What I really do think happened on 9/11

[benburch]

99% of this bogus shit people say about 9/11 is made-up bogus shit.

9/11 is where a conspiracy of terrorists from mostly Saudi Arabia, financed by the Saudi Royal Family and maybe Osama Bin Laden, hijacked four airliners, and succeeded in bringing down the WTC 1, 2 and 7 and nearly trashing the whole Pentagon. The governmental and military response was pathetic, and reflected Depraved Indifference on the part of an administration more interested in looting the treasury than in keeping the country safe, despite specific warnings of this sort of threat exactly. And just maybe they were hoping that a terrorist event would allow them to pass repressive and fascistic laws and facilitate their looting, and so did less than nothing to stop it.

EVERYTHING else about this is an unsupportable conspiracy theory.

[yourout]

1. I guess I am loony then.

I am in the LIHOP crowd......all the evidence points to Bushco knowing something big was coming
and did nothing.....nada....zip to stop it. There was simply to much for them to gain by letting it happen.

[benburch]

4. I think I just SAID LIHOP. nt

[yourout]

7. Sorry....I was speed reading.....you and I are on the same page.

dunce:

[salvorhardin]

2. I'll take your depraved indifference

And raise you 'criminal negligence'.

As for the loons, I agree. :-) It really distresses me to see someone like A.K. Dewdney siding with them though.

[Duer 157099]

3. You mean like David Ray Griffin?

You're saying he's a loon too? It's hard to tell what you're saying.

[Wilms]

5. Well that settles it.

I wish I had realized sooner, Ben. It would have saved me the time I spent pondering questions left unanswered by the commission (see sig line).

[Twist_U_Up]

22. Thanks for your link.

Thats alot of unaswered questions.

[Wilms]

41. Can you imagine?

When I read that I didn't need no stinkin' theory about 19 knuckle-heads and imaginative failings.

[HughBeaumont]

6. Curmudgeonly ad hominem. Signature.

Once again, MIHOP doesn't require believing in CD/Pentagate.

See you in the basement.

[NJCher]

8. how about rephrasing your post

So you focus on the issue and not on name-calling (loons, nutjobs). No point in making any enemies.




Cher

[MercutioATC]

13. When's the last time you saw the 9/11 Forum here at DU?

The lines have been pretty clearly drawn. I don't think anybody's concerned with "making enemies".

[Bluebear]

16. Because we're not allowed to have a rational discussion of it here.

Anything on the topic gets moved to the attic where your crazy aunt lives.

[The Magistrate]

18. If the Discussion Was Rational, Sir

It would not be shifted off to "the attic", as you put it....

[Bluebear]

19. My experience is that many 9/11 post are immediately moved.

Maybe it's overzealous on-duty moderators then? I was under the impression that Israeli and 9/11 posts go whoosh :)

[The Magistrate]

30. That Is Not the Case, Sir

The rules on the matter are quite clear. Threads that commence with speculative theories, such as demolition charges at the Trade Towers, or no jet-liner striking the Pentagon, and similar claims, or that link to or cite sites that promote such speculative theories, are moved to the dedicated forum. Threads that discuss other elements of the matter remain. As a practical matter, such threads generally do attract people who use them as an excuse to post such speculations and links to such sites, and such posts are removed, or, if they have become so numerous as to predminate in the thread, it is moved to the dedicated forum.

Discussion of the conflict between Israel and Palestine is permitted only in the forum dedicated to that purpose. Threads on something like, say, U.S. policy towards a current Israeli government, or recent Iranian declarations regarding Israel, will be allowed to remain, at least until such time as they degenerate into the familiar wrangles of Israel v. Palestine, at which time they are moved to the dedicated forum.

[MercutioATC]

34. You mods...you have an answer for everything...

;)

[The Magistrate]

35. Well, Sir

Now that my colleagues have decided to shift this down here, I will refrain from further comment, to be sure of putting Mr. Lithos and Ms. U.G.R.R. to no extra trouble....

[Joe Fields]

37. Then Magistrate, would it be allowable to discuss the....

sociollogical paper put out by the professors at Sonoma State University that deals with the Global Dominance Group, and how it's members are intertwined, like thread woven into fabric?

In that report, 9/11 is discussed, and in a report put out by the PNAC, titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," which was written in part by Steven Cambone and Robert Eptsein, (two very instrumental neocons)in the year 2000, it was written that the process of creating a "Pax Americana" would take a long time. And the only thing that could speed the process up would be some catastrophic and catalyzing event, such as Pearl Harbor.

So, would it be wild speculation and conspiracy theory on my part to say that, given the numerous warnings officials in our government, including president Bush, had about the possibility of hijackers flying planes into the Pentagon or the World Trade Towers, and not just by our intelligence sources, but intelligence sources from around the world, and given the fact that these warnings were ignored, that the government, from the Oval Office was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

20. Such is the will of DU.

:)

[Bluebear]

21. The will of DU membership or management?

Just to be clear :)

[benburch]

24. We are guests here.

This is the House of Skinner, and that is as it should be.

You can go and start your own forum. I have. http://oldamericancentury.org/bb and plan to start another soon, too.

But this is Skinner's place, and he makes the rules.

[Bluebear]

26. "You can go and start your own forum."

Frostiness noted. I was just making a comment. Truthfully, I think I missed the rule in print about 9/11 discussions.

[benburch]

27. Wasn't meant to be frosty... Sorry.

I started my own forum so I could not have to worry about externally imposed rules, such as those we submit to as guests here.

That is that only alternative I can see, as DU is not a Democracy.

[dchill]

84. DU is not a Democracy.

That's OK. Neither is America.

[MercutioATC]

29. Skinner is Master and Commander.

Setting sail on the good ship DU assumes abiding by his wishes.

There are some 9/11 posts that I'd personally like to see hit the General page, but a lot of is IS silly rantings (IMO).

...than again, a LOT of DU posts are silly rantings (IMO)...

[Bluebear]

31. Yes, Mercutio, thank you for the invaluable information.

You said the lines were clearly drawn re: 9/11 and when was the last time one visited the 9/11 forum. I merely mentioned that discussion of the event is not encouraged and you turned it into me questioning Skinner.

[MercutioATC]

33. A couple of issues...

First, my "lines are clearly drawn" statement was addressed to NJCher, not you.

Second, I didn't turn anything into anything. You asked if the decision to keep 9/11 topics in the 9/11 Forum was "the will of DU membership or management". I stated that it was Skinner's decision and we all kind of agree to abide by Skinner's wishes when we decide to join the forum.

Oh, and you're welcome for the "valuable information"...

[The Magistrate]

32. Experience Has Shown, Sir

That the policy in place is very popular with the membership of the forum, and chafed at only by a very small number....

[petgoat]

62. Hi there, MercutioATC. You never answered my question.

If the war games were classified, are your instructions to tell us you can't talk about
them, or to lie about them?

[benburch]

15. Fair enough.

Done.

[babylonsister]

Loons? Where's my tsk-tsk smilie. Not very nice!

You know what they say about opinions: everyone's got one, and that's fine by me. :)

[IndyOp]

9. My mind is open to all possibilities --

I have concerns about the 'currently accepted story' and about the 'alternative versions.' Some of what David Ray Griffin said on Mike Malloy the other night sounded off-base to me. Then again, so does the claim that fighter jets could not scramble in time to fly next to, and if needed, shoot down the planes.

I teach science and point out often that science is not generally about finding certainty (thought it is nice if you can get it). Science consists of theories that can make some correct and some incorrect predictions. Theories exist in paradigms, which can change. So, much of science isn't pursuit of certainty, it is tolerance of ambiguity.

I have enough information to know that I *want* an exceptional, deep, very broad investigation into *everything* about 9/11 -- the people, the planes, the buildings, the videos, the eyewitnesses...

Why do you feel the need to call people "loons"? Name-calling generally isn't an effective tool in rational debates. I read your post from the other day about how the towers could have come down just from the weight of the planes (not demolition) - and I thought it was excellent. I bookmarked it for future reference. It was informational and therefore useful.

[Duer 157099]

12. Can you point me to the post?

That talks about the weight of the plane collapsing the towers? And does it sufficiently account for WTC7?

[IndyOp]

14. Why There Were No Bombs Planted at the WTC - by benburch

You will have to judge for yourself about it's sufficiency...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x72279

[Duer 157099]

17. Thanks. Looked it over. Nope, doesn't do it for me. n/t

[salvorhardin]

25. Chip Berlet has a good critical review of Griffin's book

Berlet heavily criticizes Griffin's book but believes there are many unanswered questions about the events of that day and leading up to it. He also allows Griffin to respond vigorously.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html

There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.

[Duer 157099]

36. thanks for that link

I have bookmarked and will explore more thoroughly when I can.

However, just a quick skim reveals that the author is guilty of exactly that which he accuses Griffin of, lol (logical fallacies, plus more).

It's too bad that what should be a fairly straight forward discussion of facts just doesn't seem possible, mainly because so much of the evidence is lost or hidden.

[Bushwick Bill]

40. Here is Griffin's response.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GRI405A.html
(On edit, sorry, I wasn't paying attention and didn't see the original link had his response).

[EFerrari]

38. "tolerance of ambiguity" -- indeed. n/t

[Duer 157099]

10. The recent UAE issue is, to me, the greatest smoking gun

After all, the only logical reason for Bush to not be worried about terrorism associated with UAE is if he knows (as he demonstrated in the classroom during the 9/11 attack) that there's no need for concern.

How and why would he know that?

[melody]

11. I have no idea what happened

I can talk myself into and out of almost any scenario regarding all this, but I'm afraid I think the nutjobs are the psychotic bastards whose actions breed such paranoia, not the victims.

The reality is none of us have any idea what happened -- HOP or not. That's the scariest thing. I'm able to believe almost any scenario with these people we have in office.

None of us have any more evidence for al Qaeda having done it than we do for Bush having done it. The real evidence is under lock and key. We have only the fragments we can see reflected in a mirror. We have to rely on a government that we can't trust. It's not "just" the people, we can see that lack of confidence on the corporate level, too (the real corporate level, not the International Fascist one).

So all I can say is beats me, but whomever did it, should have a special place in hell waiting for them.

[JDPriestly]

23. We may never know for sure.

No matter which conspiracy theory you believe, you have to base your opinion on assumptions rather than ascertainable facts. That is because the perpetrators and organizers are either dead or have never been arrested. And, frankly, your explanation is a good one, but just based on a few facts and a lot of speculation. Smoke and mirrors. That's all we've been shown about how, who, where the plot was organized.

[Sperk]

28. used to be a LIHOP person, I've graduated to MIHOP.

no doubt in my mind.

[sabbat hunter]

81. question

do you really think that the * regime, by far the most incompetant regime ever in the US, could pull off 911? what have they done with any level of competance that shows that this is possible?

Iraq? getting OBL? Katrina?

[petgoat]

99. Could the *regime pull off 9/11? Why not?

What's to pull off? Cripple the air defense with six simultaneous war games and it's a slam
dunk.

[Bushwick Bill]

39. How 'bout miracle Hani?

Do you think a guy who was such a bad pilot he was denied the opportunity to rent a single engine Cessna a month before 9/11 pulled off the move that he did?

If not, I'm guessing you just think someone else flew the bird?

[benburch]

42. I know I wouldn't have any problems flying that aircaft.

And my training amounts to flying my father's Aeronca Champion when I was 8 years old.

It is simply not that hard to fly an aircraft.

Takeoffs are hard.

Landings are harder.

But just flying the aircraft around the sky isn't that hard at all.

I suspect there is hardly a DUer who, having a basic familiarization sessions with that aircraft cockpit couldn't do it.

It takes no great skill at all.

Still doesn't mean he could have handled landing that Cessna.

[Bushwick Bill]

43. Fair enough.

We've heard a lot of conflicting opinions on that score, ranging from your insight to hearsay about professional pilots saying they could never pull off that move. I have no idea what to think anymore.

[benburch]

45. My brother is an ex professional pilot. (Now a full time poker player)

He said to me at the time that hitting a building like that was no more difficult than getting all three wheels on the same runway, and pilots do that every day.

[Jose Diablo]

51. Some could disagree

That maneuver at the Pentagon was exceptional, IMO.

As I remember it, it was a descending tight turn, tighter than the standard rate of turn (2G) which there is a gauge to follow. Plus the rate of decent through the 270 degrees was perfect to bring the plane at treetop at level flight almost lined up perfectly to strike the Pentagon at the face that had just recently been reinforced.

It's very difficult to make a constant rate of decent, at a constant speed. The 2 controls involved are throttle and elevators. And then to level out at the precise moment during the decent and to have this be co-ordinated with the non-standard rate of turn, well I disagree that someone without a lot of hours sitting in the left seat in that type of aircraft, a heavy, could accomplish the maneuver. Even with a 152, it would be difficult, notwithstanding your experiences at the age of 8.

I am sorry Ben, that just ain't gonna happen, no how, no way.

Edit to add: As for your "professional" pilot brother, if he says that maneuver at the Pentagon is anything except exceptional, well I for one am glad he now makes his living at the poker table, and not flying a plane I am traveling in.

[benburch]

53. We were talking about WTC 1 2 and 7 here.

I will deal with the Pentagon in another post, but I do think I could have flown that pattern too.

[Jose Diablo]

54. Were we talking about WTC1,2,7 here? AA77 hit the Pentagon, as did Hanni

Help me out here Ben, you seem to have a 'handle on it all'.

Hani Hanjour, I seem to remember he was the pilot on AA77, or so the 9/11 commission says. You do believe the 'official' story, right Ben?

As I remember it, the flights at the WTC were 11 and 175, or am I missing something.

The poster that started this subthread did say Hanni. Hani Hanjour was on AA77.

Yes, why don't you enlighten us all on the Pentagon strike, Ben.

Edit: You seem so confident to could pull off the manaever. I'll tell you what, lets do an experiment. Why don't you take your airplane, whatever it is, take it up to 2275AGL, fly a crosswind to your favorite airport and runway, pull your 270 degree change in direction using a 45 degree bank be sure to start the manaever at the right time and at the same time decend at 3000 feet per minute keeping the same airspeed while at the same time maintaining 90% full airspeed then after the 270 degree completes end-up 25 feet above the ground perfectly aligned with the active runway, then land it Ben. Don't do this at a airport with a control tower Ben, Acrobatic manaevers are strictly prohibited in at a airport. If you do, you will lose you ticket to fly. While you are at it can you tell us how many G's that manaever will generate.

I dare ya, I double dog dare ya.

[Bushwick Bill]

55. Thanks, Jose.

Sorry, Ben, based on the OP I thought it was relevant to address any aspect of the official story that you believe. The first thing that popped in my head was to ask you about Hani and the Pentagon, because while I can buy rookie pilots flying planes into skyscrapers, I really cannot buy the Hanjour story given his poor skills and what others say it would take to wheel that 757 into the Pentagon from where it was flying. I appreciate the insight of both Jose and Ben on this subject. I would love some other pilots to weigh in on it.

[benburch]

56. Regardless of who flew what...

At that speed and at low altitude there is a lot of ground effect in a commercial transport.

This makes the final stage of this maneuver much easier than at first it looks.

And I do believe I could fly that course.

However, I will get my data together and set it up in a simulator some time in the next month or so. I am not at all sure you have the correct flight data there, but I will verify this.

And what, pray tell, is your more reasonable alternative to Hani flying this aircraft into the Pentagon? One that passes the sniff test, please?

[benburch]

57. And it would help...

...if you can cite your source for that flight data.

Also, in your alternative explanation, please account for the 100+ eyewitnesses who saw a commercial transport hit the Pentagon?

[Jose Diablo]

58. The flight data is based on 'standard' rate of turn

A minute and a half to turn through 270 degrees of heading. Of course, a 45 degree is steeper that a standard turn, thus if you tried to do what I suggested, I would imagine you would be taking out the ILS, if one was there.

I don't doubt the witnesses that said they saw a commercial airplane, call it a 757. What I doubt is Hanni being able to pull off that descending turn.

You are correct of the ground effect. Thats another thing that bothers me, a 757 has a lot of lift at 400-450knots, when its clean. It must have been very difficult to even keep it level and not rising over the Pentagon.

I don't think Hanni was the pilot. Whoever pulled that one off was a real pro, even a regular ATP would have a hard time with that maneuver, IMO. Thats why I think the pilot was military, but who's military?

Edit: Are you familiar with the electronics in a 757? Specifically the Autopilot to/from the Transponder signaling and format? And how the flight recorder fits in on all this. When for example the recorder is not able to record all data because the channel for doing that is being used by something else?

Specifically, has there been developments in the last 10-15 years to incorporate a anti-hijacking feature in commercial airliners.

[benburch]

59. I don't think it would have been all that hard to get the nose down.

Its not like you are using physical strength to push at the bell cranks after all.

As for the reason he executed the turn? He was flying VFR over terrain he did not know. I believe he missed the Pentagon on the first pass and had no choices.

As for the way he coordinated the turn, I believe that he simply banked as hard as he was able until he acquired the target visually and then dove for it for all he was worth.

I believe I would have done it that way, and I expect that I would have succeeded.

Modern commercial transports are capable of much more aerobatic maneuvering than any sane person would ever put them through. I see that as a safety feature. In this case, the pilot was not a sane person.

[benburch]

60. BTW, My dear friend's father was in the damaged section.

He was a career Naval Intelligence officer.

I assure you, he is dead, and not disappeared to some secret camp.

[Jose Diablo]

63. Sorry to hear that

I also do not buy in on the substitution of aircraft and no people on them and all that stuff. The planes were hijacked with all on board and then flown into the targets. I have no doubt about that.

All of us, want to know what happened. It's a matter of closure.

[Jose Diablo]

64. I remember an account of a 727 I think it was

Flying from Midland/Saganaw to Detroit on a midnight run. The pilot and copilot made a bet about if the plane could do a vertical roll. There were no passengers. So the pilot did, to prove it could be done. I doubt the maneuver is in the Operation Manual, but you can bet it was done during the experimental testing of the aircraft.

I'd say all in all though, a heavy is somewhat too sluggish for maneuvers, and of course if stressed, it may or may not make it. Hard to say what will happen when going out of the envelope.

Thats why the pilot got canned.

[benburch]

74. Clearly the pilot in this case did not care if the airframe was stressed!

There was a 747 that landed in LA a while back that had suffered some extreme event or other over the Pacific, and was so trashed that it had to be written off. I am trying to remember the details, but there were pictures of the wrinkles in the skin and the wings were supposed to have been visibly bent.

[petgoat]

66. dove for it for all he was worth.

That would have put it into the ground. That 757 supposedly penetrated something like
six concrete walls.

[petgoat]

65. Can you fly a 757 in a 270 degree turn while diving 7000 feet

and fly just feet off the ground into a 50' high target?

And not tear the wings off?

I don't think so. Landing is hard. That maneuver is harder.

[greyl]

78. It's not logical to assume they hit their targets perfectly.

We have no way of knowing that the planes followed the exact intended flight path - that they hit a tiny bullseye.

The entire argument that the hijackers weren't skilled enough to hit their targets, rests on that faulty logic. The targets were huge buildings, not mailboxes.

The extreme angles that people attribute to skill could just as well be explained by inexperience and the need to over-correct.

[petgoat]

79. inexperience and the need to over-correct.

A 270 degree turn diving 7000 feet? It would be like someone accidentally performing a triple axel!
Topping off such a maneuver by flying the plane just feet off the ground into a fifty-foot high
building is an amazing feat. At 450 miles an hour the Pentagon itself is a tiny bullseye, let alone
the wall.

(And BTW, why wouldn't rational suicide pilots dive through the roof into Rummy's office, instead of
targetting was was clearly an ongoing construction project? 100 of the 125 killed on the ground were
civilians, mostly construction workers.)

[reprehensor]

46. If you include the 9/11 Commission in the 99%

Especially the "Final Report".


I've found this critique to be much more valuable...
http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html

And this one...
http://harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html

Or the collection of experts and amateur researchers Rep. McKinney brought together here...
http://www.gnn.tv/B12001

And then of course, there's the whole thing about what Al Qaeda actually is.

It's more than just passing strange that Al Qaeda crops up wherever US oil hegemony needs to be extended.

What is slowly emerging from Al Qaeda activities in Central Asia in the 1990s is the extent to which they involved both American oil companies and the U.S. government. By now we know that the U.S.-protected movements of al Qaeda terrorists into regions like Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Kosovo have served the interests of U.S. oil companies. In many cases they have also provided pretexts or opportunities for a U.S. military commitment and even troops to follow...

U.S. Operatives, Oil Companies and Al Qaeda in Azerbaijan

In one former Soviet Republic, Azerbaijan, Arab Afghan jihadis clearly assisted this effort of U.S. oil companies to penetrate the region. In 1991, Richard Secord, Heinie Aderholt, and Ed Dearborn, three veterans of U.S. operations in Laos, and later of Oliver North's operations with the Contras, turned up in Baku under the cover of an oil company, MEGA Oil. This was at a time when the first Bush administration had expressed its support for an oil pipeline stretching from Azerbaijan across the Caucasus to Turkey. MEGA never did find oil, but did contribute materially to the removal of Azerbaijan from the sphere of post-Soviet Russian influence.

Secord, Aderholt, and Dearborn were all career U.S. Air Force officers, not CIA. However Secord explains in his memoir how Aderholt and himself were occasionally seconded to the CIA as CIA detailees. Secord describes his own service as a CIA detailee with Air America in first Vietnam and then Laos, in cooperation with the CIA Station Chief Theodore Shackley. Secord later worked with Oliver North to supply arms and materiel to the Contras in Honduras, and also developed a small air force for them, using many former Air America pilots. Because of this experience in air operations, CIA Director Casey and Oliver North had selected Secord to trouble-shoot the deliveries of weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra operation. (Aderholt and Dearborn also served in the Laotian CIA operation, and later in supporting the Contras.)

As MEGA operatives in Azerbaijan, Secord, Aderholt, Dearborn, and their men engaged in military training, passed "brown bags filled with cash" to members of the government, and above all set up an airline on the model of Air America which soon was picking up hundreds of mujahedin mercenaries in Afghanistan. (Secord and Aderholt claim to have left Azerbaijan before the mujahedin arrived.) Meanwhile, Hekmatyar, who at the time was still allied with bin Laden, was "observed recruiting Afghan mercenaries (i.e. Arab Afghans) to fight in Azerbaijan against Armenia and its Russian allies." At this time, heroin flooded from Afghanistan through Baku into Chechnya, Russia, and even North America. It is difficult to believe that MEGA's airline (so much like Air America) did not become involved.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/28/22228/316

Then there is the case of Al Qaeda's No.5, Luai Sakra, who under scrutiny morphed into a triple agent;

Sakra, the fifth most senior man in Osama bin Ladin’s al-Qaeda that has challenged the whole world from a base in the Afghan mountains, is in the hands of Turkish Justice. Sakra has been sought by the secret services since 2000. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogated him twice before. Following the interrogation CIA offered him employment. He also received a large sum of money by CIA. However the CIA eventually lost contact with him. Following this development, in 2000 the CIA passed intelligence about Sakra through a classified notice to Turkey, calling for the Turkish National Security Organization (MIT) to capture him. MIT caught Sakra in Turkey and interrogated him. Sakra’s protests that, “MIT abducted my wife and interrogated her for 20 days,” as he was brought to Besiktas court in Istanbul for sentencing, seem to confirm these claims.

Sakra was sought and caught by Syrian al-Mukhabarat as well. Syria too offered him employment. Sakra eventually became a triple agent for the secret services. These astounding claims are the outcome of Sakra’s four-day interrogation at Istanbul Anti-Terror Department Headquarters. Turkish security officials, interrogating a senior al-Qaeda figure for the first time, were thoroughly confused about what they discovered about al-Qaeda. The prosecutor too was surprised. A second hearing of the case about the attacks in Istanbul between November 15-23, 2003, is reportedly possible.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&trh=20050815&hn=22982

Then there is MI6, happily contracting Al Qaeda to assassinate Qaddafi;

We need a statement from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary clarifying the facts of this matter. In particular, we need to know how around £100,000 of taxpayers' money was used to fund the sort of Islamic Extremists who have connections to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Did ministers give MI6 permission for this? By the time MI6 paid the group in late 1995 or early 1996, US investigators had already established that Bin Laden was implicated in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre. Given the timing and the close connections between Libyan and Egyptian Islamic Extremists, it may even have been used to fund the murder of British citizens in Luxor, Egypt in 1996.

http://www.cryptome.org/shayler-gaddafi.htm

LIHOP is more than just turning a blind eye.

How can you be blind to assets you are monitoring?

Thanks to Tony Shaffer's written statement, corroborated in a public hearing by one other witness, we know that the DIA had Atta on the radar, as well as other members of his "cell". We know that the CIA didn't want to cooperate with ABLE DANGER, one agent telling Shaffer, "If ABLE DANGER is successful, it will steal CIA's thunder..."; intimating that CIA knew all about them, the FBI was all over Huffman Aviation within hours of 9/11...

It just goes on and on.

[pauldp]

47. Financed by the Saudi Royal Family?

You mean those guys Bush is always kissing and holding hands with? Oh I'm sure they didn't tell George
:eyes:

You forgot to mention the proof that it was also financed by another "Ally in the War or Terror" -
Pakistan.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432

Now there is a cold hard fact for you.

[seatnineb]

50. Really?

Why would the Saudi Royal Family finance Osama Bin Laden........

When Osama Bin Laden has vowed to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family?!

[leftofthedial]

48. you sounded almost rational

until "unsupportable"

[seatnineb]

49. You are talkin' bullshit and you know it.......

So how did the Saudis manage to get these Israelis to celebrate?

Maria:
"I grab my binoculars and I am trying to look at the Twin Towers....but what gets my attention...down there is I see this van...I see 3 guys on top of the van...they seem to be taking a movie.....they were like happy...they are laughing.....they did not look shocked to me."

9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
T.V documentary.
Channel 4
U.K
9/9/04

[benburch]

61. And how can you prove that really happened?

Show me something that would stand up even in a preliminary court hearing?

All I see here is pure antisemitic wishful thinking.

[petgoat]

67. prove that really happened?

Here you go ben. Scroll down the timeline to 9/11/01

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-660

Sorry, but the dancing israelis are absolutely true. As I recall, they
were jailed for 40 days and then quietly deported.

Some of the best people I've ever known are jews, but some of the worst
people I've ever heard of Israeli agents.

[benburch]

69. Does not consitute proof.

Show me original documents. Arrest records or deportation proceedings will do. Certified copies, or attested to be certified by a reputable source.

All I see here is The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion, 2001 edition.

[petgoat]

70. All I see here is The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion

Yeah, well, if you want to paste bumperstickers over your glasses, that's your
business.

It was in the Bergen Record. And yes, cooperativeresearch's archive of the Bergen
Record is not the Bergen Record, but after five years the Bergen Record is no longer
hosting the article.

You need to learn to distinguish between Israelis and jews. 75% of jews voted for
Kerry in 2004.

[benburch]

71. Surely you can do better than that?

You allege that the 9/11 attacks were a Zionist Plot and all you can come up with are a reference to a single newspaper account of dubious veracity? Even were that article still online, it would not constitute proof. Pretty lame! Even the Protocols had better made up documentation than that!

And I speak as somebody who is a vocal critic of the State of Israel and its policies.

But because I am a fair man, I'll tell you what I'll do; I'll deputize you to go file FOIA requests and conduct the Nexus/Lexus searches necessary to prove this happened. Interviewing the persons who claim to be eyewitnesses to the Israeli Film Crew should also be a part of your task. Get them on tape and get a signed and notarized statement from them as to the veracity of their stories. I also want to see statements from the arresting officers.

If what you allege is true, this should not be too difficult.

[petgoat]

75. You allege that the 9/11 attacks were a Zionist Plot

I never alleged any such thing. I allege that the reports of the Dancing Israelis in Liberty Park
videotaping the plane flying into WTC2 seem to be credible. I investigated them a year and a half
ago at which time credible links were still available.

You allege that these reports are not credible. If you want to call Paul Thompson's
cooperativeresearch site a liar, be my guest. But please do so to Mr. Thompson's face. Here's one
of his recent posts here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73072

Do you really think a negative FOIA response proves anything?

Two of the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Ray Griffin and Dr. James Fetzer, are expert
epistemologists--look up their publications. Stick around here and you just might learn something
about the nature of evidence and the philosophy of reasoning.

[benburch]

82. So, you decline to prove your point?

Sorry, this *is* transparently anti-Semitic. What did jewish people ever do to you?

And, if you won't do the legwork to interview the people who claim to have seen it, I don't know why you should think I ought to believe you.

And no, I'm not calling that fellow a liar, just a sloppy investigator who believes secondary and tertiary sources and never investigates a thing for himself.

[petgoat]

86. What is anti-Semitic about reporting the facts?

And I don't think you should believe me. I'm just an anonymous internet poster. You should believe
the Bergen Record and ABC, and you should believe Paul Thompson.

[benburch]

87. Nobody has proved this to the level of a fact AT ALL.

And to repeat this rumor shows a transparent agenda on the part of all who do it.

[petgoat]

89. So the Bergen Record and ABC are not reliable enoough to be

given the benefit of the doubt but you, Madame Sosostris, have a license to peek through the
telephone lines into somebody's mind and determine his or her agenda.

Here's a Haaretz article about the arrests:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&sw=mockery

Here's an article about the incident in Forward:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html

Here's Paul Thompson's digest of the articles, with archives. Can you prove there's an
agenda there other than truth-seeking?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=liberty+park&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

[Minstrel Boy]

68. here's one of many mainstream links

that establishes that it did.

That you didn't know it suggests you don't nearly enough to make definitive statements about what really happened on 9/11.

Scotland's Sunday Herald:

It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold.

As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know ... they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”

...

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the US intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”.

This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers – simply that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen, but effectively did nothing to help stop them.

[benburch]

72. I know about it and discount it as transparent antisemitism.

See the post just above for the sort of documentation that would pass the sniff test.

[Minstrel Boy]

76. How about the Jewish American paper Forward?

Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth

And as you've been told above, this doesn't suggest 9/11 was a "Zionist plot." Simply that Mossad assets were surveilling the hijackers and had prior knowledge of the attack. The same thing the record clearly states was true of US intelligence.

[seatnineb]

80. I'll let one of the Israelis themselves do the talkin'

In the words of Paul Kurtzberg:
"People were spitting on us from the street...they were passing with the cars and spitting on us because they thought that we were the Arabs...they were looking for someone to blame.

9/11 Conspiracies.
Channel 4(UK)
TV documentary.
9/9/04.

Strange.....if you see the documentary ,Kurtzberg looks nothing like an Arab.

Yet in his own words.....he says that people nearby mistook him and his Israeli friends for Arabs....

So maybe it was their "celebratory" behavior which incited people's wrath......

[rman]

52. if you say so, i guess it must be true

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSammo1]

77. what about.....

the lack of physical evidence of two of the four jets?

Or that steel and concrete suddenly had the same potential energy as air?

That gravity suddenly packed the power of high explosives?

And how does Bin Laden shape shift?

[dchill]

83. "99% of this bogus shit people say about 9/11...

is made-up bogus shit."

This formula is only equalled by YOUR "formula" thread(s) - original and Second Revision. You are a true physicist.

The official government theory is the biggest "unsupportable conspiracy theory" of all, and you know it.

[Beam Me Up]

85. Ben, I don't get it. Why are you defending Bush gangsters?

I really don't understand liberals and progressives who see ALL THE DIRT about everything this crime regime have done EXCEPT 9/11. It totally boggles my mind. At what point does 'incompetence' stop being an excuse for TREASON?

[benburch]

88. I'm not!

I'm saying they LET THIS HAPPEN probably ON PURPOSE.

And we could hang them for this if we would stop with the really nutty bomb plot shit.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

91. Man, are you really that blind?

There was major structural damage to WTC7, and a very significant fire going on that had no fire suppression. In other words, your facts are wrong and so are your conclusions.

Next time, stick to facts.

[petgoat]

92. Prove it.

And then run some calculations and tell us how asymmetric structural damage and asymmetric fires
caused the collapse starting with the penthouse, falling at near freefall speed, and damaging no neighboring buildings.

Tell us how FEMA managed to miss this "major structural damage" in their report.

[greyl]

93. I'm no FEMA fan, but here's their report.

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

You're gonna need to refer to it when you try to prove that FEMA missed the major structural damage, that WTC7 fell at near freefall speed(specifically define "near"), and that no neighboring buildings were damaged.

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged . A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[benburch]

95. Exactly.

He makes up whatever he needs to support the conclusion he has already reached. Evidence to the contrary (thank you) notwithstanding.

[petgoat]

102. I have read the FEMA report.

From its opening, I infer that they did not take seriously the reports of structural damage:

"World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties
due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the
collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers."

It comments in section 5.4 on reports of structural damage ("The degree of impact damage to the
south facade could not be documented") and in 5.5.2. The latter says: "According to the account of
a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the
only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters'
eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some
degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation."

That's all she wrote.

The conclusion in 5.7 says: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further
research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

In other words, they have no idea how fire caused it to collapse, but they're pretty confident
structural damage didn't.

[greyl]

111. Be careful with reading into things.

Firstly though, your original statement was "Tell us how FEMA managed to miss this "major structural damage" in their report". You were implying from that there was no major structural damage. After all, if FEMA didn't say it's true, it must not be true, right? ;) Please look at the firefighter quotes on the damage again.

But anyway, as FEMA's report shows, they didn't exactly miss the damage. They just concluded that the fires that burned for 7 fires are what eventually and primarily brought the building down.
That statement shouldn't be taken to mean that they concluded that structural damage didn't play any part. In any case, they qualify the report by saying that more research and investigation needs to be done.

"In other words, they have no idea how fire caused it to collapse, but they're pretty confident
structural damage didn't."

Well, not exactly. They cite initial structural damage (with photos and diagrams) and fire and admit that they don't know the full extent of the structural damage. They offer more than one possible scenario for the key sequence of collapse, so it's not accurate to say "they have no idea". See 5.5.2.

(Again, not that FEMA should relied on as the sole source of "facts" in this issue.)

[petgoat]

112. I don't rely on FEMA/ASCE as the "sole source of 'facts'"

But I find it very peculiar that when they have the testimony of FDNY brass on massive structural
damage that instead of going the easy route and saying "It fell because of massive structural damage"
they instead embarrass themselves by dithering and blathering about a whole set of hypotheses they
admit are not likely to have occurred.

(

[benburch]

94. You are beyond delusional.

Go go some of your own research for once, eh?

[petgoat]

96. When asked for proof, you respond with insult instead. nt

[benburch]

97. Proof was already provided by another.

And I call them as I see them, you are delusional because you will not accept the facts in evidence.

delusion - noun - 1. psychotic belief ((psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary) 2. hallucination (a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea) "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination" 3. head game (the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas)

[petgoat]

98. You are leaping to conclusions, Doctor. Who's your malpractice

underwriter? Just curious.

Your invocation of delusion is circular: He's wrong because he's a psycho because he's wrong.
Merely presenting evidence to the contrary does not prove someone wrong. (Even us psychos can put on
a lucity act when we wish.)

You said major structural damage was proven, but you won't even allude to the proof. Do you mean the
testimony of the FDNY brass? Does it not seem strange that FEMA did not incorporate this in their
report? If there was massive structural damage, why didn't FEMA just say so instead of dithering
about with multiple hypotheses, the best of which they admit has "a low probability of occurrence."
Too bad the steel was destroyed before the engineers had a chance to look at it. Collapse mechanisms
of 47-story buildings are a question of some interest to insurance actuaries.

Your hysteria does not become you, ben. Some day you'll realize it stems from denial.

[benburch]

104. I have personal contacts in the FDNY...

And they are hassled almost DAILY by CT Nuts. Some of these nutjobs even dress up as firefighters, and pretend to have been there! But, none of the people who were there, and who saw it have expressed to me any doubts about what they saw; Three severely weakened buildings falling from structural failure. None of them thought there were bombs. Most of them lost friends. All of them say that if they thought for a moment that it was some government plot they would be SHOUTING that to anybody who would listen.

Sorry, but I have to stand with the firefighters.

They were there. You were not.

And you so deeply want to believe in a conspiracy that you deny facts in evidence.

I feel sad for you.

[petgoat]

107. personal contacts in the FDNY

My experience is that people tend to over-value their "inside information".

Are you aware that a number of FDNY people testified that they heard explosions? Some
saw flashes of light from lower floors. This information was suppressed until 8/05 when
it was released as the result of a NYT lawsuit.

Internet epistemology being what it is, I haven't got space in my head for hearsay evidence
from internet posters. If your guys have names, let them make a public statement.

They were there. You were not.

You're mighty sure of yourself for somebody who calls others delusional and accuses them of
making up their facts.

you so deeply want to believe in a conspiracy that you deny facts in evidence.

What facts have I denied? Please distinguish between a "conclusion" and a "fact" in your
answer.

[benburch]

105. I have personal contacts in the FDNY...

And they are hassled almost DAILY by CT Nuts. Some of these nutjobs even dress up as firefighters, and pretend to have been there! But, none of the people who were there, and who saw it have expressed to me any doubts about what they saw; Three severely weakened buildings falling from structural failure. None of them thought there were bombs. Most of them lost friends. All of them say that if they thought for a moment that it was some government plot they would be SHOUTING that to anybody who would listen.

Sorry, but I have to stand with the firefighters.

They were there. You were not.

And you so deeply want to believe in a conspiracy that you deny facts in evidence.

I feel sad for you.

[Beam Me Up]

109. "And we could hang them for this if we would stop with the really nutty

bomb plot shit."

The implication in that sentence is that it is those of us who see the evidence differently than you who are somehow preventing their arraignment on charges of treason. I don't think that is at all accurate.

I respect the work you've done, ben, with the White Rose Society. It is an incredibly powerful resource. However, I am surprised at your attitude as often exhibited on this thread. Something isn't right, here. I'll acknowledge that we do not know the whole truth--but that is the point. Why don't we? The Bush administration and the neoconservative cabal that is behind it has DECEIVED the American people from day 1. The entire presidency is a cynical farce with murderous, imperial intentions. These people are far more dangerous than the Nazis precisely because they have so many people, even good, intelligent, thoughtful, perceptive people such as yourself, believing something that simply can not possibly be true. Again, I don't claim to know what the truth is but what I do know is that what they claim to be true can not possibly be true; there are just too many inconvenient facts.

If you have not already seen it, I ask that you watch the video at this link on line:
http://911revisited.infad.net/video.html

Here you will find news footage from ground zero, both first responders, news casters and victims on the scene reporting what they saw, what they heard and what they experienced. When you put it all together, all the bits and pieces, all the research that has been done over the past five years--and sort through it and reject what is implausible or ridiculous or non-essential to the case--what you are left with is an overwhelming conviction: 9/11 was an inside job, a covert psy-op meant to drive domestic and foreign policy precisely as PNAC intended.

Thank you.

[simonm]

100. The Evidence is in Plain Sight - Debunk This!

Scientific analysis with Video and Audio of explosions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
http://www.911eyewitness.com/

Go ahead and debunk it if you can.

[benburch]

101. "Scientific"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[petgoat]

103. You're once again substituting insult for argument, ben.

It's rude, against the rules, ineffective, and disruptive.

[benburch]

106. Why argue with you?

You deny any facts presented, and make up your own.

I can't see any reason not to insult you at this point.

[petgoat]

108. What facts have I denied or invented? nm

[mirandapriestly]

113. they never answer that one...

the mentality of this forum is scary....

[dchill]

110. How about because you don't like it...

when YOU are insulted? I feel sad for you, because the conspiracy theory that you believe in is the one supported by the same people who gave us the Iraq War, the 2000, 2002 & 2004 "elections", the Clean Air Act, and hundreds of other blatant lies. I don't believe their story because their mouths were open. But, as someone once said, "Why argue with you?"

BTW, how's that "formula" working for you?