[quote]BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
What did the government gain out of this? Let’s see:
1.They have this never ending enemy called a terrorist and can justify any war by saying we have to stop them
This has always occurred in some way, shape, or form in war. When it was the Communists, we did the same thing. This is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove 9/11 was a conspiracy.
2.Take away citizen rights such as the 4th amendment by bringing in the Patriot Act
You are naive if you believe this wasn’t happening (at least to the some extent) before 9/11. I have a hard time believing the government would kill thoursands of it’s own people to just improve their surveillance capabilities.
3.They can label any person a terrorist, take them away, torture them until they confess and there is nothing you can do about it
See above. We could have done this without killing people. Irrelevant.
4.Profiting by funding both sides of the fight and never ending war
If you haven’t realized already, we are running up a massive deficient (partially because of these wars). All those trillions we’ve profited must be off the books in GB’s pockets. You got me!
5.As soon as the attack happened Bush had one of the highest approval ratings ever recorded and this galvanized the people together behind Bush and any policy he wanted to bring in “to protect the people”
No shit! I never thought people would be scared when their country is attacked and rally behind their president. Who would have thought.
[/quote]
If the wars cost money, the money doesn’t just go into thin air. Maybe you should take a look at who is getting paid the trillions and see who they are and who thier buddies are. You think these types of people care if the US collapses? They all have enough money to buy almost anything in this world that they want, including small countries of thier own. Global collapse is one of thier goals, and a country like what the United states used to be would never bow down to these super powerful peoples will. Now once it collapses and mere survival is all one can worry about, it is much easier for them to influence an american citizen to do something for them. I’m not sure how it’s going to turn out, but I know they are going to try for this. A ruling world elite who control the destiny of all humans on the planet and live as god kings because of thier control of every monetary and physical resource on the planet. That is thier goal, people like me and nikk would rather see a world free of tyranny from the super powerful. There are more than enough resources and energy on this planet for every single human being to live easily and comfortably. Yet how many people struggle day in and day out. They are not trying to make any of our lives better, they are looking to keep us pinned down and struggling so they can eventually enslave us. They may not enslave us with chains and whips, but they will sureley enslave us with comfort and security.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
What did the government gain out of this? Let’s see:
1.They have this never ending enemy called a terrorist and can justify any war by saying we have to stop them
This has always occurred in some way, shape, or form in war. When it was the Communists, we did the same thing. This is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove 9/11 was a conspiracy.
2.Take away citizen rights such as the 4th amendment by bringing in the Patriot Act
You are naive if you believe this wasn’t happening (at least to the some extent) before 9/11. I have a hard time believing the government would kill thoursands of it’s own people to just improve their surveillance capabilities.
3.They can label any person a terrorist, take them away, torture them until they confess and there is nothing you can do about it
See above. We could have done this without killing people. Irrelevant.
4.Profiting by funding both sides of the fight and never ending war
If you haven’t realized already, we are running up a massive deficient (partially because of these wars). All those trillions we’ve profited must be off the books in GW’s pockets. You got me!
5.As soon as the attack happened Bush had one of the highest approval ratings ever recorded and this galvanized the people together behind Bush and any policy he wanted to bring in “to protect the people”
No shit! I never thought people would be scared when their country is attacked and rally behind their president. Who would have thought.
[/quote]
Ok, but I don’t care if you have a hard time believing that they would do this, except your original sentiment was what did they gain and that is what they gained. You didn’t really address my first point, or any of my points for that matter. There is no point in arguing with you, as you have never seen any films or anything other then the propoganda machine that is your T.V., you talk about this without addressing the points. If you honestly want to debate then bring something better forward that the government didn’t gain anything because they clearly did.
If the wars cost money, the money doesn’t just go into thin air. Maybe you should take a look at who is getting paid the trillions and see who they are and who thier buddies are. You think these types of people care if the US collapses? They all have enough money to buy almost anything in this world that they want, including small countries of thier own. Global collapse is one of thier goals, and a country like what the United states used to be would never bow down to these super powerful peoples will. Now once it collapses and mere survival is all one can worry about, it is much easier for them to influence an american citizen to do something for them. I’m not sure how it’s going to turn out, but I know they are going to try for this. A ruling world elite who control the destiny of all humans on the planet and live as god kings because of thier control of every monetary and physical resource on the planet. That is thier goal, people like me and nikk would rather see a world free of tyranny from the super powerful. There are more than enough resources and energy on this planet for every single human being to live easily and comfortably. Yet how many people struggle day in and day out. They are not trying to make any of our lives better, they are looking to keep us pinned down and struggling so they can eventually enslave us. They may not enslave us with chains and whips, but they will sureley enslave us with comfort and security.
V[/quote]
Honestly, who are “they”? Obviously not our weapon manufacturers as they are all from U.S. companies. The Saudis? Who would buy their oil if we are gone. Or maybe you mean the “elite”. Without the masses, they won’t be worth jack shit.
I think you guys have been drinking the juice too much. But if the world does turn into the apocalyptic war zone you are talking about, you guys have my permission to loot my body for ammo and med kits.
[quote]
nik133 wrote:
There is no point in arguing with you, as you have never seen any films or anything other then the propoganda machine that is your T.V.[/quote]
As you don’t know me, that’s a pretty stupid fucking statement. Try reading a book or taking a class on foreign policy rather than films by The Truth.
Speaking of which, wow many books on foreign policy or economics have you actually read? How many on previous “covert” wars? Cause it seems like none.
nik133 wrote:
There is no point in arguing with you, as you have never seen any films or anything other then the propoganda machine that is your T.V.
As you don’t know me, that’s a pretty stupid fucking statement. Try reading a book or taking a class on foreign policy rather than films by The Truth.
Speaking of which, wow many books on foreign policy or economics have you actually read? How many on previous “covert” wars? Cause it seems like none.
[/quote]
I’ve read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, I’ve read the Northwood file (which I bet you have no clue about), wake up, I am 17 and I see the world for what it is. You continue to live in your fantasy land. I know enough about you that you question this theory without reading anything but your side about it. I normally try to talk with people more calmly, but there are some of you that are just so into your world that you refuse to see everything for what it truly is. I actually spend a lot of time researching and reading on these issues and if you were to bring forward some good points other then “men in a cave from Afghanistan did it”, then maybe we can debate it, however you just refuse to listen to anything contradictory to what you believe.
I’ve read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, I’ve read the Northwood file (which I bet you have no clue about), wake up, I am 17 and I see the world for what it is. You continue to live in your fantasy land. I know enough about you that you question this theory without reading anything but your side about it. I normally try to talk with people more calmly, but there are some of you that are just so into your world that you refuse to see everything for what it truly is. I actually spend a lot of time researching and reading on these issues and if you were to bring forward some good points other then “men in a cave from Afghanistan did it”, then maybe we can debate it, however you just refuse to listen to anything contradictory to what you believe.[/quote]
You’ve read one fiction book and one “file”? Nice! That definitely make you an expert on the world (and at 17 to boot!). Thanks for letting me in on the real world rather than my fantasy existence.
Again, you’re presuming I haven’t read into any of this which is wrong. This theory is full of holes and it has been disproved by more credible people than “The Truth”.
I’ve read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, I’ve read the Northwood file (which I bet you have no clue about), wake up, I am 17 and I see the world for what it is. You continue to live in your fantasy land. I know enough about you that you question this theory without reading anything but your side about it. I normally try to talk with people more calmly, but there are some of you that are just so into your world that you refuse to see everything for what it truly is. I actually spend a lot of time researching and reading on these issues and if you were to bring forward some good points other then “men in a cave from Afghanistan did it”, then maybe we can debate it, however you just refuse to listen to anything contradictory to what you believe.
You’ve read one fiction book and one “file”? Nice! That definitely make you an expert on the world (and at 17 to boot!). Thanks for letting me in on the real world rather than my fantasy existence.
Again, you’re presuming I haven’t read into any of this which is wrong. This theory is full of holes and it has been disproved by more credible people than “The Truth”.[/quote]
I look forward to hearing these “holes”, and these “credible people.” Until then please stop posting!
Clearly, you are better informed than they with your high school education. Their 300+ experts containing engineers with PhD’s in mechanical & structural engineering ain’t got nothing on you (as you probably did the spaghetti tower in Physics!).
Clearly, you are better informed than they with your high school education. Their 300+ experts containing engineers with PhD’s in mechanical & structural engineering ain’t got nothing on you (as you probably did the spaghetti tower in Physics!).[/quote]
To quote Pete:
The PM article has been debunked 1000 times, I won’t bother. I only want to point out something I learned that I don’t see many people mention about it. I am willing to bet you did not look into it, or you would know already and would not have cited it as a reputable source.
The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff.
I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, just another one of those crazy coincidences…seems to be a lot of them, doesn’t it?
300+ experts, that’s a shame because here is a site of over 700 experts agreeing with my side http://www.ae911truth.org/, you seem to have all the answers. The problem with you is, you are so into trying to prove that you are right, you refuse to listen to anyone else’s points. If you cared to look thru this thread, most of the stuff that any “debunkers” bring up has been discussed to death, yet the “truthers” have new points to bring up constantly, hmmm. I wonder why the government has set up this group to distance them away from 9/11 - YouTube
Clearly, you are better informed than they with your high school education. Their 300+ experts containing engineers with PhD’s in mechanical & structural engineering ain’t got nothing on you (as you probably did the spaghetti tower in Physics!).
To quote Pete:
The PM article has been debunked 1000 times, I won’t bother. I only want to point out something I learned that I don’t see many people mention about it. I am willing to bet you did not look into it, or you would know already and would not have cited it as a reputable source.
The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff.
I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, just another one of those crazy coincidences…seems to be a lot of them, doesn’t it?
300+ experts, that’s a shame because here is a site of over 700 experts agreeing with my side http://www.ae911truth.org/, you seem to have all the answers. The problem with you is, you are so into trying to prove that you are right, you refuse to listen to anyone else’s points. If you cared to look thru this thread, most of the stuff that any “debunkers” bring up has been discussed to death, yet the “truthers” have new points to bring up constantly, hmmm. I wonder why the government has set up this group to distance them away from 9/11 - YouTube
Anxiously waiting for his next response… “Planes & Jet Fuel & Argghhhhhh , Argghhhhhhh, Argghhhhhh! .”
Clearly, you are better informed than they with your high school education. Their 300+ experts containing engineers with PhD’s in mechanical & structural engineering ain’t got nothing on you (as you probably did the spaghetti tower in Physics!).
To quote Pete:
The PM article has been debunked 1000 times, I won’t bother. I only want to point out something I learned that I don’t see many people mention about it. I am willing to bet you did not look into it, or you would know already and would not have cited it as a reputable source.
The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff.
I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, just another one of those crazy coincidences…seems to be a lot of them, doesn’t it?
300+ experts, that’s a shame because here is a site of over 700 experts agreeing with my side http://www.ae911truth.org/, you seem to have all the answers. The problem with you is, you are so into trying to prove that you are right, you refuse to listen to anyone else’s points. If you cared to look thru this thread, most of the stuff that any “debunkers” bring up has been discussed to death, yet the “truthers” have new points to bring up constantly, hmmm. I wonder why the government has set up this group to distance them away from 9/11 - YouTube
Anxiously waiting for his next response… “Planes & Jet Fuel & Argghhhhhh , Argghhhhhhh, Argghhhhhh! .”
To quote Pete:
The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff.
I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, just another one of those crazy coincidences…seems to be a lot of them, doesn’t it?
[/quote]
Always check if the facts you present are true…
“Proponents of these conspiracy theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is a cousin of Michael Chertoff â?? former head of Homeland Security. However, U.S. News says no actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.”
[quote]
300+ experts, that’s a shame because here is a site of over 700 experts agreeing with my side http://www.ae911truth.org/, you seem to have all the answers.[/quote]
On that site, if I was an engineer, I could register. However, that does not prove my credentials or expertise at all. PM however sough experts in the field. Never try to prove an argument by saying my side has more people so I’m correct.
I want to see proof that this security wing actually exists. Send me a link to a .gov site that shows it was set up.
To quote Pete:
The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff.
I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, just another one of those crazy coincidences…seems to be a lot of them, doesn’t it?
Always check if the facts you present are true…
“Proponents of these conspiracy theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is a cousin of Michael Chertoff â?? former head of Homeland Security. However, U.S. News says no actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.”
300+ experts, that’s a shame because here is a site of over 700 experts agreeing with my side http://www.ae911truth.org/, you seem to have all the answers.
On that site, if I was an engineer, I could register. However, that does not prove my credentials or expertise at all. PM however sough experts in the field. Never try to prove an argument by saying my side has more people so I’m correct.
I want to see proof that this security wing actually exists. Send me a link to a .gov site that shows it was set up.
[/quote]
Actually you were trying to prove your argument when you brought up you had 300 experts on your side, I simply pointed out that if you want to say you have 300 (your strength in numbers), then I will simply point out my 700 which trump your 300. Now clearly all 9/11 truth debunkers have an excuse for everything saying that anyone can sign up and how you can find 700 idiots to believe in anything, however I show to you the IPCC which is suppose to be the top 1-2000 scientists who support global warming and if you look at the group many of them are not scientists and many of them do not support the idea of global warming, thus proving that the government will lie to get you to believe their side.
Also as for you wanting a gov site where it shows that this exists, I highly doubt that they would want to make this public because god forbids people like you find out about this, they might even dare I say it? Question their government!!! O:O:O You are basically saying well if they funded terrorist why isn’t it listed in our government’s spending charts. Isn’t it obvious that the government has been suppressing information for a while and why wouldn’t they on this?
I can’t believe there are people like you who are so close minded and absolutely nothing that I say gets through to you. I fully understand why anyone would be skeptical about this and I was at first too, however there comes a point in time where you just have to look at the facts and get out of denial. I challenge you to watch loosechange or 9/11 road to tyranny and tell me where you disagree with them, all the pieces of the puzzle are out there just put them together.
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Now clearly all 9/11 truth debunkers have an excuse for everything saying that anyone can sign up and how you can find 700 idiots to believe in anything. However I show to you the IPCC which is suppose to be the top 1-2000 scientists who support global warming and if you look at the group many of them are not scientists and many of them do not support the idea of global warming, thus proving that the government will lie to get you to believe their side.
[/quote]
Well, the IPCC is made up of members from multiple nations so there will definitely be agendas in there. Some countries will want to support/refute the findings based on how it will effect their country. They are not scientists in that group because they are not responsible for conducting research. I can definitely see your argument in this. I just think that you have to look at the more credible group in our discussion (the experts who actually conducted the tests at ground zero and the pentagon).
Again, you are assuming things about me. You believe that I don’t question the government and am simply following what I hear. I’m extremely critical of the government and have been against nearly all recent activity by the government (past 5 years). In order for this security wing to exist, there has to be evidence of it’s work at least. I can’t find any evidence in my google searches. I think what that man is talking about is just a policy of the government to stop talking about. Why create an entire agency for that purpose when you can just keep your mouth shut, right?
[quote]
I can’t believe there are people like you who are so close minded and absolutely nothing that I say gets through to you. I fully understand why anyone would be skeptical about this and I was at first too, however there comes a point in time where you just have to look at the facts and get out of denial. I challenge you to watch loosechange or 9/11 road to tyranny and tell me where you disagree with them, all the pieces of the puzzle are out there just put them together.[/quote]
Rather than debate what we saw in the video and the discussion that debunks it (I’ve watched both), let’s discuss a bigger issue. We’ll never agree on the facts presented in those films as how could we prove/disprove them. We are not experts.
The bigger issue I want to discuss is:
Why would the government do something like this using this method (flying a plane into a building full of people, firing a cruise missile at the Pentagon, and planting explosives in both buildings)? If you were the government and you wanted to have America go to war, wouldn’t you want to go an easier route that saves resources/man power (lives)? In Vietnam, part of the reason we went to war was preceived attacks on our ships (Torpedo attacks which were radar blips). Couldn’t the government have done something similar and have perceived threats like rounding up American hostages in Afghanistan or even here (using fake terrorists)?
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
Now clearly all 9/11 truth debunkers have an excuse for everything saying that anyone can sign up and how you can find 700 idiots to believe in anything. However I show to you the IPCC which is suppose to be the top 1-2000 scientists who support global warming and if you look at the group many of them are not scientists and many of them do not support the idea of global warming, thus proving that the government will lie to get you to believe their side.
Well, the IPCC is made up of members from multiple nations so there will definitely be agendas in there. Some countries will want to support/refute the findings based on how it will effect their country. They are not scientists in that group because they are not responsible for conducting research. I can definitely see your argument in this. I just think that you have to look at the more credible group in our discussion (the experts who actually conducted the tests at ground zero and the pentagon).
Also as for you wanting a gov site where it shows that this exists, I highly doubt that they would want to make this public because god forbids people like you find out about this, they might even dare I say it? Question their government!!! O:O:O You are basically saying well if they funded terrorist why isn’t it listed in our government’s spending charts. Isn’t it obvious that the government has been suppressing information for a while and why wouldn’t they on this?
Again, you are assuming things about me. You believe that I don’t question the government and am simply following what I hear. I’m extremely critical of the government and have been against nearly all recent activity by the government (past 5 years). In order for this security wing to exist, there has to be evidence of it’s work at least. I can’t find any evidence in my google searches. I think what that man is talking about is just a policy of the government to stop talking about. Why create an entire agency for that purpose when you can just keep your mouth shut, right?
I can’t believe there are people like you who are so close minded and absolutely nothing that I say gets through to you. I fully understand why anyone would be skeptical about this and I was at first too, however there comes a point in time where you just have to look at the facts and get out of denial. I challenge you to watch loosechange or 9/11 road to tyranny and tell me where you disagree with them, all the pieces of the puzzle are out there just put them together.
Rather than debate what we saw in the video and the discussion that debunks it (I’ve watched both), let’s discuss a bigger issue. We’ll never agree on the facts presented in those films as how could we prove/disprove them. We are not experts.
The bigger issue I want to discuss is:
Why would the government do something like this using this method (flying a plane into a building full of people, firing a cruise missile at the Pentagon, and planting explosives in both buildings)? If you were the government and you wanted to have America go to war, wouldn’t you want to go an easier route that saves resources/man power (lives)? In Vietnam, part of the reason we went to war was preceived attacks on our ships (Torpedo attacks which were radar blips). Couldn’t the government have done something similar and have perceived threats like rounding up American hostages in Afghanistan or even here (using fake terrorists)?
[/quote]
Yes, but you realize that it has come out that the Gulf of Tonkin (which cost the lives of over 58,000 American) incident was a lie too? Here is a link to the Northwood file stating that the government would use means that the UN and the public would justify to invade cuba: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/northwoods.pdf
My entire point is that the government has lied to the public before, they will continue to do so and only if there is dissent will we ever stop them. If you can look someone who had a family member or a friend lost in the twin towers in the eye and tell them you are 100% satisfied with the investigation, then that is one thing, but if the government had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they answer 70% of family member’s questions during the hearings?
[quote]nik133 wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
Now clearly all 9/11 truth debunkers have an excuse for everything saying that anyone can sign up and how you can find 700 idiots to believe in anything. However I show to you the IPCC which is suppose to be the top 1-2000 scientists who support global warming and if you look at the group many of them are not scientists and many of them do not support the idea of global warming, thus proving that the government will lie to get you to believe their side.
Well, the IPCC is made up of members from multiple nations so there will definitely be agendas in there. Some countries will want to support/refute the findings based on how it will effect their country. They are not scientists in that group because they are not responsible for conducting research. I can definitely see your argument in this. I just think that you have to look at the more credible group in our discussion (the experts who actually conducted the tests at ground zero and the pentagon).
Also as for you wanting a gov site where it shows that this exists, I highly doubt that they would want to make this public because god forbids people like you find out about this, they might even dare I say it? Question their government!!! O:O:O You are basically saying well if they funded terrorist why isn’t it listed in our government’s spending charts. Isn’t it obvious that the government has been suppressing information for a while and why wouldn’t they on this?
Again, you are assuming things about me. You believe that I don’t question the government and am simply following what I hear. I’m extremely critical of the government and have been against nearly all recent activity by the government (past 5 years). In order for this security wing to exist, there has to be evidence of it’s work at least. I can’t find any evidence in my google searches. I think what that man is talking about is just a policy of the government to stop talking about. Why create an entire agency for that purpose when you can just keep your mouth shut, right?
I can’t believe there are people like you who are so close minded and absolutely nothing that I say gets through to you. I fully understand why anyone would be skeptical about this and I was at first too, however there comes a point in time where you just have to look at the facts and get out of denial. I challenge you to watch loosechange or 9/11 road to tyranny and tell me where you disagree with them, all the pieces of the puzzle are out there just put them together.
Rather than debate what we saw in the video and the discussion that debunks it (I’ve watched both), let’s discuss a bigger issue. We’ll never agree on the facts presented in those films as how could we prove/disprove them. We are not experts.
The bigger issue I want to discuss is:
Why would the government do something like this using this method (flying a plane into a building full of people, firing a cruise missile at the Pentagon, and planting explosives in both buildings)? If you were the government and you wanted to have America go to war, wouldn’t you want to go an easier route that saves resources/man power (lives)? In Vietnam, part of the reason we went to war was preceived attacks on our ships (Torpedo attacks which were radar blips). Couldn’t the government have done something similar and have perceived threats like rounding up American hostages in Afghanistan or even here (using fake terrorists)?
Yes, but you realize that it has come out that the Gulf of Tonkin (which cost the lives of over 58,000 American) incident was a lie too? Here is a link to the Northwood file stating that the government would use means that the UN and the public would justify to invade cuba: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/northwoods.pdf
My entire point is that the government has lied to the public before, they will continue to do so and only if there is dissent will we ever stop them. If you can look someone who had a family member or a friend lost in the twin towers in the eye and tell them you are 100% satisfied with the investigation, then that is one thing, but if the government had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they answer 70% of family member’s questions during the hearings?[/quote]
Backinaction. What most people fail to realize is that we aren’t 100% sure the government did it. What we are sure of is that things look fishy, the government is acting like it’s hiding something, and that is enough for us to ask for a better, more stringent investigation. The nice thing about right now is that bush can’t just say I’m the president so i’m not going to answer your silly questions. And truthfully, I don’t even know if it went as high as him, I definately think Cheney would be the one to mastermind something like this. Him and rove most likley. Or at least they would be my likley suspects. Now as far as dragging this out, if your family was murdered and they never found the killer. You were looking at the evidence and it was messy, there had to be something there, but the detectives working the scene weren’t the sharpest pencils, so after a year or so they give up. BUT some years later, a young gutsy detective is looking for cold cases to make his name on and he comes across yours. He has a pretty good feeling that he is going to find the person who murdered your family and get them tried and convicted. Are you saying you would be against re-opening it because it would be too painful to you and dredge up old memories? You have FORGOTTEN YOUR FAMILY WAS BRUTALLY MURDERED? No, no you haven’t and you would welcome the investigation just for the mere chance that the bastard who did this would fry. No matter if it was a common street thug, or you sitting senator. You would want the fucker dead, but would settle for behind bars the rest of his life.
[quote]Evil Dude625 wrote:
if you call 9/11 a conspiracy you are an anti american fuck bag that has no heart shame or any other emotions[/quote]
Awesome post man, clearly you have been surveilling this thread for a long time and have been waiting for the right time to chime in with your awesome insight, well done chap! I have attached your prize!
I apologize. I didn’t receive an email this thread was still alive.
I want to make my position very clear: inconsistencies exist in the government’s conspiracy theory on what took place on 9/11 and a full investigation is in order. The people of our military cannot question the government’s reasons for sending them to war. It is our duty to question for them. We owe it to the men and women that died that day, and the brave men and women that give their lives for our liberty, to stand in dissent and demand an unbiased, independent, investigation with full disclosure as well as an investigation into the evidence and crime scene.
Many different components had to fail miserably and simultaneously for these events to be taken at face value without any possible consideration of conspiracy. To say that these events happened cleanly and perfectly would be damning evidence to the incompetence of people left in charge from the top down. Every character in the chain of events did not have to be complicit in any premeditation or cover up. Maybe some things are just allowed to happen with a gentle prod.
[quote]
American Free Press writer Christopher Bollyn uncovered the fact that Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the Popular Mechanics 9/11 hit piece, was the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Homeland Security Czar.[/quote]
An interview with Ben Chertoff where he realizes Michael is his cousin?
[quote] You see, it�¢??s now known that Ben is Michael Chertoff�¢??s cousin (surprise, surprise!) according to Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press newspaper. Bollyn�¢??s letter was sarcastically read aloud by Bell during the broadcast, during which time Bell also took a jab at Jeff Rense, labeling Rense�¢??s website as �¢??anti-Semitic.�¢??
I guess Art had the time to fire off pot shots at independent researchers like Victor Thorn, but didn�¢??t have time to address important inconsistencies in the official government version of 9/11. What a sad, unnecessary waste of valuable time, Art. Chertoff�¢??s response to this newly �¢??discovered�¢?? family link? He didn�¢??t even know (until now) that Michael Chertoff just happens to be his cousin. Sure, Ben. We believe that one.[/quote]
This: [quote] The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff. [/quote] Seems pretty factual to me.
You chose to challenge the one portion of my post I myself wrote off as “crazy coincidence,” but you missed the major part that seemingly should have at least tweaked your curiosity into the veracity of the article all together.
With your debunked, and discredited claim about Chertoff’s relation, and your didactic diatribe on Engineers and PHDs writing an article for PM; I somehow need to look past that attack, false information, lazy research; and evaluate the Popular Mechanics article that I have already stated “has been debunked 1,000s of times, I wont bother.”
OK, I will bite. LOL - But I have an addition to your statement [quote]Always check if the facts you present are true…
[/quote] My addition: make sure what you present contains realistic and valid arguments to support your premise and or argue against your opponent’s premise.
My biggest problem with the Popular Mechanics piece is that it takes a Strawman argument toward 9/11 theories and debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion and falsehoods to counter serious claims. A strawman is what you are using when you cite this article that debunks none of my proclamations. Basically, you are asking me to refute 9/11 conspiracy claims that I do not agree with. The PM article does not address the core, articulable facts that disprove the government’s conspiracy theory.
Additionally, there is a reason I try no to debunk this in a forum; 1. it gets long, 2. It is an area of research and critical thought that should already have been done in a logical discussion.
In a day, or week, some other ass clown will come along and want this article debunked again because he too was too lazy to read the entire thread and find “whao, this has already been hashed over here.”
[quote]
Still another caller pointed to the five frames of video footage which have been the subject of intense scrutiny over the last few years - you know, the doctored frames with the incorrect date stamp that do not show any jetliner? Again, we were told by Chertoff that this is terrain that the �¢??experts�¢?? of Popular Mechanics have yet to traverse.
What are they waiting for - a formal invitation? Furthermore, he sidestepped around the FBI�¢??s utter failure to release the videotapes seized from surrounding entities like the Citgo gas station, Sheraton Hotel, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Pentagon�¢??s own videos. According to the sputtering Chertoff, this is understandable because the Pentagon strike is still under official investigation. No kidding �¢?? an �¢??official�¢?? investigation, huh? [/quote]
[quote]
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the “most prevalent” among “conspiracy theorists.” The claims are grouped into themes which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each theme, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers’ demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers’ Demolition.
The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of “disgracing the memories” of the victims.
More important, it misrepresents skeptics’ views by implying that the skeptics’ community is an undifferentiated “army” that wholly embraces the article’s sixteen “poisonous claims,” which it asserts are “at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario.” In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation. [/quote]
Here is another debunking of the 16 claims made by the PM article:
Let’s briefly run over some 9/11 matters that Popular Mechanics did not raise in its “debunking”:
[quote]
The time the Twin Towers took to fall. This was about 14-15 seconds Ã?¢?? not much more than the time of the free fall of an object from their height, about 9-10 seconds. This shows that there was practically no resistance offered by the lower stories to the material collapsing from above. Even if one accepts the “pancake” theory, the lower stories would have offered plenty of resistance (they were intact and not damaged by fire), and the collapse would have taken a lot longer than 15 seconds. (More on this at The Time the Towers Took to Fall.)
The ‘Power Down’ Condition at the WTC on the Weekend Preceding 9/11.
George W. Bush’s statement that he saw the first impact on TV. Impossible, because no network TV station had its cameras on the North Tower when it was hit. See Bush Flubs it Again for Bush’s words, and Bush’s Behavior on 9/11 for more discussion of this.
The suspicious stock trades. Michael Ruppert has been criticized for largely ignoring the 9/11 physical evidence revealing holes in the official story (though he took notice of it belatedly), but at least he was one of the first to draw attention to the fact that in the days preceding 9/11 someone had bought put options on shares likely to fall as a result of the use of American Airlines and United Airlines planes in the attacks (not just the shares of the airlines themselves but also of parent companies). Someone had prior knowledge of 9/11 and planned to make a killing, so to speak, on the stock market. After 9/11 the SEC investigated who might have bought these put options. The identity of the buyers has never been revealed. See Ruppert’s Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks and this article (published four days earlier) by Barry Grey.
The black boxes. Every Boeing passenger jet carries two “black boxes”, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR). These are designed to be indestructible, and Boeing Corp. tells us that in the event of a crash “these two units tell the story of the flight. Actually painted bright orange, these recorders are equipped with ‘pingers’ or radio and acoustic beacons that aid in their retrieval.” According to the official story four Boeing jets were destroyed. According to the ASCE Report, the Kean Commission and various news reports (see here and here) the CVR and the FDR from both AA 77 and UA 93 were recovered. Why has the data from the FDRs (supposedly) from AA 77 and UA 93 not been released for public examination (as happened, e.g., in the case of TWA Flight 800)? Is it because they don’t exist (and the CVRs are bogus)? The black boxes from the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers conveniently disappeared completely, in contrast to the passport of Mohammed Atta, which (according to the official 9/11 myth) miraculously survived the first impact to waft down and be discovered two blocks away by someone unknown and turned into the FBI. It seems those Saudi passports are more indestructible than black boxes.
The videotapes confiscated by the FBI. There were at least three video surveillance cameras recording events in the alleged flight path of whatever allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. Karl Schwartzcomments:
After the Pentagon attack, the video cameras and tapes at a nearby CITGO, the Sheraton Hotel along I-395 and Virginia DOT cameras were all confiscated by the FBI and they have yet to disclose any of the contents that were recorded by those cameras. Those cameras would have recorded what came in to hit the Pentagon and if viewed by the public, all the world would know that it was not a Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, as we were told. All the world would know that Bush's assertion is in fact a huge lie.
The Bush administration’s resistance to any 9/11 inquiry. After the February 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster (in which seven people died) three official investigations were initiated within days. In contrast, the Bush administration fought tooth and nail for a year to avoid any official investigation of an event in which about 3000 people died. Bush and Cheney initially refused to testify before the Kean Commission. When they finally did agree they did so only after obtaining assurances that they would be allowed to testify together, that they would not have to testify under oath, that their testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers (which would not be made public). Clearly Bush and Cheney were very concerned about the possibility that one of them (probably Bush) might say something that could later be used in criminal proceedings against them.
The insurance angle. This was summed up nicely by Walter Burien (a tenant in WTC1 in 1979-8), who wrote (private communication):
1. The WTC did not have insurance coverage for terrorism. Silverstein took out the policy for terrorism with a double indemnity clause. The ink was not dry on the contract when the towers fell.
2. The lease for the Trade Center was a 99 year lease for 3.5 billion dollars. The Press gives the false impression Silverstein paid 3.5 billion for the lease. This is outright false. The lease was just uncured by Silverstein and just the first payments were made which would have been a cash outlay of maybe 100 or 200 million.
So here, we have days old insurance coverage for a max of 7 billion dollars with a cash outlay of less than 200 million and poof goes the towers and in goes a 6.5 billion dollar claim. Go figure?
The studies concerning the demolition of the Twin Towers. Walter Burien wrote (private communication):
Port Authority had commissioned several companies over ten years prior to 2000 to do studies per demolishing the towers as to expense. There were some inherent problems and the towers were under review for being taken down by Port Authority. The exact reasons why, I am not clear on. Along comes Silverstein, then the insurance, down comes the towers, in goes the lock-down of the population, and then 8 trillion dollars changes hands in four years just from the Federal coffers. Go figure?
According to Gerard Holmgren:
Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under-tenanted and beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb. And of course, they couldn't be demolished because of all the asbestos dust that would go into the air of NY. The NYPA had been trying to sell the buildings for years, and understandably, nobody was interested. In early 2001, the NYPA went to court in a test case, and tried to get its insurance company to pay for asbestos renovations. The case was thrown out. This should have made the buildings even more unsaleable. However, immediately after this, Manhattan property developer Larry Silverstein, who sits on the board of Westfield America, stepped in with a consortium worth $US3.2 billion for a 99 year lease on the site. Westfield Australia directly contributed $A840 million for control of the shopping plaza. Silverstein insured himself for $US3.5 billion per terrorist attack, and Westfield insured itself against terrorism and loss of rental income.
Not long after, when the WTC conveniently disappeared in a terrorist attack �¢?? along with building 7 of the complex �¢?? it solved the asbestos problem, leaving Silverstein with a clean building site on the best real estate in the world, and Westfield with a rental income which probably would have been unsustainable in a real trading environment, and no law suits over all the asbestos dust released into the air of Manhattan. Silverstein's insurer has agreed to the $3.5 billion pay out, but Silverstein is claiming that it was two terrorist attacks and wants $7 billion, which is currently the subject of a court case.
As they say, follow the money.
This article has pointed out many holes in the official story, which (as a result of the investigations of many people) is now totally discredited (along with those who continue to insist on its validity). So, as with any major unsolved crime, we have a major puzzle: What really happened?
A forensic investigator proceeds in a scientific manner, by accumulating data, formulating hypotheses as to what might have happened and testing those hypotheses against the data, discarding or modifying hypotheses which do not fit the data. Unfortunately, in the case of 9/11, the data is sparse and much of it may be unreliable. The steel from the WTC was removed (on the orders of Mayor Giuliani) and shipped overseas to blast furnaces. The video evidence shows curious anomalies and it has been suggested that much of the video evidence has been systematically tampered with. So in addition to trying to find hypotheses which fit the data, we have to decide which data is reliable.
It is not too difficult to account for the observed physical damage to the various physical structures involved, indeed, one can account for this in many ways. The Twin Towers may have been hit by remote-controlled Boeing jets, there were likely explosives placed inside the buildings, the foundations may have been blasted. The Pentagon may have been hit by a cruise missile. The crater at Shanksville seems to have been produced by a bomb buried in the ground and then detonated.
The central unanswered questions are: (a) What happened to the planes? (b) What happened to the passengers on the planes?
As regards the planes, we must first note that the terms “AA 77”, “UA 93”, etc., do not denote planes, they denote flights. The statement “AA 77 hit the Pentagon” really means “the plane which departed (assuming it did) from Dulles Airport at 08:10 on 9/11 bound for Los Angeles hit the Pentagon.”
The official story posits four planes, associated with four flight numbers, namely, AA 11, AA 77, UA 175 and UA 93. But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn’t this a bit odd?
So no physical evidence. But how about evidence from records of those flights? Records concerning domestic flights within the US are maintained online by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. When 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren checked those records he discovered that flights AA 11 and AA 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11. He published his discovery on 2003-11-13 and it was confirmed by others, including the author of this article (who saved the BTS web pages). Late in 2004 as Holmgren reports, BTS doctored their database so that now when one tries to confirm the original observation one reaches a web page (local copy here) stating:
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.
But there were originally records confirming that UA 93 and UA 175 departed (see the BTS web pages), so apparently these flights did exist. BTS removed those records to conceal the fact that there were never any records for AA 11 and AA 77.
If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.
As regards the passengers on the planes which actually departed on 9/11 (perhaps just the two UA flights), when one looks into this matter there are also anomalies. See Media Published Fake Passenger Lists and 9/11 and the Neo-Cons. Attempts to locate social security numbers for numerous alleged passengers have produced no result. The published passenger lists put the occupancy at an average of about 27%, unusually low for early morning flights from the East Coast to L.A. and San Francisco. While some passengers may have been totally fictitious and some may have been government operatives travelling under fake names, those passengers who were listed under their real names may have been either (a) in on the plot and now either terminated or hidden away, (b) government agents (or relatives of government agents, e.g., Barbara Olson) who for some reason (e.g., knowing too much and deemed a security risk) were marked for elimination or (c) totally innocent people who were there to provide body parts for grieving relatives or in the case that DNA tests were to be performed. The body parts might well have been obtained when UA 93 or UA 175 landed somewhere, with all innocent passengers on those flights being killed by some quick method (such as a nerve gas introduced into the cabin).
Cui Bono?
As with any major crime, one should ask: Who stood to benefit? Certainly not any “Arab terrorists” (who “hate our freedoms”). Some people might point to the 1993 WTC bombing as evidence that “Arab terrorists” tried once and so tried again in 2001. But the 1993 WTC bombing would not have occurred except for the work of an FBI agent provocateur, Emad Salem.
What riles Arabs most is (a) US political and financial support for the despised state of Israel and (b) US support for corrupt regimes such as those in Saudia Arabia and in Egypt, and the preferred targets of those few Arabs who happen to be terrorists are US installations on Arab soil (such as the attacks on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in 1996). To strike the WTC and the Pentagon might have symbolic value, but strategically it would be pointless.
The real beneficiaries of the 9/11 attacks were the US government itself and the government of Israel. For quite some time the US had been planning to attack Afghanistan and to replace the Taliban with a US-controlled puppet government. The 9/11 atrocity, blamed on “Arab terrorists” provided the US government with an excuse to launch a “War on Terrorism”, the first act of which was to bomb Afghanistan (even though the Afghanis are not Arabs), shortly after threatening to do this unless the Taliban handed over the person blamed by the US for 9/11 Ã?¢?? a clear case of a terrorist act perpetrated by the US. The US motive in attacking both Afghanistan and (in March 2003) Iraq was a desire to control the oil and mineral reserves of the Middle East and Central Asia.
Israel benefitted from 9/11 because (a) the US declaration of its “War on Terrorism” appeared to give legitimacy to Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians (whom Israel never ceases to label as “terrorists”, even though it is itself a terrorist state) and (b) it is to Israel’s advantage to have the US attack Israel’s enemies in the Middle East Ã?¢?? in particular Iraq, which was the main threat to Israel (that threat has now been eliminated) and which Israel wishes to see plunged into civil war or dismembered into antagonistic statelets. (It has the same plan for both Lebanon and Syria.)
Many decent but none-too-bright Americans instinctively reject the idea that the US government would ever stage a fake Attack upon America in order to advance some political or economic goal. But in 1962 the US government had a plan to do precisely that. It was called Operation Northwoods. It was a plan to justify a military invasion of Cuba by such means as (i) blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba, (ii) faking a Cuban attack on a US ship near Cuban waters, pretending to rescue crew members and publishing fake casualty lists in US newspapers, (iii) staging terrorist attacks against Cuban refugees in Miami and releasing fake documents implicating Cuba, (iv) sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees en route to Florida (and blaming it on Cuba), (v) manufacturing a MIG-like plane (“properly painted”) to be flown by a US pilot to harass civilian airliners and to shoot down a US military drone, (vi) creating a shoot-down hoax by having a civilian plane (whose passengers were in on the plot) take off and rendezvous with a military drone painted up in the same colors, with the civilian plane covertly returning to Florida while the drone flew on, emitting a distress signal and then being destroyed by an on-board bomb and (vii) having a pilot, while engaged in routine military exercises near Cuba, radio that he had been attacked by MIGs, whereupon he would secretly return to Florida and the world would be informed that Cuba had shot down a US plane; a US submarine would release debris in the area as “evidence” that a plane had crashed into the sea. You can read all this in the PDF file which can be downloaded from the Operation Northwoods page.
Although Operation Northwoods was never put into effect this kind of thinking continued in the back rooms of the NSA, the CIA and the Pentagon. It was brought to a high point in the thinking of the neo-cons at the Pentagon �¢?? Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and their co-conspirators �¢?? authors of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The strategic "transformation" of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to "a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually," the PNAC plan said.
"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event �¢?? like a new Pearl Harbor."
American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for "a new Pearl Harbor."
"They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event" neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.
The "new Pearl Harbor," in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the "war on terrorism" shortly after 9-11.
�¢?? Christopher Bollyn, America 'Pearl Harbored'
The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is conclusive. The motives for the crime have been revealed, the details of what actually happened are starting to emerge, and we now have a fairly good idea of who was behind it. It’s taken over three years, but fortunately there is no statute of limitations on murder, especially not on the kind of mass murder that took place on 9/11.[/quote] http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#1 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured2.html
I really do not wish to waste my time with a bobble head; therefore, before I continue to engage in a fact based discussion, I want you to answer two questions for me.
Name other crime scenes where the evidence was ordered to be sunk and recycled BEFORE a complete and full investigation is completed?
What is the cause of the collapse of WTC VII according to the “Official Story” and what is the source of that information?
O:O:O You are basically saying well if they funded terrorist why isn’t it listed in our government’s spending charts. Isn’t it obvious that the government has been suppressing information for a while and why wouldn’t they on this?