose Change 2 video? click here

Have any of you googled Bush/Illuminati to see the photos of GWB and Laura flashing the Illuminati hand signs all during the inauguration -- with demonic smirks on their faces?

Bush is doing all this as a Christian (he's anything but) in order to bring down the United States and cause Christians to take the fall for it.

» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: resistance6
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: brunowe
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: brunowe
» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB Posted by: russianblue1
» See the discussion here Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

Joshua’s “belief” in a fascist administration’s innocence Part I
[Report this comment]
Posted by: IanA on Jun 5, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland comes off having written a pretty weak article this time. Usually his reasoning is clearer. The last paragraph conclusion “by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account.” (aside from the spelling – scepticism) is pure bunkum. A vacuum of fact is naturally filled with a full spectrum of speculation and “belief”. The questions remain though, did individuals at the White House know more or less? How can Mr. Holland say which notion is “fanciful”. We are talking about his belief. What we all need is facts.

The assertion that the Bush administration and some agencies of the government were in some way involved with the events leading to 9/11 and in the managing, hiding, and destruction of evidence after the fact is supported by evidence. Responsibility for coordination and control can only be established by proper criminal investigation.

Prior events:
Numerous prior warnings given,
Blocking of investigations and communications,
Connections between unusual “put” orders, and ex-senior CIA persons,
Bush family relations to security of WTC coincide with measures involving building
down time to specific areas of the building
Connection between Bush and Bin-Ladin
Prior changes in visa issueing in Saudi Arabia despite warned security risks in
Washington
Commercial flight travel warning given to State and Federal Govt. personnel
Stand down of military protocols
Purchase and special insurance of the WTC complex to cover such a specific event.

Post event:
Removal, destruction, hiding, or lying about forensic evidence from all sites.
Special transportation and removal of vital persons out of USA, while all other flights
grounded
Contradictions in denials of previous knowledge, latterly shown as lies.
Third party confirmation of building “demolition”.
Narrow-referenced, white-washed, and incomplete investigation in support government
contention.
Physical evidence that does not tally with events as described by report.
A concerted effort to prevent further transparent and independent investigation
(cover-up).


The above is only a partial list.

Comments are closed-

Michael Meacher's allegations
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tmwright on Jun 5, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a member of Parliment and Tony Blair's Interior Minister made the following allegation in a September 6, 2003 article in The Guardian

"First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested."

This guy is not a wild eyed conspiracy theorist but rather a government minister who resigned in protest over the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. As far as I can tell, his claims received little media attention in the USA.

Comments are closed-

You've taken a bath on this issue?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EricVerlo on Jun 5, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland says he's taken a long bath in the world of 9/11 and decries it as rank conspiracy theory, unsupported by any evidence.

It looks like you took that bath in a bird bath. Your usually insightful analysis offered nothing for us to look at this morning. You do us all a disservice by purporting to debunk 9/11 while giving us merely a broadstroke dismissal.

I've given your piece a luxurious read and found the language of a gatekeeper.

Comments are closed-

Brilliant my eye!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wilburnwilliams on Jun 5, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Muddleheaded rubbish. Shouldn't Iraqis, dying by the tens of thousands in a vicious conflict that might yet degenerate into all-out civil war, be numbered among the toll of 9/11? Did the citizens of Afghanistan give bin Laden permission to use their country as the base for attacks that have had horrific consequences for them? We are all diminished by the 9/11 attacks, all made losers--in New York, in Baghdad, in Kabul, and wherever else there are people who believe that murder, whether of the mass or single variety, is no solution to human problems.

Comments are closed-

Conspiracy Theory???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maturin42 on Jun 5, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only conspiracy theory I have heard has Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's signatures on it. The official commission report is a tissue of falslified timelines, mendacious and self-serving testimony, far-fetched defenses of the military and NORAD, and outright fabrication that seeks to tie the events of 9/11 into a coherent story that is consistent with what the thugs who run our government want us to believe. Things that don't fit are simply left out. Nobody else has tried to create a theory around the events of 9/11 to that extent. Most have just asked questions about things that don't add up or that are inconsistent with any "official" account. Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon does the best job of exhaustive questioning, and provides a great many answers through dogged pursuit of the truth. "Loose Change" is a good compendium of unanswered questions and challenges to the official line. If you are not a "conspiracy theorist" with regard to 9/11, you are not paying attention.

Comments are closed-

Joshua is putting in a good effort, but he's unqualified
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chuckville on Jun 5, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, I commend you on at least writing about this issue, but as someone who has studied this issue for more than 4 solid years, poring over both the Kean Commission report and hundreds of pages of independent research, watching a slew of documentaries, and having gone to a number of International 9/11 Truth convergences, (aside from being a former Board Member of 9/11 Truth.org) I have to say that just because you haven't seen good evidence does not mean there isn't any, and that it isn't there.

The evidence is overwhelming, but, unfortunateltly, much of it is, sadly, circumstantial. But this does not negate that evidence, it just makes it harder to wield. The very nature of the cover-up is as such that great pains were taken to remove any and all potential "smoking guns."

I liken this situation to astronomers finding a new planet somewhere in the galaxy. They can't actually see the planet, but they can clearly chart the influence of the planet's gravity on other celestial bodies around it, and the equations always add up. In 9/11 Truth, the issue of complicity is the unseen, but completely felt presense of the US establishment--and please understand, no credible 9/11 researcher thinks "THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION" planned and executed the attacks, the attacks were planned and orchestrated by rogue elements in the intelligence services of at least 4 nations, the DOD and its military contractors, the oil and corporate/banking sector, and the usual crew of patsies and useful dupes like Moussaoui, the delusional paranoid schitzophrenic, and Richard Ried, the partially retarded derelict who was produced by the MI-6 (British Intelligence) school for patsies at Finbury mosque in London. Moussaoui claimed the two were going to fly a plane into the White House, but in truth the two could hardly have hijacked a pushcart.

Joshua, there is so much you (and most) simply do not know, have not studied, or do not understand, enough for you to make the assumptions, and conclusions, you draw. I recommend you attend a Truth convergence (the most recent just ended Sunday in Chicago) and do some real investigating, not just putter around the web. Researchers like Steven Jones were actually backchanneled real physical evidence and information which helped them draw up their theories on the bogus collapse (controlled demo) of WTC7, and other areas of study. I am curious to see what official documents or physical evidence you have seen.

I don't want to condem you or pass judgement, because I respect the fact that you are the only Alternet writer willing to tackle this issue. But, you're tackling like a pansy, and you need to put your head down and hit the center of the issue.

There is simply too much evidence to claim that this was "blowback" and our response was "to hijack catastrophe". Here's a hint: look at the history and condition of the WTC itself on 9/11...

» F.Y.I. Posted by: aussidawg

Comments are closed-

Dr. Andy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DoctorAndy on Jun 5, 2006 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That 911 was an inside job is now no conspiracy "theory," rather a conspiracy fact. Let us move on:

How does a self-proclaimed FREE society exercise an almost ironclad suppression of the TRUTH in this matter for over four YEARS now?

» RE: Dr. Andy Posted by: Gravy
» RE: Dr. Andy Posted by: IanA
» Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Give us a break! Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

Would Republican's conspire to break the law for power and money? DUH!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 5, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the author implies that because he cannot PROVE from a distance that the administration was complicit in 911, that to think otherwise is "rank conspiracy theory, unsupported by any serious evidence". What constitutes serious evidence. The posters above have made compelling cases that bear further investigation by somebody with the power of subpoena and the will and ability to evaluate this matter, something which anybody familiar with this administration knows hasn't been done yet. Isn't that more evidence of complicity?

Couldn't I say the same thing about global warming? It's unproved, so it's rank speculation. Isn't that the right's usual comment?

For chrissakes, this isn't a trial (yet), so presumption of innocence or the need of proof indicating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt do not apply. I have to make decisions TODAY about what happened (like preparing to get the f**k out of this country) based on the available evidence, and because of the inconsistencies, the obvious whitewash by Congress, the administration's efforts to block the investigation followed by its unwillingness to comply with it and my knowledge of the values of the neocons are enough for me to conclude that they should be viewed as complicit until proved otherwise.

This stinks, and it makes me nervous that Mr. Holland would take the weak position that he did and to suggest that such ideas are rank conspiracy theories. "Prove it" is what he implies. Not possible from here. So I say, DISPROVE IT, and util you do, I'll be just fine with my "rank conspiracy theory"

A conspiracy is merely a secret plan. In a benign sense, a surprise birthday party is a conspiracy. Question: would the Republicans have discussions behind closed doors and make plans in them? If you think 'yes', then you think that they conspire (like everyone else). Question: Do you think such meetings include discussions that would be damning or incriminating if they got out such as planning unethical or illegal activities? These are no brainers. Anybody who tells you that conspiracy hypothesis equals paranoid lunacy is doing you a disservice.

Comments are closed-

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (more)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 5, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To correct my comment above, I said the first tower to be hit fell last. Actually it fell second. Tower 7 fell last (the one that wasn't hit at all.) And Tower 7 fell FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF GRAVITY. Why? The explosives gave it more momentum than it would have had in a pure free-fall.

A good place to buy bumper stickers that say IMPEACH BUSH and 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB/OUR NATION IS IN DANGER is

HERE


9/11 was an inside job. Buildings don't go SPLAT into their footprints because there's a fire in the top floors. Especially buildings like the Twin Towers and Building 7.

» RE: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (more) Posted by: kellysgarden
» ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! Not really Posted by: YogiBear
» Newton knew Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Newton knew Posted by: chuckville
» RE: Newton knew Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

We Don`t NEED Proof !!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Jun 5, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story by Joshua will no doubt move over into the "most
commented" column. Perhaps most commented on ever!
After reading all posts so far I agree with most of them!
HeroesAll...paulaH....Wli..ect. As "wli" basically says.."staging
acts of terror is nothing new"! Been happening forever with
the result being a free ticket to do whatever! Surely we all
are aware that our government isn`t the the "all Holy,Pure and White " ...that it assumes itself to be!! But I agree with
paulaH more than anything when she said she "felt" this to
be our own doing! Although "feeling" something won`t hold up in a debate or a court case as absolute truth.....our basic
"intuitions,hunches,suspicions....FEELINGS" about our world
are really all we need.We don`t need PROOF!
We can argue till the next "blue moon" about conspiracies
and proof but I know without a doubt like millions more ....
our government had a hand in what happened that day...no proof needed! http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/researchgovresearch.htm
I found this site to be of particular intrest!

Comments are closed-

WTC7
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on Jun 5, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so, how did it collapse, then?

» RE: WTC7 Posted by: chipmunk stew

Comments are closed-

the 9/11 "truth movement"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: esactun on Jun 5, 2006 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9/11. Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account.

I think this thread adequately proves this point.

Comments are closed-

worried but willing to fight for life, and freedoms
[Report this comment]
Posted by: concerned Canadian on Jun 5, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the American public has been brainwashed into believing that being skeptical of the offically presented truth by this government and are being labelled 'conspiracy theorists' for doubting such officially presented truth. So,forget the fact that the admin team resorts to attempting to discredit unbelievers of its official 'truths' with the use of NAME CALLING. Forget the fact that the admin team resorts to attempting to discredit unbelievers of its official 'truths' by resorting to AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Forget that a freshman in university already has studied LOGIC 101 and knows that if he/she resorted to such arguments, he/she would fail the Logic 101 course. Forget the fact that the laws of Physics and Chemistry will now have to be revised completely and all engineering courses at all universities will have to revise their curriculums which is founded on these present laws of Physics and Chemistry. Come on now, you know that such professors who dare to side on the side of these laws are all 'conspiracty thoerists' if not in fact terrorists fighting to suppress the "mother" of all 'truths' - the 911 government's official version of 911. Forget the fact that the eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania would have had to lie in concert - all of these of course, according to Bush and Cheney belong to the conspiracy theorists whose sole purpose on the face of the earth is todiscredit this honourable adminsitration's version of its official truth. Come on, you know that all of Pennsylvania is full of conspiracy theorists, haters of Republicans for sure. So there. Forget what a closeup view of the planes' show you. Come on now, look at the truth eh? Check out those photos we, the admin team presented you our good people with. I remember well the photo of one Lee Harvey Oswald, a rifle in one hand, a Commie newspaper in the other in our LIFE magazine, presented to us as absolute gospel government presented truth that this lone Commie, democracy hater that he was, was solely responsbile for the assassination of your then President. Oh yeah, nobody said anything really bad about the perps who , as it turned out, had constructed that photo to make fiction seem to be the truth. So yes, forget that ! Forget what demolition experts would be willing to testify to. After all, demolition experts are wrong. The admin testifies to that and so shall you believe. Forget the fact that the 911 Commission only included in its report what would fit the facts as predetermined by the 'official version' of the honourable administration of this democratic nation. Forget the testimony of the brave firefighters who have pieced the puzzle together re the explosions and whose expertise in these matters has committed them to be willing to testify to the commission that the explosions did not come from the planes. Come on, please remember that the admin team has told you that such reports are to be ignored. Why? Well, for one, they contradict what the admin team has told you. Two? Come on, just forget them. Forget the fact that of the country's entire Air Force, not a single plane was dispatched to fight the so called terrorist attacks. Come on now, the Air Force can't do everything like listen to what our admin team tells them to ignore until we tell them otherwise AND defend the skies of the United States of American which they are pledged to defend. Come on, you know who the commander and chief is, yes? And you know that only by his authority would honourable men and women of the armed services stand down from doing their duty ? Ok, then. So think. Remember that and forget the facts that would force you to admit that there is a problem with all of this stuff you are being asked to forget. If you believe that 'aliens' were responsible, ok., only problem is that the responsible parties are alien to the truth. Or has truth telling been been officially decreed a conspiracy theory?

Comments are closed-

Conspiracy Theories, et al.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tiellis on Jun 5, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before 9/11, I was generally skeptical of most conspiracy theories, which often seemed shrill and paranoid, and begged the question "Who is 'They' and where did they get the awesome power to dupe so many people, with such precision and consistency, over so long a period?"

But then I read David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor." Griffin is the polar opposite of the wild-eyed conspiracy nut; he is a distinguished, retired theologian from Claremont Theological Seminary, with impressive academic credentials from the last 30 years, and a knack for closely reasoned argument backed by meticulous evidence.

Griffin's book points no fingers directly, but it does raise a series of compelling questions, utterly ignored in the official 9/11 report, which are impossible for any reasonable person to ignore, and which, taken together, point directly to high-level government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Among these, the most compelling ones for me are as follows:

(1) Why were all standard and frequently practiced NORAD procedures for intercepting hijacked airliners simply ignored (or suspended) on 9/11? Griffin makes a compelling case that if standard procedures had been followed, all four jetliners could easily have been intercepted.

(2) Why, without precedent and in complete violation of the laws of physics, did the two towers collapse, symmetrically and at freefall rate, into their own footprints--after the initial fires had already cooled and were mostly smoke?

(3) Why was there a 1000% surge of "put" options on the stocks of the airlines and other corporations most directly affected by 9/11, the day before it happened?

(4) Why did Building 7 collapse at all, considering that it was not even hit?

(5) Why were the remains of the steel girders of the Twin Towers immediately removed to a scrapyard, prior to any forensic investigation of them?

(6) Why were the Black Boxes of the airliners never (reported to be) found, while, strangely, an Arab passport turned up unscathed?

(7) How did a "plane"--a hollow aluminum tube--penetrate three layers of the best fortified (and best defended) building in the world (the Pentagon) at ground level, without its "wings" making any impact on the face of the building, without a yellow fireball (as was the case with the Twin Towers), and without any airline debris or corpses scattered on the smooth green lawn directly in front of the building? (Compare the photos of the Pentagon--if you can still find them on the web--with the photos of any other airline crash, and you'll see the vast difference: How could an airplane leave an oval-shaped hole in the building anyway, with no trace of wing impact (contrary to the obvious airline-shaped horizontal slits left in the Twin Towers).

(8) How is it that immediately after 9/11, there were no Arabic names listed on the available passenger lists of the lost jets? (They were added later).

These obvious questions only skim the surface. But no mainstream newspaper has asked them, or has even published a review of Griffin's tightly reasoned book, which abounds with meticulously researched evidence. Why has he not been interviewed on any mainstream television channels?

These glaring anomalies leave me without any doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job. But I doubt that the perpetrators will ever be discovered or prosecuted.

Comments are closed-

the buildings fell straight down, for god's sake...how much evidence..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ScottGregory on Jun 5, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see 911revisited
THREE buildings collapsed in free-fall. Only two were hit by planes. Go figure. You Holland are just another disinformation shill. The Americna people are catching on to the conspiracy of the entire class elite against them. It can only lead one direction.

Comments are closed-

A little primer in propaganda and cover-up
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting quote:

"Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World Trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account."

Now, why is it so hard for people to come to grips with the nature of government propaganda and corporate crisis management strategies? The last thing Bush, Rove, Mueller, etc. want is a clear analysis of the events leading up to 9/11. The '9-11 truth networks' have been among their most effective strategies to avoid this.

For example, there is yet to be an explanation as to why Ashcroft quit flying on commercial aircraft during the summer of 2000.

There is still no clear explanation why FBI field agents were refused access to the FISA court so they could search Zacarais Moussoui's computer - at the whim of their superiors at FBI headquarters.

Then, there were the numerous reports by different flight school owners about suspicious characters wanting to learn to fly 747s.

The CIA delivered a memo to President Bush warning of impending terrorist strikes within the US, but Bush took no action after receiving his August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing. If he had taken action, wouldn't there be some evidence? Warnings to airport security, at the very least?

Numerous foreign governments delivered warnings about high levels of activity in terrorist networks to the US government that summer.

Is it really any surprise that the hijackers may have used their Al Queda supporters to obtain false identification and visas? What about the Pakistani ISI involvement?

After watching this issue carefully, the scenario that seems to make the most sense is that the Bush team thought that hijcakings of US aircraft by terrorists were on the horizon, and that such hijackings would help them achieve their domestic and foreign goals. By Aug 6th, they knew that the #1 political sponsor of Bush was going belly up with fraud and corruption - Enron, that is. At the same time, the news about the stolen election was finally entering the mainstream media. They also wanted to invade Iraq and needed a pretext for that. Saddam went to the Euro in 2000 when it was 0.80 euro/ 1 US dollar; a while later (against the predictions of US pundits) the value was what, 1.30 euro/ 1 US dollar?

However, they appear to have misread the intentions of Al Queda. They expected a long drama on the airport tarmac or something like that. The put options placed against American and United from Sept 6-10 are very suspicious in this regard, as is the fact that the profits were never claimed. Note that put options were not purchased against the WTC.

Immediately after 9/11 they realized the need to cover up any investigation into the events leading up to 9/11. One of their strategies was to tar and feather anyone who wanted to look into the details - so they invented bombs in the WTC, building 7, missile hits the Pentagon, etc. This 'story' was widely promoted on the Internet and was then made a subject of discussion on the cable news networks, ensuring that the story of the '9/11 conspiracy nutcases' would be widely disseminated. Ever notice how these 'truth networks' religiously avoid mention of the Iraq war?

Any casual observer of these people would note that their central concern is 'image and perception' - a complete propaganda mindset.

In any case, the worst effect of 9/11 has been the Iraq war. (Which was also based on a lot of deliberate lies about weapons of mass destruction). Rather then wasting any more time on 9/11, I would urge people to put their energy into realizing a staggered military withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

Comments are closed-

WHY SO INCREDULOUS THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 5, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember the JFK Assassination and the "official" Warren Report?

Remember Pearl Harbor and how FDR was well aware of the impending attack?

Remember the Maine? (used as an example by the devisors of the Operation Northwoods Plan to rationalize their sick plans to blow up our own ships and kill our own soldiers).

Remember Operation Northwoods? In case you're not familiar with that, it was the "Plan" devised by the military to blow up our own ships and kill our own sailors so that we'd have an excuse to go to war against Cuba. The "Plan" made it all the way from the bottom echelons up through the channels until it finally landed on JFK's desk. The "Plan" had been approved all the way up the chain of command. JFK was horrified and trashed the whole idea. From then on, JFK was no longer willing to be a puppet for the Illuminati/Globalilsts to bring in their NWO.

That's why he was murdered.

Comments are closed-

Josh, look into...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jun 5, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the reports of financial transactions such as puts and calls on the airlines involved in 9/11 and some of the stock brokerage houses like Goldman, M Lynch etc.
someone knew this attack was coming and knew how to play it from the financial angle. from what I've read the transactions were traced to a bank in Germany that had an ex-CIA guy on it's board or something like that. it's worth looking into.
thanks for your article.

Comments are closed-

baldy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: baldo on Jun 5, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are so many ununswered questions and real evidence around 9//11 that it is very hard to believe some people still exist who talk about "conspiracy theories" !?!
How about who is behind the "put" speculations on UA, AA etc. on the pre-knowledge of the 9/11 events ??
It reminds me of the tale of the greatest dilemma of a Jewish man passing in front of a butcher shop and reading the sign:"today FREE pork" !!!
The temptation must have been too great !!

Comments are closed-

Focus on the real task
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DaveB on Jun 5, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The official explanations of 9/11 are clearly unsatisfactory. At the very least, they do not make us confident that we're being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But, shocking and tragic though it is, the "real" story is nearly irrelevant to what the American people must do. We must reform our government, our political parties, our media. This is the same urgent task we faced on 9/10/01. If we accomplish these tasks, then the truth about 9/11 will take care of itself. If we do not, discovering the truth of 9/11 will make no difference.

Comments are closed-

Scholar's for Truth is a nice place to look if one wants a more academic approach
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Jun 5, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet r