9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective

[greyl]

by Phil Molé

...
Solace is something all of us needed after the horrible events of 9/11, and each of us is entitled to a certain degree of freedom in its pursuit. However, there is no moral right to seek solace at the expense of truth, especially if the truth is precisely what we most need to avoid the mistakes of the past. Truth matters for its own sake, but it also matters because it is our only defense against the evils of those who cynically exploit truth claims to serve their own agendas. It is concern for the truth that leads us to criticize our own government when necessary, and to insist that others who claim to do so follow the same rigorous standards of evidence and argument. 9/11 was a powerful reminder of how precious and fragile human life and liberty are — the greatest possible rebuke to those who would live in service to delusions.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

[Nozebro]

1. 9/11 OCT: The 9/11 Truth-Suppression Movement in Perspective

by Phil Molé
...
Solace is something all of us needed after the horrible events of 9/11, and each of us is entitled to a certain degree of freedom in its pursuit. However, there is no moral right to seek solace at the expense of truth, especially if the truth is precisely what we most need to avoid the mistakes of the past. Truth matters for its own sake, but it also matters because it is our only defense against the evils of those who cynically exploit truth claims to serve their own agendas. It is concern for the truth that leads us to criticize our own government when necessary, and to insist that others who claim to do so follow the same rigorous standards of evidence and argument. 9/11 was a powerful reminder of how precious and fragile human life and liberty are — the greatest possible rebuke to those who would live in service to delusions.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

[FoxOnTheRun]

2. ...

Truth matters for its own sake, but it also matters because it is our only defense against the evils of those who cynically exploit truth claims to serve their own agendas.

well said, although the other guy on c-span from sceptics had no clue

[greyl]

3. I should stop putting quotes to articles in my OPs.

It may help get people to actually read the rest of the article. At least a little bit of it.

[JackRiddler]

4. First of all...

the trite insights of the first paragraph, like most of the general psychological wisdom of the OCT, is easily turned around and applied to OCTers (or can be used by anyone to describe anything they take to be untrue). Stop psychologizing, already.

This guy almost never bothers to specify who he means. It's always "the 9/11 truth movement" says, or "another theory" says, or some people believe. This alllows him to define his antagonists' positions to his heart's content. So if he doesn't take on specific persons, I don't have to take him too seriously, either.

So we'll leave it at samples:

- He's still off debunking the mistaken FEMA/Tom Kenney evidence - which Ruppert did a million years ago - although it was established in 2004 that FEMA was in New York on Sept. 10th setting up for TRIPOD II, thanks to the testimony of Giuliani to the Commission (this was also put into the report).

- with regard to intercepts he claims there is no time period given for 67 scramble orders. In fact there is: Sept 2000-June 2001, and 128 in 2000. He points out that location and circumstances of these orders are unknown - that's right, and it's because his joke of a commission didn't bother. He then repeats the awesome PM error that the only intercept in a decade was the Payne Stewart case.

- He claims there is no significant discussion of al Qaeda or Islamic extremism in what he calls "the 9/11 truth movement" (more accurately, however, he is addressing the claims of 9/11 skeptics - the movement is what follows from skeptical research). Obviously he hasn't bothered to read a word of Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson or Michel Chossudovsky, who are largely responsible for the breakthrough research and still produce the best stuff to this day, and therefore cannot say he has done anything than talk to some people in Chicago and then not even bother to quote anyone directly.

- He plays the make-your-own timeline game, presenting a chronology of alleged or proven Islamist terrorist attacks to create the desired context for 9/11, when it is just as easy to present a chronology of covert operations, false flag attacks, and declarations by US-based actors of the need to dominate the world militarily.

- No Ahmed, Thompson or Chossudovsky, but Siegel of course is fair game.

Not a word on foreknowledge, wargaming of the 9/11 scenario, or the prior track record of the Bush regime principals. Themes rarely touched by the official debunkers. Certainly no admission that the C-word is irrelevant here, since the official story is a conspiracy theory. Endorsement of the basic premises of the war on terror - we are under attack, we underestimated the threat, etc.

[greyl]

5. I didn't quote the first paragraph.

Did you mean to say the last paragraph? If so, I agree that it may be turned around. Nevertheless, it's a very appropriate conclusion to the article. The reason for harping on the word "truth" is because of the 9/11 Truth Movement's lack of command of the truth and the skills required to uncover the truth or recognize it. Any liar can claim they are speaking the truth, and many people will believe them.

Endorsement of the basic premises of the war on terror - we are under attack, we underestimated the threat, etc.

No. The basic premise of Bush's war on terror is that invading the Mid-East will help reduce terrorism.
The article makes no such endorsement at all, and I dare say that Molé's ideas for helping to reduce terrorism would be a hell of lot more sane than either Bush's or someones who doesn't believe terrorism even exists.

[JackRiddler]

6. any idiot...

can make any claim.

Deal with Ahmed, Thompson, Chossudovsky - all authors who have sold well - and other specific individuals. Otherwise you're just picking the shots you take.

[greyl]

7. I think you're admitting that the article

makes good points, but that it failed by not attacking or supporting all aspects of 9/11, right?

It's not a book, it's a fairly short online article which presents an overview of some of the most popular(progagandized) 9/11 Conspiracy Theories as well as a selection of their dubious claims.

To repeat, the article is not an endorsement of the war on terror as opposed to what you claim.

[mhatrw]

11. The article was the ignorant musings of a gullible fool whose

knowledge of the events of 9/11 could fit on cereal box.

[greyl]

12. Could you please clearly state the factual error you're talking about?

Ask me to show why I think Jason Bermas is a fool, and I could provide evidence from hell to Harvard.

[mhatrw]

14. OK. Here's why I think Phil Mole is a fool.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

[MervinFerd]

22. Could you clearly state the factual errors you mentioned? If not, then

perhaps Phil Mole is not the fool here.

[Bryan Sacks]

24. jack's point is obvious

I can't imagine many are fooled by your obfuscation.

[greyl]

28. Really?

Until you define the point, none of us can be sure you see the point.
I'd rather heed his reply, than yours.

[Nozebro]

34. The most pathetic part is that they don't care that their obfuscation is

as obvious as the lack of evidence to support the OCTist 9/11 storyline. Why that is, I don't know. Maybe someone else does, but if they do I don't blame them for not saying so "out loud".

[MervinFerd]

37. Obfuscation of What? BE SPECIFIC.

[MervinFerd]

8. "the conspiracy theorists don't believe their own theories"

A point not made often enough. If there "the Government" is REALLY capable of pulling off horrendous, complex criminal conspiracies without fear of exposure,
HOW COME YOU FUCKERS ARE STILL ALIVE?

From the article of the OP:
<<Most importantly, there is the fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this information.

The full irony of this last point hit me while I was at the conference. Here was a group of about 400 people gathered to openly discuss the evil schemes of the U.S. government, whom they accuse of horrible atrocities in the service of establishing a police state. But if America really was a police state with such terrible secrets to protect, surely government thugs would have stormed the lecture halls and arrested many of those present, or would at the very least have conducted behind the scenes arrests and jailed the movement’s leaders. Yet even the most vocal leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement are still going strong, and no one at the conference seemed very worried about government reprisals. This fact seemingly indicates that at some level, the conspiracy theorists themselves don’t really believe what they are saying.>>

[mhatrw]

19. That's patently ridiculous and perfectly typical of "skeptical debunking."

Do you believe that the 1999 Russian apartment bombings were state sponsored? If so, how can you account for the fact that many Russians who believe the 1999 Russian apartment bombings were state sponsored are still alive?

Note how little sense this line of argument makes. I contend that OJ is a murderer. Is the fact that OJ hasn't murdered everyone who suspects he's a murderer supposed to somehow disprove my suspicions?

The Gotti family is riddled with ruthless murderers. Does the fact that they haven't yet murdered me for publicly claiming this somehow prove otherwise?

[MervinFerd]

21. If I had evidence that would convict the Gotti family, I damn sure.....

would be afraid for my life.

OJ is broke and can't be tried again, even if someone had evidence. So I'm not too worried about him.

The KGB ain't what it used to be, but if a small number of people had -proof- of the bomb plot, they ought to get out of the country.

But, none of these are remotely comparable to the power of the agency that could pull off the entire ConspiraToon 9/11 plot: remote controlled jetliners, thousands of explosives planted into occupied buildings, faked hijacker identities.....

Of -that- organization: Be Afraid, Be VERY afraid.

[mhatrw]

29. Who has the evidence to convict?

Are you finally beginning to understand what's wrong with your "a conspiracy of this size is too big to keep secret" mantra?

[MervinFerd]

31. YOU claim to have that evidence. Don't you?

If you don't have clear evidence, how can you be so damn certain?

[BootinUp]

39. The 10 million dollar question. n/t

[mhatrw]

43. I'm certain I'm being lied to.

Seven different "official" stories have been told about NORAD's response on 9/11. If your wife told you seven different stories about why she didn't come home last night, what would you think? You can be 100% certain you are being lied to without having the evidence to convict.

[BootinUp]

44. seven different official stories?

Sounds like a stretch to me. There is only one 9/11 Commission report. Where are the other 6?

[mhatrw]

46. Yes, seven.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense

[BootinUp]

48. No doubt there were misleading and inaccurate

statements made during the hearings on the part of the military. Since then the commission forward information to the Secretary General for investigation into possible charges. In addition the actual tapes of communications that day were released and have been analyzed. In light of the recorded evidence there is little point in continuing to suggest we don't know the facts with regard to the military response.

Why did the military officals mislead and even lie to the Commission? That can be debated and perhaps another investigation can give us better answers.

I still wouldn't say there were 7 "offical stories"

[mhatrw]

55. There were seven diffierent official stories of NORAD's

(non)response to 9/11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=112030#112729

In fact, I've counted no less than 7 contrary accounts the military has put forth about it's behavior on 9/11 (1st version: 9/12/01-9/13/01, 2nd version: 9/14/01, 3rd version: 9/18/01, 4th version: NORAD testimonies before 9/11 Commission in 2003, 5th version in Air War Over America, a book published in early 2004 commissioned by the military, 6th version in NORAD testimonies before 9/11 Commission in 2004, and 7th version in these latest NORAD tapes in the Vanity Fair article).

[BootinUp]

59. Didn't we cover that just now?

You seem to be repeating yourself.

[mhatrw]

60. At least my story stays the same. n/t

[BootinUp]

61. Oh, you're not talking about me. n/t

[MervinFerd]

86. Didn't we just cover that.

Repeat, repeat, repeat repeat.

Repeating an invalid argument doesn't improve it.

[MervinFerd]

52. If you count every statement from every official, there were many more.

There was only one 9/11 commission report, which purports to be definitive. Take that as the starting point.

I do not doubt that the 9/11 report backed off some stuff embarrassing to the Bush Administration. But, it answers demolishes most of the conspiracy theories, just by providing -plausible- narratives.

[mhatrw]

56. Why should I take the 9/11 Commission as the "starting point"?

It's supposed to be the ending point. And if we include their utter rebuke of the military's own testimony to them, that makes EIGHT different official stories.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=112030#112729

In fact, I've counted no less than 7 contrary accounts the military has put forth about it's behavior on 9/11 (1st version: 9/12/01-9/13/01, 2nd version: 9/14/01, 3rd version: 9/18/01, 4th version: NORAD testimonies before 9/11 Commission in 2003, 5th version in Air War Over America, a book published in early 2004 commissioned by the military, 6th version in NORAD testimonies before 9/11 Commission in 2004, and 7th version in these latest NORAD tapes in the Vanity Fair article).

[MervinFerd]

64. Because it is the best investigation we have yet had.

I already said, there are certainly errors. And there SHOULD have been careers ruined and officials humiliated. Specifically including the President.

But, it's the best we have right now and it destroys whole bunches of ConspiraToon theories just by providing -plausible- accounts and realistic details of indisputable events. Reading the timelines of the activities of flight controllers and the military just kills any idea of a coordinated plot to stop interception of the airliners.

OF COURSE there -were- multiple stories coming out of the military in the days after 9/11/01!!!

What the fuck else would you expect? They are in the position of the blind men describing the elephant while simultaneously covering their Butts. It was the job of the Commission to hear -all- the stories and pull together a coherent account.

[mhatrw]

70. Blind men describing an elephant?

Your absurdity is beyond belief. The question of what fighter jets the military scrambled on 9/11 where and when should not be subject to debate. Period.

Instead, the military officially released four different stories before the 9/11 Commission was formed then told two different stories to the 9/11 Commission. Then, without explaining who lied when and why, the Commission issued another version that said that all the military's versions were lies. Then when questions continued, air traffic tapes were played for a Vanity Fair writer that supposedly told yet another story.

This is classic and egregiously obvious disinformation, and the 9/11 Commission did nothing whatsoever to grant their own version of events with any more or less believability than any of the military's other seven versions. All through the process, we are simply commanded to trust known and confirmed liars. Over and over we are assured that this time we should place our confidence in their new version of events, without any explanation of all the previous lies nor any ramifications for the liars.

It's patently absurd to pretend that there was ever any confusion about which fighter jets were tasked when and where that day other than purposefully created confusion. You are asking us to believe that two days after the event, the FBI could name every hijacker with confidence, but NORAD could somehow not determine which fighter jets were scrambled in response to which threats? That's just silly. It obviously wasn't the "fog of war" that created the military's seven different accounts. Without a doubt, it's the purposeful fog of disinformation.

[MervinFerd]

74. Two days after 911, the FBI could NOT name the hijackers.....

with confidence. They gave a preliminary list. The errors in that list have been the source of innumerable ConspiraToon(c) theories.

Likewise, on 9/14 the military had not had time to filter out what happened. Individual bases and commanders knew what -their- role had been. The big picture needed more time.

YES, OF COURSE there would be ass-covering. People do that. The facts have to be sorted out in an objective investigation.

You are adopting the standard ConspiraToon(c) fallacy of assuming that all error and confusion are the result of the Great Global Conspiracy. It ain't that way.

I tire of this conversation.

[MervinFerd]

51. No doubt, you -are- being lied to. That doesn't mean....

that wildly implausible stories are True. Or that professional Conspiracy Mongers aren't also lying to you.

There's plenty of reasons to despise the Bush administration without blaming them for every bad thing that happens.

[mhatrw]

57. And when your wife told you seven different stories about why

she didn't come home last night, it was lucky for you that you just know in your heart that the idea that she could be cheating on you again is simply crazy.

I mean, there are so many reasons why she could be lying. Why jump to conclusions just because she's a habitual skank who has already had affairs with every guy at the local dive bar? Surely one of her seven different stories was what really happened. Or maybe she just doesn't want to spoil the surprise she's been planning for your birthday next month!

[MervinFerd]

65. I conclude infidelity, not that she was murdering small children....

while commiting securities fraud.

There's plenty of nasty about the Bush Admin. That doesn't mean that they are guilty of ALL BAD THINGS, or that they can do impossible things!

And you still have to have EVIDENCE. Not ConspiraToon evidence, but REAL evidence that convinces people who aren't already True Believers.

[mhatrw]

69. So 19 Arabs can easily do what's impossible for 19 well-placed,

highly powerful insiders and the agents and patsies they direct?

In what universe does that sort of "logic" make sense?

[BootinUp]

73. Suicide attacks by terrorists are pretty common in my universe

according to news reports they happen many times a year.

[Nozebro]

77. You should consider moving to a different "universe" - like the USA e.g.

n/t

[MervinFerd]

80. Commit Suicide?

[mhatrw]

9. www.gullible.com

Any "argument" will do for this "skeptic" if it supports the official story.

An example:

It is not a quick or easy matter to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically. NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated communication with the planes in question to rule out more mundane problems, and then must contact appropriate military personnel to scramble the planes and direct them to the appropriate location. The situation on 9/11 was further complicated by the fact that terrorists on the hijacked jets had turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without a transponder signal identifying the airplanes, each hijacked airplane would have been only one moving blip among many others on NORAD’S screens, making it much harder to track. Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a significant amount of time to reach the jet — time that was simply not available on 9/11.

Umm, they supposedly never even tried to intercept Flight 93. The guy is so ignorant about the subject of 9/11 that it's painful to read his crap and a waste of time to respond to it.

[greyl]

10. Could you please clearly state the factual error you're

talking about?

[mhatrw]

13. Factual error?

The whole passage is a "factual error."

It is not a quick or easy matter to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically.

This is a meaningless qualitative assertion. Furthermore, Flights 77 and 93 followed perfectly straight paths for long stretches of their flights.

NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated communication with the planes in question to rule out more mundane problems

NORAD never attempted anything like this on 9/11.

and then must contact appropriate military personnel to scramble the planes and direct them to the appropriate location.

The cover story for Flight 77 is that it "disappeared" from everyone's screen and they thought it crashed somewhere way out west. The cover story for Flight 93 is that the FAA didn't even contact NORAD about the the fact that they had a confirmed hijacking at 9:38 EDT until about 10:20 EDT (on a day in which three hijacked planes had already been successfully run into buildings no less).

The situation on 9/11 was further complicated by the fact that terrorists on the hijacked jets had turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders.

"Further" complicated?

Without a transponder signal identifying the airplanes, each hijacked airplane would have been only one moving blip among many others on NORAD’S screens, making it much harder to track.

Except the cover story is that NORAD didn't track Flights 77 or 93.

Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a significant amount of time to reach the jet — time that was simply not available on 9/11.

This is another completely meaningless qualitative assertion.

[BootinUp]

16. I think you did find an error in the article

>NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated communication with the planes in question to >rule out more mundane problems

>NORAD never attempted anything like this on 9/11.

>and then must contact appropriate military personnel to scramble the planes and direct them to the appropriate location.

I think the author probably meant to say the FAA Air traffic controller must first attempt repeated communication...

You then go on to question whether turning off transponders complicates locating a missing flight. Not sure why we would have transponders on planes unless they aided air traffic control and identification of radar blips. Seems a silly point you are trying to make.

[Bryan Sacks]

26. Jim, greyl: we've all tired of this crap. Stop being purposely obtuse

The article, even if entirely true, does NOTHING to rule out treasonous behavior by US intelligence.

The man who helped fund the plot was still visitng Washington the week before 9/11. He is still a free man, living in Pakistan. Condoleeza Rice still lied about his visit here. The Commission still covered up his visit and offered the laughable assertion that it's not important to determine who funded the plot.

The article greyl cites may be entirely true -it would still be a red herring. The relevant evidence still points to complicity.

If you don't see that, then get to work researching. Why not start here, and then report back to us on what you find?

www.cooperativeresearch.org/ essay.jsp?article=essaysaee

Here's a Wikipedia summary you might find of interest, to whet the appetite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. <4>
The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mehmood Ahmed resigned from his position. Indian news outlets reported the FBI was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta, while most Western media outlets only reported his connections to the Taliban as the reason for his departure. <5>

The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mehmood."<6> Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, sensational reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the kamikaze pilots who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Centre. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."<7>

The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."<8>

Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connnections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.

A Wall Street Journal review of Bernard-Henri Levy's book “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?” notes, “It is a fact that Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."<9> The intermediary was Saeed Sheikh.

In case it has to be pointed out, you don't "seek the removal" of the party guilty of funding the 9/11 plot, m'kay? You are with us or against us, right? The US military destroyed two countries on significantly less evidence of their involvement in 9/11 than that of Pakistan. The evidence cited above is what is sopmetimes called a SMOKING GUN.

The CIA's ties to Pakistan's ISI, our use of ISI as a proxy for decades, US intelligence's support of what is now called Al Qaeda over the last 25 years, makes US intelligence a prima facie suspect in 9/11. If you don't care, fine. But you're not fooling anyone here.

[greyl]

27. Don't expect me to fold to you, BS.

As you say, the article "does NOTHING to rule out treasonous behavior by US intelligence".

Exactly.

"The article greyl cites may be entirely true -it would still be a red herring."

A red herring relative to which argument? I don't think you understand the article in its proper context.

Why not start a thread presenting the argument that you think this article is a red herring to?

[Nozebro]

35. Why not just STOP it already with the obfuscation. There's no legitimate

reason to be so obtuse ALL the time, is there? I've scratched my head and I just cannot come up with a reason that sounds legitimate. Must be something going on I don't know about and can't possibly imagine. I'm not "just a country lawyer", but OCTists do seem to rely on the most peculiar tactics.

[MervinFerd]

20. "Supposedly"???

The 9/11 commission found an entirely plausible tale of confusion and error. So, your facts are wrong.

But, what's your point? The military had this foolproof plan to intercept jetliners but the didn't because.....?

They had orders to ignore hijacked planes? What?

This makes no sense. The order to shoot down civilian jetliners had to come from the President. He was reading a story about a pet goat. What good would it have done to have the whole f'ing airforce chasing the planes if they couldn't shoot?

[mhatrw]

30. What good would it do to tail suspects if you can't kill them?

Did you just actually ask that question? Note the question marks.

[MervinFerd]

32. What use is it to have fighters watching jetliners crash into skyscrapers?

If they got pictures, it would shut-up the No-Planers, maybe. But probably not.

The decision to actually shoot down a jetliner on 9/11 would have been excruciatingly difficult. For the first two planes, before anyone knew for certain what they were up to, -who- could have made that decision?

The remaining two planes -should- have been intercepted, sure. But, again, that failure is a weak beam on which to hang a huge edifice of conjecture. The military just ain't nearly as good as they want us to think they are.

[BootinUp]

40. Look at this timeline

I put together...

The military was not notified about the last two planes by the FAA in time for an intercept.

scroll down to see all flights, scroll right to see the timeline of events.

http://jimsdigital.homeip.net:8080/911hijacks/

----
At the suggestion of the Boston Center’s military liaison,NEADS contacted the FAA’s Washington Center to ask about American 11. In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS:“We’re looking—we also lost American 77.”The time was 9:34.15 This was the first notice to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that the flight was even missing, although the FAA had been searching for it. No one at FAA headquarters ever asked for military assistance with American 77. (9/11 Commission Report, Chapt 1, Page 27)

---------

Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93. Nor did any manager at FAA headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93
to the military. Military Notification and Response. NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07.Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude.NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground. (9/11 Commission Report, Chapt 1, Page 47)

[MervinFerd]

41. Thanks, nice work. nt

[mhatrw]

45. They didn't even scramble to intercept Flight 93.

Consider that (as narrative goes) the passengers were able to find out what was happening using cell phones and air phones, organize together and successfully take matters into their own hands fifteen minutes before anyone in the entire military knew about the situation. It's the biggest attack in US history since the Civil War, everybody knows terrorists have successfully used planes to hit three extremely high value domestic US targets, and between 9:38 and 10:10 EDT, nobody tells anybody in the military that the Flight 93 is a 100% confirmed hijacking even though it has now turned around and is flying toward DC (as well as several nuclear power plants).

Who is responsible for this? What actual people screwed this up? What are their names? Who tried to go around them (other than the passengers and their families, of course) and how were these efforts subverted?

We'll never find out anything if we don't hold even one person accountable for their actions that morning. It's like you find a guy carrying 10 pounds of heroin and you offer him immunity BEFORE getting him to tell you who he got it from. Without any possible consequences (except from his dealer), do you expect him to roll over?

[MervinFerd]

53. Agreed. There needs to be accountability. Somebody screwed up.

After Pearl Harbor, there was an actual investigation and heads rolled and careers were ruined. There -should- have been such an investigation after 9/11. -Somebody- should have been fired, whether they deserved it or not.

Didn't happen, and that's partly the fault of the Democrats in the Senate. And partly a symptom of the same lax standards that allowed GW Bush to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate.

But that's no reason to believe ConspiraToons (tm) marketed by commercial Consiracy Mongers.

[mhatrw]

58. Sure, it is. If enough Americans come to believe that the government

is behind it, they'll have to roll out their limited hangout and serve up a few heads as damage control.

The only way we'll ever get any closer to the truth is to assume the worst until they come up with a story and a response to that story that at least makes sense.

[MervinFerd]

66. "Assuming" impossibly improbable scenarios gets you nowhere, .....

except ignored.

[mhatrw]

68. What's improbable about state sponsored terrorism?

An inside job is always easier to pull off than an outside job.

[MervinFerd]

81. State-sponsored terrorism happens; 9/11 CTs are improbable or impossible

It's the -specific- 9/11 theories that are ConspiraToons(c).

Yes, a bomb -might- be planted. A plot allowed to continue through inaction. I can understand how that could occur. Would just require one or two men to plant the bomb; corrupt men at the top to misdirect resources.

BUT....

Four teams of trained CIA agents willing to COMMIT SUICIDE and mass murder of American citizens? Teams of trained men planting thousands of explosive charges in occupied buildings with no one noticing? All those people staying silent 5 years? And, of course, the insane shit about No Planes?

THOSE are ConspiraToons(c)!

AND...

You -still- need actual evidence, even if the story is plausible. Not ConspiraToon evidence, but actual evidence that ordinary rational people will find convincing.

[Nozebro]

82. If your post is any indication, then I'm 100% sure you couldn't make a

plausible argument on behalf of the Official 9/11 storyline, but it's hard to fault you because NO ONE could make an plausible argument on behalf on that fairy tale.

[MervinFerd]

84. Have you READ the 9/11 Commission Report? Just curious.

Yeah, didn't think so.

[MervinFerd]

88. Still waiting for that reply.

[Norrin Radd]

98. Also, if they can still see the "blip" of a plane with no transponder

signal, isn't it simply a matter of assuming that the very few blips without a transponder signal are your hijacked jetliners, or is it common for planes to not be emitting a transponder signal?

[BootinUp]

15. Nice find greyl

Enjoyed reading that, I am sure others will as well.

[FoxOnTheRun]

17. I prefer the NY Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?ex=1307160000en=2d1267599cc19885ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss

CHICAGO, June 4 — In the ballroom foyer of the Embassy Suites Hotel, the two-day International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth was off to a rollicking start.
Skip to next paragraph
Joe Tabacca for The New York Times

Tonya Miller Bailey, of Indiana, in the rally at Daley Plaza on Friday that served as the conference kickoff. "We've done a lot of solid research," one participant said.
Enlarge this Image
Joe Tabacca for The New York Times

David Kubiak, one of the speakers at the International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth.

In Salon Four, there was a presentation under way on the attack in Oklahoma City, while in the room next door, the splintered factions of the movement were asked — for sake of unity — to seek a common goal.

In the foyer, there were stick-pins for sale ("More gin, less Rummy"), and in the lecture halls discussions of the melting point of steel. "It's all documented," people said. Or: "The mass media is mass deception." Or, as strangers from the Internet shook hands: "Great to meet you. Love the work."

Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

Whatever one thinks of the claim that the state would plan, then execute, a scheme to murder thousands of its own, there was something to the fact that more than 500 people — from Italy to Northern California — gathered for the weekend at a major chain hotel near the runways of O'Hare International. It was, in tone, half trade show, half political convention. There were talks on the Reichstag fire and the sinking of the Battleship Maine as precedents for 9/11. There were speeches by the lawyer for James Earl Ray, who claimed that a military conspiracy killed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and by a former operative for the British secret service, MI5.

<snip>

[BootinUp]

18. Pretty good coverage there.

Seems to have a lot of information, but I wasn't there of course.

[Will Scoffield]

23. Thanks, greyl, for the link.

It really is all about truth. Something that so many so called "truthseekers" don't seem to understand.

[Marie26]

25. Thanks for posting this, nt

[SidDithers]

33. Thanks, greyl...

for posting :)

Sid

[Nozebro]

36. I agree. He's the best, a what? Has leadership written all over himself.

n/t

[MervinFerd]

38. Nozebro, you're not a very nice guy, are you?

[Nozebro]

47. Thanks, but I'm not THAT nice. At least not all of the time.

n/t

[SidDithers]

49. You noticed that too, eh?...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

50. You string together a bunch of words...

and there might be some meaning there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

I've noticed that the ability to clearly and concisely articulate one's thoughts is something that is unfortunately absent in much of the truthiness movement.

Sid

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

63. "Parliment of Truth Suppressors"?

I'll let you know if I find any. They won't be hard to spot if their spelling is as consistently bad as it seems to be - what kind of a group misspells a word in their title?

[Nozebro]

76. Isn't there a mirror in your "Parliament of Truth Suppressors" building?

"I'll let you know if I find any."

[AZCat]

83. We didn't have a Parliament...(yadda-yadda) building.

It's so nice to see you've learned to spell - it will certainly simplify further communication.

[Nozebro]

79. Maybe you'd prefer the simplicity of "Believers in Miracles".

It's honest and it expresses exactly what one has to be in order to agree with what the Bush administration says. It also distances "true believers" from the words "Parliament","Suppressors", and the dreaded "C" word. And, AZaCat, you have to admit it DOES have a certain cachet.

[mirandapriestly]

71. I like that..."P.O.T.S"...eom

[FoxOnTheRun]

75. 75% of NY police know it was an inside job, but they don't need to talk

about it on the web.

You have people who will believe aliens did it....they are gullible.

But when you have friends, who witnessed bombs in the buildings, it's pretty clear.
Or you looked at all the evidence it's pretty obvious, too

And then you have people who simply don't want to face the evidence, but that does not mean they are truth suppressors.
Some are ignorant and some are well educated and can't imagine, that science has been manipulated to support the official version.

[MervinFerd]

87. "The 911 Truthiness Movement": Good new name.

[Norrin Radd]

99. What is concise about using many polysyllabic words in a sentence?

n/t

[graphixtech]

42. Losing the Public Opinon War

On September 11th, on the sidewalk of a busy midtown Kansas City intersection,
I donned the hat of American citizen and gratefully carried and otherwise walked
along carrying a STOP the 9-11 COVER-UP sign. By politely appealing to the sense
of civic duty, a handful of men were also easily persuaded to carry EXPOSE the
9-11 COVER UP signs I had brought along. (good photos/video soon)

Over the course of 2 hours, reaction from cars and pedestrians was generally very
supportive. Many people, from ALL walks of life, talked with me, and thanked me
for being there. There were just a couple insults tossed in my general direction.
One guy yelled that the plane crash and jet fuel collapsed the buildings. I replied
back that never before has a steel framed building fallen and that 3000 innocent
americans were murdered.

The truth surrounding the September 11th attacks may be an issue that most leaders
are trying their darndest to sweep away, ignore, or belittle, but growing numbers
of citizenry are suspecting that the neocons may have had a hand in carrying
out the horrific acts. Leaders who further along and enable the cover-up by
attacking the messenger rather than address the legitimate questions do so at
the risk of their own credibility. Imho, despite what they would have everyone
believe, most Americans are simply not idiots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist
to conclude that there had to have been at least some level of complicity.

Three new short video clips of Jim Hoffman are good ones to share for relative
newcomers. Jim is articlutate, of affable character, and has a thorough knowledge
that is very easy to understand.
• Sharon Lockhart and Jim discuss the "stock put options" that caused Sharon's initial concerns.
• How Jim Hoffman came to disbelieve the official story and began to examine the WTC collapses.
• Hoffman touches upon psychological issues and war game anomolies of September 11th.
http://www.digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/event.htm

Otherwise Notably:
Scale and Inhumanity of Attack Hide the Most Basic Truths
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html
A clearly corrupted 9/11 cover-up and commission
http://911review.com/coverup/index.html
An impossible collapse of WTC 7
http://wtc7.net/
• Numerous anomalies of the attack
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html


NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

9/11 Five Years Later: What Have We Accomplished?
An Assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement
By Emanuel Sferios
http://www.septembereleventh.org/five_years_later.php
(closing paragraph)
"The question lies in whether the forces of light (reason, compassion, truth) will overcome the forces of darkness (greed, fear, ignorance), whether the spirit of the Bolivarian Revolution will sweep over the world, or whether the neocons and their counterparts in other countries will sweep the world away. This is up to us to decide, both collectively and individually, and we are constantly making that decision every moment, in every action we undertake. In that light, let us always remember that we can't really fight fire with fire. We fight fire with water, and to the degree that we have failed thus far to end the War on Terror, is to the degree that we have based our own actions--our own activism--on anger or fear. I am no exception, and yet like many, I aspire."


Jan Hoyer
9-11 Research Media Coordinator (Current)
Former 911Truth.org Board and Graphic Designer
Founding Board of the National 9-11 Visibilty Project


http://911research.wtc7.net/

[MervinFerd]

54. This addreses the OP, how?

[John Q. Citizen]

67. It offers a perspective of the 9/11 truth movement , One you can't grok.

You know somethings happening but you don't know what it is, do you, MarvinFerd?

[canetoad]

72. Grok! I've not heard that word used in an age

And it is so fucking appropriate in this situation.

[MervinFerd]

85. Bob Dylan meet Robert Heinlein. Mixed metaphors, Mr. Jones?

But what has it to do with the OP????

You can repeat the same old shit over and over, it's still brown and smells bad.

[tenseconds]

78. science?

Phil is missing something here. Its called sientific inquiry.

[mogster]

89. Good article, but with one glaring error

The author clearly hasn't got an open mind, but is hell-bent on disproving the alternative version.

He also passes right by the impossible collapse time of ten seconds, after mentioning it in the intro.

"Many of the presenters at the Hyatt Conference compared videos of the collapse of the towers with videos of known controlled demolitions, noting the similarity in both the appearance and speed of collapse. 911truth.org maintains that if actually hit by an airplane, the steel structure of the WTC buildings should have provided at least some resistance to the weight of the floors above, causing the falling structure to pitch over to one side rather than pancake straight down."

He then mentions the tipping-over of South Tower as a proof that it was a natrual cause by the airplane hit:

"Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall.
(...)
This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the buildings fell due to a planned demolition."

Soft feathers, because he does not mention the fact that the building-top swings back and falls directly into the footprint of the building. Here's an amazing video:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
Note how fast the building-top descends until the corner-beam appears, which halts for a fraction and then speed on down

Is this smoke from a fire?


To me it looks like the dust cloud from the WTC1/2 collapses. It does not have the color of fire-smoke.

That's what's wrong with the 911-sceptics; too eager, and look away from every point that is not possible to refute. Like the collapse time of WTC1/2, which was near free-fall.

Which of these will land first? Answer: they'll land at the same time, due to special physics that occurred that day.

[MervinFerd]

90. Special Physics???? What is your Hypothesis? BE SPECIFIC.

What are you actually claiming happened?

How does your hypothesis explain the facts better than the accepted hypothesis??

BE SPECIFIC.


And, the building collapsed rapidly because the lower supports offered neglible resistance once the collapse was underway. Simple.

And, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". If you want to convince people of a wild-eyed theory YOU are responsible for proving it.

[mogster]

91. Don't shout, please

> If you want to convince people of a wild-eyed theory YOU are responsible for proving it.

Sure, buddy. Which wild-eyed theory are you talking about?
The law of physics?

[MervinFerd]

92. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Now, would you please answer.

It's real simple: What is your hypothesis? State it clearly, please. Then we can decide whether it is a Wild Eyed Theory.

Now, "Which Wild-eyed theory"?--The one about invisible elves dressed as CIA agents planting 1000s of explosive charges on EVERY floor and then set them off in -precise- order so that the building would fall in 10 seconds instead of 15 seconds. For what purpose no mortal can say.

[mogster]

95. OK, if you tell me the color of your underpants, I

might think about it ;-)

> It's real simple: What is your hypothesis? State it clearly, please. Then we can decide whether it is a Wild Eyed Theory.

What's YOUR hypothesis? The official story, complete w/ WMD in Iraq? Who are 'we', who will - by Salomonic Judgement, I'm sure - decide wether its a Wild Eyed Theory or not? Do 'we' wear gowns, or maybe wigs? May the hypothetee appeal or complain in any way about the verdict, if the evidence is weighed and found to light by 'we'?

Ah, it can't be easy to defend the US government's version of ANY event these days.

> Now, "Which Wild-eyed theory"?--The one about invisible elves

If you insist, we can start calling them 'men in green thights'. But only if I can quote you as inventor of the term. I'm sure that fits their mental state of mind anyway. I have, for some unknown reason, no problem in projecting a mental picture of Perle or Cheney in green thights, with a detonator in each hand.

> CIA agents planting 1000s of explosive charges on EVERY floor and then set them off in -precise- order so that the building would fall in 10 seconds instead of 15 seconds.

Now we're talking.
My 'hypothesis' is the law of physics.
But I'm pretty sure you got that the first time, so I won't bother to debate further until you can acknowledge that fact.

You know - in some faraway, reasonable world, adhering to the law of physics seemed a good idea. If a 'fact' didn't fit the difficult convergence of logic, math and physics, you'd drop it like a hot potato(e) and investigate further into the matter.

I'm still deferring to that paradigm, so if you please would state your opinion on why the Towers fell in free-fall time through a bloody thick rod of iron sticking into the air?

[leftofthedial]

93. and we all know that king george owns the truth

so everyone else can just shut the hell up

[MervinFerd]

94. Who-the-hell said, "King George owns the Truth"????

Nobody around here for sure.

Bush is a preposterous liar and evil and his breath is bad.

But, wild-eyed conspiracy theories are STILL bullshit.

[leftofthedial]

96. Personally, I think

that those who criticize all conspiracy theories out of hand are the wild-eyed ones. Who gets to decide which theories are "wild-eyed"? You? Or me? Or neocon spokespeople? Or future historians?

The official story is way more obviously bullshit than most of the alternative explanations I've read here. "Follow the money" is invariably good advice when trying to understand human events. The money in this case does not lead to "al Qaeda."

On this forum, I read unending attacks on any explanation that deviates from king george and his media's cover story, which doesn't seem to explain what happened very well, but certainly
doe s lead away from them and does provide the maximum anti-Islamic propaganda value. What I don't read from the anti-conspiracy-theory crowd is any explanation that actually fits the known facts.

It's a circular logic problem, because any explanation that differs from the official story is by (some people's definition) a "conspiracy theory." Any "conspiracy theory" is automatically (according to many of the same people) "wild-eyed" and "bullshit." Therefore, there can be no alternative explanation. Never mind that the official story is full of holes and known deception. Never mind that all the "investigations" post-9-11 are obviously coverups, not investigations. Never mind that those who have benefited most directly from 9-11 are those who are responsible for telling us the cover story AND for the "investigations." Never mind that prior to the attacks, those same groups openly advertised their belief that such an event was necessary for them to sell their hegemonic plans.

Can you tell me something that fills in any part of the empty black chasm that is the "truth" about 9-11? Or can you just criticize someone else's attempt?

[Nozebro]

97. I'd like to add a few things to your excellent post.

Well said. A few more points, if it pleases the Court.

IF:

* 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. Gov't, then it would be State Sponsored Terrorism, NOT a
conspiracy theory.

* 9/11 was orchestrated by OBL & Co., then it was a criminal conspiracy, and any so-called conspiracy theorists would be those that support various theories of how it happened.

IF:

* The OCT (such as it is) was truthful, and if the Gov't felt the need to have a PR campaign to help influence public opinion, such a campaign would be positive-oriented and based on educating and persuading, NOT negative-oriented and based on aggressive tactics designed to deter legitimate
debate and discussion, character assassination/shooting the messenger and so on.

[MervinFerd]

101. Was Bill Clinton aware of this conspiracy?

Because he was head of the US Gov't until 8 months before 9/11 and he seems to think OBL was a big part of the problem.

Just asking.


<<if the Gov't felt the need to have a PR campaign to help influence public opinion, such a campaign would be positive-oriented and based on educating and persuading, NOT negative-oriented and based on aggressive tactics designed to deter legitimate
debate and discussion, character assassination/shooting the messenger and so on.>>

WHY?

[Nozebro]

103. Do you mean the conspiracy to frame/scapegoat OBL for 9/11?

If the plans for 9/11 originated prior to or during Clinton's term of office, then it's possible Clinton was aware of them, but even if that was the case, there would have been sufficient plausible deniability space to inoculate him from having guilty knowledge.

[leftofthedial]

105. PNAC presented their plan to him

I'd say he was aware.

His wife famously and correctly labeled the vast right wing conspiracy.

I don't agree with the above quote. Right wing governments rely exclusively on "FUD" (fear, uncertainty and doubt) marketing techniques, except to their true tiny constituency to whom they positively, overtly and very directly give tax breaks and other huge monetary favors.

[MervinFerd]

100. OK, the Tooth Fairy planned 9/11! Using Spontaneous Airframe Combustion.

And Invisible Elves.

Holy Shit and Good Grief!

Some "Theories" are just such obvious bullshit, that they raise suspicions about the intellect or motivation of any one who advocates them.

NO PLANES? 3000 POUNDS OF THERMATE? CIA SUICIDE PILOTS?

You don't subscribe to -these- theories??

THEN TO WHAT THEORIES DO YOU SUBSCRIBE????

BE SPECIFIC. BE CLEAR. OTHERWISE, I DON'T THINK YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A THEORY, JUST AN ATTITUDE.

[mogster]

104. Merv,

You're screeching and there is small specks of spittle all around your posts. Please defer to common debate rules and don't demean other people just because they're carrying another opinion than yourself.
If you don't think somebody's right or wrong, I'm sure they can read it in smallcaps as well ;-)

[T Town Jake]

102. Excellent article, with genuine scientific analysis, sourced with...

...legitimate footnotes (as opposed to pixie-dust fantasy physics), and backed with actual facts - another words, a prime model of everything the "9/11 Truth Movement" is not.

:thumbsup: