Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

9/11 - fake, fluke or false flag?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 19:51:47 GMT
David Groom says:
Jason Powell,

You are obviously a very silly man who has allowed the Conspiracy Theory to overrule your common sense. So just answer one question. Why hasn't a single one of the hundreds of thousands who need to be in the know about this blown it wide open over the last 9 years? For your 'theory' to have any credibility you have to explain this and in a way which leaves no unanswered issues at all.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 20:03:43 GMT
J A R P says:
David Groom
Thank you for letting me see that report. It was refreshingly brief.
What you should bear in mind is that the FEMA and NIST research that these two writers were involved in was a cover up, and was known to be so. They basically stole the steel remains and 'recycled' them, that is, they did no analysis for fear of finding anything perhaps, and had the lost recycled so that the planet would benefit from reusing old bits of evidence.

Get real about this. You present me with a PDF written to advise future engineers to build towers that don't have such amazing structural problems. Thank you for the advice! Lee Robertson designed the towers, and said that they were designed to withstand Boeing 707 attack. But they could not even withstand something like a domestic fire! BUILDING 7 WAS PULLED DOWN. But there are some loyal or dishonest engineers out there who will write an innocent document purporting to advise their trade in not doing the same thing again. This is what is known as 'clutching at straws'.

And again, Larry Silverstein knew that it was going to fall, so he obviously could see your 79th column melting (!) in the firey little inferno on one of the floors. And when it all exploded as predicted, this was just the column snapping, no doubt?

The thing is, steel does melt at 1,538'C/2800'F. However, actual fire never heats anything up to that extent because the heat disipates into the air, too quickly, and the gas and dust in the air of such places causes it to fail. Besides, the aviation fuel argument doesn't work in this building, since there was not any in there. So what was the 1538'C, which must attack the steel continuously for 1 hour at least, feeding off? The girder you point to was on the other side of the building from that which was hit by debris.

It doesn't add up. On the other hand, it is clear that they place was pulled down, or blown up with explosives.

If you were not afraid and the stakes were not so high, you would think twice about chosing to believe me, and not those others.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 20:09:04 GMT
Withnail says:
Yes, I have seen Farenheit 9/11... None of this explains the many times that OBL claims that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack.

Posted on 23 Dec 2010 20:12:04 GMT
J A R P says:
Dr Fred. W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering dept. at the University of Maryland, said: 'I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling' (New York Times, Dec 25th, 2001)

The Mayor, Giuliani would not respond to requests asking him to explain why the evidence (the steel, brick, remains, etc) were being removed and disposed of. Matthew Monahan was the spokesman for New York's Department of Design and Construction at the time. He said: 'The city considered it reasonable to have the recovered steel recycled'

The teams who were doing the investigating said their hands were tied; they were frustrated. They had been threatened with dismissal for talking to the media, some of them told the New York Times. 'FEMA (the Federal Emergency Military Agency) is controlling everything', they told the Times.

The building was pulled down. All three of them were.

FEMA appointed experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate. They were frustrated by the theft of the evidence; this is why, in default of a proper explanation for how it happened, you have the two authors of the above paper making their speculations.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 20:21:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Dec 2010 20:24:46 GMT
J A R P says:
Don't be a fool. How many men owned up to being the Yorkshire Ripper?
Or, how about this: Osama is dead already, so they got in some lookalikes to claim it so that the CIA would not have to get the blame. They got him to do it because it would lead people astray in a serious way.

Don't get side tracked, and don't let your vanity get in the way. Osama saying he did it is a bit of side issue. I will even admit that he had a hand in it, and organised the planes and men.

But he did not pull the buildings down. That was an inside job. And that is the point. We see there that there is a tear in the fabric of the story, and of our normal reality.

If I am wrong and you can discredit my sources (the New York Times, engineers who were there, witnesses who were threatened, etc.) then I will back down. But it is you who need to prove how those towers fell because of those planes.

One of the towers didn't even have much aviation fuel in it. You can see the fuel being thrown beyond it, into the air.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 20:23:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Dec 2010 20:28:18 GMT
David Groom says:
Jason Powell,

'But there are some loyal or dishonest engineers out there who will write an innocent document purporting to advise their trade in not doing the same thing again.'

So why aren't all the structural engineers in the USA who have read this article form their 'trade magazine' objecting to what it says? Answer, because there is nothing to object to!

Or put another way and I am quoting from the site here: But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 20:30:55 GMT
J A R P says:
The article is entitled 'How the loss of one column may have led to the collapse of WTC7'. In other words, their work is speculation. Nobody gets a temperature when reading some perhaps naive attempts to explain the impossible. For the decline of that building is, by the standard theory, impossible.

I image the article was simply ignored by the other experts. It may have brought a bad taste to the mouth of others who knew that the whole 'investigation' was a fraud and that no actual investigation actually went on after the disaster.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 20:35:56 GMT
J A R P says:
As far as I am aware, none of the CIA men who are speculated to have planted the explosives, have come forward. These military style operations work in two ways:

You use a pyramid structure and a 'need to know' passage of information. Only the ones at the top know what is really going on. The others just do small parts.

Second, for the integral parts, such as actually planting the bombs, you use a very small number of nameless people who have direct contact with the overall commander. This small unit will either: 1. be killed in the aftermath, as happened in the Iran-Contra affair; or, 2. they will remain quiet until they are dropped in it in some way or betrayed, then they will speak out. Otherwise, they will, being human, live up to their agreement and keep quiet.

If I were to plant explosives at WTC, I would make sure only a few people knew, and I would personally oversee it, and would not let my subordinates know.

That's what you would do if you wanted it to succeed. That is how they did it.

Posted on 23 Dec 2010 20:39:55 GMT
J A R P says:
I am going to go play the guitar now. Speak tomorrow, if you want.

Don't be misled. The chances are, it was an inside job, as I have shown. So just keep an open mind.

Nil admirari. Let nothing shock you, and be capable of balancing two opposed hypotheses in mind at the same time.

Being so convinced of what is so unsure will make it more likely that we will be fooled again as events unfold in the future.

Posted on 23 Dec 2010 21:48:17 GMT
Obelix says:
"The chances are, it was an inside job, as I have shown"

The only thing on display is your gullibility.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 22:11:52 GMT
David Groom says:
Jason Powell,

'In other words, their work is speculation.'

No it was an expert's view of exactly what happened to that building. As it isn't possible to reconstruct the building and the conditions that destroyed it any such report will always use the term 'may' rather than a more definitive one. It doesn't change the validity of what was found.

'I image the article was simply ignored by the other experts.'

You think that not one single structural engineer didn't feel inclined to challenge what was said? Oh please, they'd be queuing up to do it.

'It may have brought a bad taste to the mouth of others who knew that the whole 'investigation' was a fraud and that no actual investigation actually went on after the disaster.'

You genuinely think there was no investigation? You don't think that many thousands of people weren't involved in sorting out what happened? You have a very fanciful idea of how law enforcement in the US works. And as for your idea that a 'bad taste in the mouth' would stop people making accusations, you need to consider that Clinton was called to a grand jury by a special prosecutor for some far less major crimes (remember Monica Lewinski?). If there was the slightest shred of evidence, I guarantee that prosecutors would be lining up to indict anybody right up to the president who was involved in the murder of 3000 or so US citizens, and they would do so with relish.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 22:13:19 GMT
David Groom says:
Jason Powell,

'That's what you would do if you wanted it to succeed. That is how they did it.'

And the hundred's of thousands involved in the cover up afterwards - did the government just eliminate them as well? LOL.

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 11:36:32 GMT
Salator says:
David Groom

"So why aren't all the structural engineers in the USA who have read this article form their 'trade magazine' objecting to what it says? Answer, because there is nothing to object to!"

There are hundreds of engineers and more than a thousand architects objecting to the official version of things. Their campaign is well known on the internet, the only area of free expression left.
Of course you do not see it in the mainstream media because the mainstream media is owned by a handful of men who are without doubt complicit with the conspiracy. the men who work for these magazies and publications, such as "Practical Mechanics" are working for those publishers. Most of them do as they are told or they could lose their jobs. Some of them are very probably embedded sympathisers to the Nationalist cause. For the most part people tend to blindly believe their political leaders and have unquestioning faithin their media because their egos associate themselves with these institutions in a patriotic mind set, so they simply do not question the officials because they abrogate their own personal responsibility. And that is truely sad, because dissent is so important to any society.

On the question of Osama BinLaden, it is well documented that Bin Laden was a paid operative of the CIA for decades. He may be dead or he may be sell shaved and groomed and living in luxury inSwitzerkand for all we know. It is well known that he was very ill just days before 9/11 and had been visited by high ranking US officials in hospital just before 9/11. He was, for the purposes of public consumption, the most wanted man on earth already at that time. Why was he not arrested?

I think the only people being naive here are those continuing to peddle the really preposterous official version which realy is a very silly conspitacy theory. The questions raised here by Jason and the guy who started thethread have not been answered. Referring us continually to the same bogus reports by just a handful of clearly dubious and paid up writers in just a couple of publicationsis really pathetic. The question is being asked of YOU. Can you use your brain in any meaningful independent capacity to look at the evidence and answer the questions, because frankly it couldn't be more obvious.

As to why there are not many people blowing the whistle? Some have tried and died or disappeared. others have simply not been heard in the mainstream, but there are volumes of books and publications quoting chapter and verse backed up by very important comentators and experts. For some reason you simply stick your head in the sand about these people. here is one:

"The official story could not possibly have happened. In other words, what the administration has put forward is essentially a conspiracy theory that does not conform to the facts. It's not possible. It's not operationally feasible ... The Commission was a whitewash."
~ Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Jaso Powell: Great stuff. Keep going. I am right there with you bro. Keep fighting the worthy battle.
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
~Albert Einstein

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 11:41:25 GMT
Withnail says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 12:21:52 GMT
Salator says:
Sorry about the typo's. I am in a hurry to go to a nativity and join in the ritual conditioning of Christmas, a very old lie indeed. But if I don't pay lip service, all the normal sane people think I must be strange and weird and not to be trusted. Have to conform old chap. Got to fit in with all those sane people.

Incidentally, when Bush and Blair were claiming there were WMD's in Iraq I was a bit of a lone voice then too. I knew it was a crock, and you, Withnail et al, believed every word, because you are ignorant about the world you live in. Or you have a vested interest in perpetuating the lies.

Show me one frame of a passenger aircraft hitting the Pentagon. Just one. And don't peddle that few obscured frames the officials do, anyone can see that is not a passenger aircraft.It is a missile.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Dec 2010 12:26:11 GMT
Withnail says:
You have got me wrong - I don't believe every word that I am told by government agencies - I just think that there is no reason to look beyond the blindingly obvious in this case. Much like the blindingly obvious claim that there were missiles in iraq able to be used within 45 minutes.

Governments lie to the citizens, true, but that doesn't equate with accepting every wild idea that comes around just because it is different from what you have been told.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Dec 2010 13:37:53 GMT
David Groom says:
Hadi Zarbarif,

'Most of them do as they are told or they could lose their jobs. Some of them are very probably embedded sympathisers to the Nationalist cause.'

So your view is that there is a giant conspiracy going on involving hundreds of thousands of people, all being kept under control by the CIA, FBI, ATF etc. etc.? I so wish it was possible to elect a government that could manage something like this. They would be so efficient that they would achieve nirvana for the country they serve. As it is most governments are hopelessly incompetent and muddle through as best they can, and we the electorate somehow manage to survive along the way. The idea they could manage this is laughable - I can just see George W Bush trying it. LOL.

Apart from the difficulty of maintaining the conspiracy involving so many people, the other overwhelming objection is always that governments and politicians are too incompetent to manage it effectively. Witness Julian Assange and his current round of leaks. All it took was one military guy to blow the lot wide open. Where's the guy in the FBI or CIA who is going to do the same about 9/11? And please don't tell me he's too scared to do so for fear of going to jail. The fallout from his proving complicity of the government in 9/11 would be so destructive that the leaker would probably be elected president and get a congressional medal. The fact that nobody is doing so, and newspapers are no longer interested shows that there is nothing to report. Its a non-issue, because its been examined by people who would ferret out the truth and they have found nothing to make it worthwhile continuing.

'Can you use your brain in any meaningful independent capacity to look at the evidence and answer the questions, because frankly it couldn't be more obvious.'

Yes, I have examined the claims of the CTheorists and the explanations, many of which are not official ones and it is quite clear to me that there was no conspiracy. Beyond this, I am not so stupid as to waste time on a wild goose chase, simply to satisfy the egos of those who are still trying to profit from their own theories.

As for things that don't apparently fit the facts, you have to remember that the view of what happened is the result of piecing together the evidence not from direct observation. So its always going to have some areas of uncertainty. That doesn't make for a conspiracy.

As for your quoted individual - Catherine Austin Fitts - I don't think her back ground exactly qualifies here with any expertise to comment. And those she associates with in the 9/11 Truth movement scarcely represent a broad coalition of experts with knowledge in the areas necessary to understand the events of 9/11.

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 14:55:56 GMT
Salator says:
David, all you do is dismiss everything contrary to your beliefs out of hand. You dismiss any credible witnesses as not credible, without being able to qualify your statements in any way. The questions still remain unanswered.

It always amazes me that people like you only have incredulity and disparagemnet as arguments. Never any critical thinking or factual dialogue.

It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of people. It only takes a small determined group. The people who placed the explosives were contracted from outside the United States and they dare not divulge or whistleblow because they are patriots of their own country and they know that if the truth gets out it would be unthinkable for his own compatriots let alone the rest of the world. Think about that. I'm not a fool. I now what I am talking about.

There was plenty on that story in the mainstream press back then, but it got snuffed out. As I said, only a handfull of men control the US media and if they take the same aggressive stance towards their editors as you do to me and they tell their editors "9/11" is off the agenda, then it really is that simple.

As for Assange, he presented his material to the US inadvance and he told them he was goingto publish. He invited them and others to come forward with any material they did not want to go publiconthe grounds of national security or individual risk. They did not take up the offer. Either that was a mistake or it was deliberate. Perhaps a deliberate distraction from more important news, because frankly, there is nothing earth shattering in the Wikileaks material from where I am sitting. But what is happening to Assange may be sending out a signal to others.

As to any other would be whistleblowers, like 3 Days of the Condor, the movie, a whistle blower may come forward, but how will he be sure it will ever get published. Look at the case of Dr Kelly. Another silent message.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Dec 2010 15:23:15 GMT
David Groom says:
Hadif Zarbadi,

'You dismiss any credible witnesses as not credible, without being able to qualify your statements in any way. The questions still remain unanswered.'

Having read quite widely about the conspiracy theory regarding the WTC, I dismiss that which the CTs claim on the basis that there are plausible explanations for pretty much everything they object to, so I see no need to propose fantasy to explain this tragedy.

It's also noticeable that you keep talking about all facets of the conspiracy, but don't provide any evidence to support your case. There are lots of assertions, but few facts. For example, you say that 'The people who placed the explosives were contracted from outside the United States and they dare not divulge or whistleblow because they are patriots of their own country and they know that if the truth gets out it would be unthinkable for his own compatriots let alone the rest of the world.' Where's your evidence for this statement?

It is also the case that the CTs use 'the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.' Quote from Professor Thomas Eager of MIT Materials Science and Engineering Department. I think I know who I'll go with!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Dec 2010 21:15:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Dec 2010 22:14:45 GMT
J A R P says:
Groom
What you appear to be doing is calling on your psychological and social estimate of the world you believe yourself to live in. 'Do you think that people would not...', 'You have a very fanciful idea of how law enforcement in the US works...' 'You think that not one structural engineer would...'
This is not a means of changing my mind, and it is not a decent argument.
THE POINT OF 9/11 IS THAT IF WHAT THE THEORISTS ARE SAYING IS RIGHT, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE END OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS AND THE STATUS QUO. There would be no succour in chosing Gore over Bush, Cameron over Brown... for all sides would have been culpable and useless. It would point to a rot at the heart of it all. This is what is being said here. And in answer to your questions about whether X would not have done this, or Y would not have done this, I say that there are indeed examples of X and Y doing it. They just didn't succeed. Finally, they might not really want to succeed. What would we replace Bush/Gore/Brown/Cameron WITH?

Now, in a case like this, where I have shown you that the building falling is impossible, it is wholly irrational to bring forward an obscure paper, about which there is precious little else being said anywhere in the world, in support of an event which is basically miraculous.
You are using some kind of delaying tactic here.

The point is, your engineers are making guesses, because the 9/11 Commission did not even mention the collapse, and there was no investigation. That is, no formal investigation was done. The commission did not report on it, and the evidence was melted down and recycled.

'You think that not one single structural engineer didn't feel inclined to challenge what was said? Oh please, they'd be queuing up to do it.'

- The amount of annomalies in the 9/11 investigation reports, and the whole cover up story is so full of holes that there is indeed a queue. At the front of it stands the FBI and the other agencies, holding it all up and restricting information for 'security' reasons. Read my messages above and see that I point out that those who were tasked with going to Building 7 complained of having their hands tied.

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml

Those who were guilty were: the President, the Vice President, the Sect of State, etc.

A law suit was attempted, and a judge would not let the case go ahead. It is not possible to have the President on trial.

From Wikipedia (a concise short account of what happened)
Hilton filed a $7 billion class action lawsuit, in 2002, against United States President George W. Bush, members of his administration (including Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld) and others. The lawsuit was composed of 400 plaintiffs, including 14 families of 9/11 victims [1], with two named plaintiffs representing the class.[2][3] The lawsuit alleged Bush administration complicity in allowing the September 11, 2001 attacks. The case was dismissed on Dec. 30, 2004, with the judge ruling that US citizens do not have any right to sue a sitting President, based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity; that the lawsuit "presents a non-justicable political question;" that the plaintiffs "lack standing to sue on behalf of all taxpayers;" that the plaintiffs "failed to establish the required causal connection between [their] alleged injuries and these defendants' conduct;" and that "deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment."[4]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Dec 2010 21:21:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Dec 2010 21:35:50 GMT
J A R P says:
Alexander Litvinenko. One of the few who was prepared to show that the Moscow bombings, said officially to have been carried out by Chechens, and which led to the invasion of Chechnia, ...

He was assassinated in London.

There are other witnesses. And Boris Berezovksi, who was also punished, was one of them.

Just how many people do you think it takes to plant some bombs? What would it cost in terms of buying them?
The main thing would be in the choice of the few, chosing them for the nihilism, their lack of sympathy. But there are many such.

Have you not heard of the experiements in which an authority asks random people to apply electric shocks to their fellows. Because the authority asks it, and they are in an official role, they will do just about anything. They won't even feel guilt.

My first reaction to the disaster in 2001, when I was a soldier on a training course in Holland when it happened, was, 'So what?'

I feel different now, but if the ends to be achieved are valid enough, people would do it, plant the bombs, get the planes to fly, make up the story. And the story is pretty badly crafted.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Dec 2010 21:32:17 GMT
J A R P says:
In fairness, the complete story might come out when the people who have access to the facts of what went on inside are no longer in the way. It will need an official investigation, with access to the proper documentation, to really see the truth. I admit it - I don't know what happened. But the story as written, and as accepted, is not real, and is almost all fiction.

We really need to worry.

And again, our whole society is based on the pyramid structure. Those doing the work, at the bottom, or in the middle, do as they are told. They don't know the final plan, and they don't know who is the real boss.

In the end, each of us really has to do the work of resisting this momentum every day, even if only in a small way, and above all, not getting involved in the mutual suspicion and hate that arises as a result of these dubious activities. I mean, if the US in the early 60s, did blow up some hotels and pin the blame on Cubans, (a plan, as is well known, which was hatched and then abandoned at the last minute) would you have made no effort to stop the invasion of Cuba?

If only on a pragmatic basis, don't join in with the authorities in these things because it seems likely by the nature of things that one day they, those who are hatching these plans, will do the same to you. It all shows a complete lack of sympathy with normal people.

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 21:37:20 GMT
Salator says:
David, I agree that my theory about who they would have used to carry out the attack in terms of contractors from outside the US is not yet proven, but there are lots of unanswered questions about certain agents operating in and around the 9/11 attack that have since been buried. I think someone asked 'how come no one involved in planting the explosives has come forward?' like the guy who passed leaks to Wikileaks. I was merely offering up a feasible and not particularly unusual explanation as a possibility. This sort of thing is standard practice in all countries where the people involved no the only way a plan will work is if they use hostiles. In Iran, for example, the Basij riot police used in the recent political demonstrations were drawn from Arab Iranians from the South East of Iran who are inherently hostile to the Persian Iranians that largely inhabit the North an especially Iran. The hostility is born from decades of prejudice and discrimination and other sectarian differences. The same policy is carried out in China, Burma etc.

The evidence you ask for has already been provided by other posters here and like the testimony of Catherine Fitz earlier, you dismissed it or avoided dealing with it. The evidence you point to are simply unanswered questions. Or answers that at least stand up to the faintest scrutiny.

Some of these questions I will repeat;

Why did the air defenses of the most sophisticated military in the world fail on that day? (You like to argue incompetence, but I know that the procedures are virtually automated. So someone interfered with procedure.

Why did the automated Pentagon air defenses fail? This is the most sensitive security building in the US and it does have an automatic, computer controlled defense system. But it failed to shoot flight 77 out of the sky? Why? There are some very good explanations for that too if you do your research.

How did buildings 1 and 2 come down in freefall speed. Even if I give you the heat and melting steel argument, which is totally fallacious and has been proven because the intensity of the heat dissipated very quickly, but even if I give you that, how do you explain the destruction and collapse of the seventy or eighty floors below the fire which had no fire or structural damage? If you tell me it was because of the weight of the floors above I would counter that the structure below was solid and indeed stronger than the upper floors, so there would have been very considerable resistance, The top of the towers should have toppled off and the rest stay standing, but that didn't happen, did it?

Building 7, for which an explanation took several years to arrive, has not given an explanation that withstands any serious scrutiny and this is also well documented.

No one is saying Bush planned this. It goes way beyond him. All leaders of countries are simply senior administrators for much more powerful groups and individuals. They are just pawns.

Why was the steel and debris shipped to China before it could be properly examined by forensics and law enforcement agencies? This was a crime scene and the evidence was all got rid of.

How do you explain the existence of thermite and nano-thermite in the dust and debris gathered by independent agencies from the surrounding area?

Seven of the nineteen hijackers identified have been found alive and well, but the posters still carry their names and photos and the media brushes over this detail. Why?

Why are there no date stamped video cctv of the hijackers at the airports?

Two planes hit two buildings but three buildings came down? Eh?

Who made money from this tragedy?

Who had unfettered access to the building before 9/11?

How can you dismiss hundreds of witness testimonies about explosions and multiple explosions throughout the buildings. There are hundreds of videos?
Try this one for "evidence" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

How come we had a ready-made explanation about what happened as soon as the buildings went down?

How come one or two news commentators attributed the attack to al Qaida before the buildings had even collapsed? when such a terrorist attack was unprecedented?

Why did the 9/11 commission ignore building 7 all together?

Oh, I know David. these are all either coincidences? incompetence? or somewhere you have read very good explanations for them, but you just are not able to produce those explanations here in this discussion. Are you really that gullible? It would appear so.

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

~Albert Einstein

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 21:40:02 GMT
Salator says:
Sorry, that should read : ...the Basij riot police used in the recent political demonstrations were drawn from Arab Iranians from the South East of Iran who are inherently hostile to the Persian Iranians that largely inhabit the North an especially (Tehran).

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 21:48:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Dec 2010 21:51:38 GMT
J A R P says:
How you stop an insider

a USAF veteran, and vice chancellor at the Defence Language Institute in Monterey, Cal. said that Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were coming. Butler sent a letter to Monterey County Herald, published May 2nd, 2002. He is a former combat pilot of Gulf War, 1991, and said that Osama bin Laden was being used as S. Hussein was being used. Butler was relieved of his duties after the letter was published, and assigned a temporary post somewhere else pending an investigation into his conduct. It is understood that his allegations are not wild, but are backed up by evidence.
FBI agents gave evidence to lawyer David Schippers, the man who led attempts to impeach Clinton. They had been repeatedly ignored when they gave urgent warnings to their superiors before 9/11. Schippers sent the information to John Ashcroft, asking for an investigation. His pleas were ignored by Ashcroft. Schippers tried for 6 weeks prior to 9/11 to get Ashcroft to listen to the massive evidence that a massive terrorist attack on lower Manhatten was going to be launched. Ashcroft, of course, was put in place by Bush, and was in on what was coming, if anyone was.

How you stop a host of fearful insiders from speaking:
- Most insiders will testify or reveal things, if they do at all, in court. How to stop a host of fearful insiders from speaking? Don't allow them to go to court with a case.
Stanley Hilton, who took up the cause of the 9/11 families said that he had sources with the FBI, CIA, NSA and Naval Intelligence, and these made it clear to him that the official story was a lie.
The case never got to court. Hilton says the familes were offered 1.8 million dollars each if they waived the right to sue the government.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  163
Total posts:  2864
Initial post:  6 Sep 2010
Latest post:  27 Oct 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions