Has anyone else watched Jesse Ventura's....

[Little Star]

"Conspiracy Theory"? Last night I watched two episodes, one about 9/11 and the second about the pentagon.

The show itself is cheesy and Jesse is a really bad actor/commentator but those two episodes have made me wonder about what really happened on 9/11. I have always just accepted the official story now I wonder. The missing black boxes really puzzle me.

Anyone else watch these two episodes?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Little Star]

2. LOL. I was afraid to even ask this question here in the dungeon...

I guess I can understand why Skinner wants this stuff down here. What I don't understand is why some people are so afraid to talk about this stuff. Man, some of em get down right nasty if you don't see things the way they do.

[Pharaoh]

3. yup

they just can't wrap their heads around it I guess. But if you really investigate these things, there is so much that does not add up.

[BeFree]

4. It is a touchy subject

If you begin to fathom that elements of the government either tacitly were involved or at minimum looked the other way, then foundational beliefs are shaken to the core.

It was for me a damn big earthquake. Some people just can't handle such things.
Ignorance is bliss, it has been said, and methinks for some ignorance about 9/11 is blissful?

[zappaman]

5. heh

you throwing around words like "ignorance" is quite funny.
what was the "big earthquake" for you?
what was the moment when you realized that BUSHCO brought down the WTC?
I would love to know what EVIDENCE has convinced you that BUSHCO was responsible.
show me real EVIDENCE because I have no problem experiencing a big earthquake and would actually love to be shown the official story is wrong.
problem is, unless something miraculous just came to light, there has been ZERO EVIDENCE to support MIHOP or even LIHOP in the last 9 years.
just saying BUSHCO lies or was evil, which I would agree with btw, ain't enough for me.
thermite, thermate, mini-nukes, green-screen planes, missiles, secret government sound weapons...I've heard it all.
and none of it makes as much logical sense as the "official story"

[Little Star]

8. Why do you think they say they never found those black boxes..

at ground zero? Is there any other time they have not retrieved black boxes?

[AZCat]

10. Wikipedia has a short list.

Unrecovered flight recorders

[Little Star]

13. Thank You. That was helpful. Now I see that I don't.....

know if a CVR = Cockpit Voice Recorder or a FDR = Flight Data Recorder is a black box.

As I said before I just accepted the official story with out question. Now my curiosity is peeked and I have a lot of stuff to learn. That does not mean that I think the official story is a lie. It means I have questions now. I need to ask these questions in order to learn. Thank You for the helpful response.

[AZCat]

36. As far as I know the term can apply to both. n/t

[spooked911]

43. good luck with your search

there is a ton of info out there, and there are hundreds of reasons to be suspicious of the govt story. There is also a lot of disinfo in the conspiracy world, and it's easy to get misled.

[BetsysGhost]

57. Flight 93

Seems odd that they were able to recover the CVR from this site. Remember the families were privy to what happened as

93 was taken over by the Hero passengers??

Where is that darn FDR?

[rschop]

70. RE; I would love to know what EVIDENCE has convinced you that BUSHCO was responsible.

Information available now from official US government documents makes a direct connection between "the information that existed at the CIA that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place that would kill thousands of Americans, two of the al Qaeda terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, who the CIA knew were inside of the US, the information that the CIA knew they were in the US to take part in this huge attack, and George Bush".

Tenet had all of this information when he flew down to Crawford for the August 24, 2001 super secret meeting with Bush. So what did Tenet tell Bush at this secret August 24, 2001 meeting in Crawford, a meeting that was so secret that Tenet would lie about this meeting at the April 14, 2001 9/11 Commission public hearings, even though both would admit years later that this meeting actually took place in their memoirs.

Because Tenet was obviously aware of the fact that his own CIA had ordered the criminal obstruction and shut down of both FBI criminal and intelligence investigations of Mihdhar and Hazmi, even after Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US, and that both the CIA director and the CIA managers who were shutting down the FBI field investigations of Midhar and Hazmi, were also aware of the arrest of Moussaoui, prior to the August 24, 2001 meeting in Crawford, what Tenet told Bush at this meeting becomes even more significant.

We don’t know what Tenet told Bush, since what was said has been very carefully kept super secret, but the fact that Tenet would out and out lie to the American public to keep this meeting secret does not bode well for the conclusion that Bush was not made aware of this horrific information. In law “concealment is considered prima fascia evidence of criminal conduct”. In this case it appears that this criminal conduct directly lead to the mass murder of almost 3000 people on 9/11.

Since this information has been posted numerous times on the blog along with the backup documents taken directly from the US government reports, websites and sources, there is no reason people on the forum are not already fully aware are of all of this information.

[LARED]

7. Befree, just for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM&NR=1

[BeFree]

19. No, thanks.

Say, while you're here, Lared....

Have you any evidence, facts or statistics NOT from bushco, that support the OCT?
I can't find the first thing.

[zappaman]

20. sure

Look up the word "eyewitness" to start.
After you get a good idea what that means, we can go from there.

[BeFree]

23. That's a start

Funny, tho, not all the eyewitnesses agree. And then you have the videos of the squib explosions.

But really, all of the believable eyewitnesses are dead.

Basically, the eyewitnesses could be liars. That's why we have trials. When was there a trial about 9/11?

[zappaman]

25. "When was there a trial about 9/11?"

uh...the guys that hijacked the plane died with the passengers.
I have a friend who saw the second plane hit, but I guess he's not as believable as a mini-nuke or thermate, huh?

[SDuderstadt]

26. Actually...

there WAS a trial...Zacarias Mossaoui.

[zappaman]

27. yeah, but

that trial was controlled by BUSHCO.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Aha...n/t

[rschop]

74. RE: Aha....

When FBI Agent Harry Samit wanted to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s possessions, he was prevented even requesting permission to get this search warrant with no even semi-reasonable explanation from David Frasca and Michele Maltbie, manager at the RFU at the FBI ITOS unit at FBI HQ.

At the trial of Moussaoui, Samit called Maltbie and Frasca out and out criminals for criminally obstructing his investigation of Moussaoui. Under oath at this Federal trial, he accused Maltbie and Frasca of criminal conduct.

After the trail, the FBI said that Frasca would have no comment, Maltbie would have no comment and the FBI would have no comment, in effect the FBI HQ was stone walling the inexplicable sabotaging of Harry Samit’s investigation, an investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, and refused to provide, why when a long time FBI agent accused them of criminal conduct that had allowed the murder of 3000 people, any explanation at all for their inexplicable actions.

In effect, the FBI refused to explain why they had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11. It appears that the FBI could care less if this was very information that the American people wanted to find out; why had the FBI allowed these attacks to take place?

Coleen Rowley would later ask, "Why would an FBI Agent (David Frasca, and Michael Maltbie), deliberately sabotage a case, (with no explanation at all)".

The FBI has never explained why they deliberately sabotaged their own criminal investigation of Moussaoui, even when Samit and his boss, thought Moussaoui was a terrorist who wanted to fly a large hijacked airliner into the World Trade Center Towers and told their supervisors Maltbie and Frasca this horrific information.

The FBI has never explained, even years after the attacks on 9/11, why when one their own employees, Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at the FBI, and former Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, (a higher level CIA officer that had been moved over to the FBI in mid-May 2001 to spy on the FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing when the CIA became alarmed that this unit might have found out that Walid Bin Attash, Mihdhar and Hazmi have been at a Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing) was in email contact with Maltbie and Frasca about the Moussaoui arrest, while at the same time he was sabotaging FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, he did nothing but continue to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation and allow FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton to continue their criminal obstruction of Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. At the time Wilshire was sabotaging Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi he, the CIA and even FBI HQ were aware that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

(NOTE, if you can even begin to image this, Tom Wilshire, was the CIA officer that on January 5, 2000, almost 21 months before the attacks on 9/11, who had inexplicably blocked the cable to the FBI on Khalid al-Mihdhar, a cable that described his passport, his photograph and his multi-entry visa for the US).

The FBI has never explained why Wilshire, working with FBI HQ Agent Corsi other FBI HQ mangers, including Rod Middleton continued to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation when they all knew their actions would result in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans. The FBI has never explained these strange actions by their own employees, even many years after the attacks on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

76. If you wrote your book the way you write your posts...

it's no wonder your book is such a flop, dude.

[rschop]

79. re; Yet anothert snarky, nasty, stupid, post by SDuderstadt

Yet, another nasty snarky "post that exhibits nothing but absolute stupidity and ignorance".

Your posts are pure mindless HORSESHIT, “ DUDE”.

No wonder no one takes you seriously on this forum.

But what is a real shame is that many people on this forum post here because they still do not understand why the attacks on 9/11 that had murdered almost 3000 people took place, especially when the CIA knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi for 21 months before the attacks on 9/11, and in all of that time after they became aware of Mihdhar and Hazmi they never allowed this information or the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing to be sent to the FBI Cole bombing investigators until after the attacks on 9/11.

But to you the murder of these 3000 innocent people is just one huge JOKE! You are totally pathetic.

In all, of the time you have been posting to this forum, I cannot find even one post with even the slightest bit of new information or intelligent thought. Why are you even wasting your time, and everyone else’s time, when you doing nothing but exposing yourself a as a complete and utter FOOL.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Says the guy who claims...

Bush controlled the appointment of the 9/11 Commission when, by law, it was appointed by the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate. You can't even get basic facts right; why should we take you or your "book" seriously, dude?

In the meantime, you can't debate, so you name-call. BTW, do know what "the wall" is?

[AZCat]

84. Only one of the greatest rock albums of all time!

Oh, you didn't mean that "The Wall"?

[SDuderstadt]

85. Let's see if rschop can...

figure it out.

[rschop]

86. RE: Let's see if rschop can figure it out.

Thanks for the challenge: DUers can judge for themselves if I have figured it out!

From Prior post "BTW, do know what "the wall" is?"

Here is the complete information on the "WALL" with respect to the attacks on 9/11.

On August 22, 2001 Margaret Gillespie, a FBI Agent at the CIA Bin Laden unit, finds out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. She takes that information immediately to CIA officer Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. Wilshire had earlier indicated in email on July 5, 2001 that al Qaeda terrorists at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA had been receiving on a huge al Qaeda attack inside of the US, and on July 23, 2001 that Mihdhar in particular would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

So it was clear when he was told Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US he knew immediately they were here in order to take part in this huge attack that would kill thousands of Americans

On August 23, 2001 Margaret Gillespie had the Bin Laden unit issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, so the entire CIA hierarchy would have been aware that not only were Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US but because of Wilshire’s prior emails, plus the numerous warnings of a al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been receiving since April 2001, that they were (see Tom Wilshire's email on July 5, 2001, DOJ IG report, and his email on July 23, 2001, DE # 939) inside of the US in order to take part in yet another al Qaeda terrorist attack. At the time of the August 24, 2001 6 hour meeting with President Bush, Tenet also knew that Moussaoui had just been arrested as a possible al Qaeda terrorist getting training on a B747, and that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack.

On August 28, 2001, Corsi sent Craig Donnachie (manager at the FBI Intelligence investigation unit at the New York office), her EC to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, based mainly on the December 1999 NSA cable. This information was based on a telephone tap of a phone connected to the communications center for the al Qaeda attacks in east Africa, that indicated Mihdhar and Hazmi were al Qaeda terrorists traveling to an important al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. When Donnachie got this EC on August 28, 2001 he gave it to John Liguori, his boss, who thought this EC connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Cole bombing and sent this cable the same day to Bongardt and his team.

Bongardt immediately realized how critical it was to locate Mihdhar and Hazmi quickly before they had any chance to carry out yet another al Qaeda attack and contacted Corsi by phone to get permission to start this investigation (see DOJ IG report). But he was told by Corsi and Rod Middleton, Corsi's boss, that since the information had come from the NSA, the “WALL”, prevented him from possessing this information without written permission from the NSA, that he would have to stop any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi and destroy the information he had from Cori’s EC on Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Unfortunately we now know that Corsi had already been given written permission from the NSA to pass this NSA information to Bongardt and his team in New York, on August 27, 2001 the day before she tells him he had to stop his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. (See release DE #448, the NSA release in writing given to Corsi to pass this NSA information to FBI criminal investigators on the FBI Cole bombing investigation).

Since Bongardt did not see any connection between this NSA information and any FISA warrant, the only real reason he could be denied this information without written permission from the NSA, he asked Corsi to get an opinion from the legal unit at FBI HQ, the NSLU to see in view of the fact that no FISA warrant had been used by the NSA to get this information, if he could take part in the investigation of search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001, Corsi told Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled he and his team could not take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission report says that the attorney, Sherry Sabol, told DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, that she told Corsi since no FISA warrant was connected to this NSA information, Bongardt could take part in any investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

When Corsi shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi she also knew as she admitted to the DOJ IG investigators, that the CIA had a photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, (see page 302 of the DOJ IG report) knew that this photo connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing and knew that this meant there was no legitimate reason Bongardt should not have been allowed to start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

In an email back to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 29, 2001, Corsi stated that “if substantial evidence is developed of a federal crime”, (by Mihdhar and Hazmi), this information will be passed over the “wall”.

NOTE: this literally is the smoking gun, the proof that Corsi, the CIA and the FBI HQ knew that any evidence of a crime immediately nullified the "WALL". This is this one statement that proves that FBI HQ knew they had no legal reason to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi had already had used in her EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the NSA cable that was based on the tapped phone conversation from the telephone number for the communications center for the east Africa al Qaeda bombings. This connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the al Qaeda terrorist organization, and the many crimes they had already carried out, but to the east Africa bombings that had murdered over 200 people including 12 Americans.

This was clear substantial evidence of a Federal crime.

She also knew that Walid Bin Attash, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting actually planning the Cole bombing, yet another crime that had killed 17 US sailors. So she already had multiple examples of substantial evidence of federal crimes, information she, the FBI HQ and even the CIA had been hiding from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team.

(NOTE: On page 302 of the DOJ IG report, Corsi admitted that she had known from at least August 22, 2001, that the CIA had this photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew that the CIA had been concealing this photograph from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, and even knew by continuing to conceal this photograph, that Bongardt would never have the information he needed to start any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.)

What the “WALL”, was in effect was the caveat added to the bottom of all NSA cables, which was intended to prevent FBI criminal agents from getting NSA information that had been obtained using a FISA warrant so that they would not take this evidence intro court and have this evidence thrown out. This caveat was added to all NSA cables out of bureaucratic laziness regardless if the information in the cable had been obtained with a FISA warrant or not. Since FISA warrants were based on the "probable cause that the target of the search warrant was a terrorist or belonged to a terrorist organization", which was less strict that a criminal search warrant that was based on "probable cause that the target had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime", courts did not allow FISA information to be used in criminal trials.

This caveat also said that any restriction on this information was null and void if there was evidence of an imminent terrorist attack against people or property, information on a terrorist attack both the CIA and FBI HQ possessed in August and September 2001

So the "WALL" never applied to the NSA information with respect to the 9/11 investigation. The fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi were al Qaeda terrorists, had been connected to the east Africa bombings, and the planning of the Cole bombing nullified the wall. The fact that the NSA had given written permission to Corsi on August 27, 2001 , and the fact that both the CIA and FBI HQ knew about this huge al Qaeda attack and even knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this attack that would kill thousands of Americans also nullified the “WALL”.

But he “WALL” was used by FBI HQ and the CIA to illegally and criminally hide information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, out and out criminal obstruction of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into the USS Cole bombing. The CIA did not want the fact that they had photographed Mihdhar and Hazmi with Walid Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, planning the Cole bombing, and just let them walk way to carry out the Cole bombing, so that this information would never get out and make the CIA look culpable in the Cole bombing.

But it is almost unbelievable that when the CIA and FBI HQ found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, and knew they were in the US to take part in an al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, they continued to sabotage the FBI Cole bombing investigators by hiding this information and forcing Bongardt to destroy the information he had from Corsi's EC. The allowed the murder of 3000 Americans in order to keep themselves out of prison for criminally obstruction of the FBI Cole bombing investigation numerous times.

So the "WALL" was nothing but a complete fiction as Bongardt told Corsi in email on August 29, 2001.

To keep Bongardt from starting any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, both the CIA and FBI HQ had to hide the criminal conduct of both Mihdhar and Hazmi, which they did numerous times, criminally obstructing the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing.

To hide this huge criminal conspiracy, the 9/11 Commission had to hide the name of FBI Agent Ali Soufan so that every time Soufan made an official FBI request to the CIA for the information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Walid Bin Attash, and was told this information did not exists at the CIA, the 9/11 Commission could claim that the CIA just did not share information with other agencies. But if anyone had known about these official requests from Soufan, on at least 6 times, it was clear that the CIA and FBI HQ had been involved in out and out criminal obstruction of Soufan’s criminal investigation of the Cole bombing.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Wrong, wrong, wrong, dude

You need to educate yourself on how "the wall" actually worked and how it figured in the run-up to 9/11. A good place to start would be Barbara Grewe and the Commission staff's 35 page monograph on it.

[eomer]

105. It looks to me like you are the one who is wrong.

Here is a link to the 35-page monograph:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf

And here is the relevant excerpt:

Subsequently, the analyst sent an email to the Cole case agent explaining that according
to the NSLU, the case could only be opened as an intelligence matter, and that if Mihdhar
was found, only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at any
interview. The case agent angrily responded that there seems to be some confusion
regarding the wall because in his view it only applied to FISA information. The analyst
replied that she was not making up the rules; she claimed they were in the relevant
manual and "ordered by the [FISA] Court and every office in the FBI is required to
follow-them including FBI NY." What she did not tell the agent was that she had sought
and received permission to share the NSA information with criminal agents. Thus, there
was no reason for her continued insistence that the New York agent could not keep a
copy of the lead.

The monograph states the same conclusion as rschop: that Corsi knew that the restriction didn't apply because she had already received permission.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Really?

Show me the "criminal obstruction".

[eomer]

107. rschop has laid out a detailed case. What, specifically, do you dispute?

You claimed, as I understood it, that the monograph was going to contradict something that rschop said. I don't see where it does that. It corroborates what he said, in my opinion, and I showed you the part of it that is on point.

Are you disputing one or more of the facts alleged by rschop or do you accept the facts but argue that they don't constitute criminal obstruction? Your statements are so broad that there would be no way to answer them except to just repeat what rschop already said.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Dude...

rschop claims it is "criminal obstruction". Does the monograph show that? Does rschop ever show that?

Like all good conspiracists, rschop includes actual facts in his writings/theories, then proceeds to bend them to fit his pre-determined conclusions. Duh. You can follow him, if you'd like, but, keep in mind this is the same guy who claimed that the 9/11 Commission issued no subpoenas.

[eomer]

109. OK, so you stipulate that his facts are true but claim they don't constitute criminal obstruction.

I'm not really up on the detailed legal issues in determining whether something is criminal obstruction. You apparently are since you've already reached a conclusion. Could you summarize them for me and then I'll look at it?

[SDuderstadt]

110. I didn't say all his facts are true...

I said some of them are true and, further, it's his burden to show it amounts to "criminal obstruction", not mine to show that it doesn't.

[eomer]

112. 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3)

In order to secure a guilty verdict under § 1512(b)(3), the Government is obliged to demonstrate that a defendant knowingly (1) "engaged in misleading conduct toward another person," (2) with the intent to "hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a federal law enforcement officer ... of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3).

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/335/335.F3d.316.02-4669.html

We are not lawyers, much less lawyers specializing in this area, so the best we can hope for is a crude analysis. That said, it looks to me like Corsi likely committed the obstruction offense in 1512(b)(3). There is some helpful explanation at the link above.

[eomer]

113. Self delete

This merits an OP.

[BeFree]

31. That is bullshit, why do you keep piling it higher and higher?

That was a trial that was not controlled by bushco.

Evidence of lack of control was the release of court records which detailed the FBI and CIA blocking the investigations of the known AQ members who were in the US. That block was even perpetrated by bush himself after the PDB of Aug. 6, wherein the CIA head, Tenet, apprised bush of the pending attack.

So quit your bullshit, zappaman. You should be ashamed.

z wrote: "that trial was controlled by BUSHCO"

[LARED]

29. Simply ridiculous.

Do you actually believe Bushco controlled all the facts about 9/11.

[BeFree]

30. My Gawd, That's a dumb fucking question, Lared!!

Of course they didn't control all the facts. Geezus!!

But where is the outside, independent source of evidence that supports the OCT?

Can yall even follow simple questions and whole sentences? Can you read?

[AZCat]

35. No, I don't think it's a "dumb fucking question".

Considering post #19 and your posting history, I think it's a relevant question.

[BeFree]

44. FACTS NOT controlled by bushco

eyewitness accounts of bombs in the towers

videos of explosions far below the impact zone on towers

eyewitness accounts of a missile at the pentagon

bush, at the school, looking like a fucking idiot

the release of the facts that the cia and fbi blocked investigation of AQ members in the us.

[LARED]

45. So if I understand

eyewitnesses that agree with your fantasies are NOT controlled by Bushco and those that do not agree with your fantasies are controlled by Bushco?

[BeFree]

46. Fantasies?

The only fantasy I have is: One day Lared actually begins having honest conversations about 9/11.

[zappaman]

47. no planes is a fantasy.

just as much as unicorns.
the evidence for both is weak to non-existent.
In fact, you might be able to make a better case for unicorns since you have not made a even moderately good case for no planes!
:rofl:

[BeFree]

48. well

you make a bad case for non-sense. How embarrassing! No one here takes you seriously.

[zappaman]

49. "No one here takes you seriously."

nice irony.

:rofl:

[BeFree]

50. It is interesting...

....you following me around like a lost little puppy. A lost, un-toilet trained puppy.

Kinda funny, but more so, just weird.

[wildbilln864]

51. it may be ironic...

but it's factual.

[zappaman]

52. hahhahahahahaha

You guys are funny.
All this joking around must be why you can't prove all your crazy theories about 9/11.
Stop messing around and solve this thing!
What happened...did the mystery machine break down?

:rofl:

[LARED]

53. Here's a question.

Is it possible to have a honest conversation when one side thinks no planes hit the WTC?

[BeFree]

55. Sure it is, but....

Are you so dishonest as to be claiming that I think no planes hit the WTC?
If you are, that is just another stupid fucking question. Another in a long list.

[ryan_cats]

67. Are you saying folks saw an actual bomb?

eyewitness accounts of bombs in the towers

Do you have a link to this witness? Let's be clear here, you're saying you have a witness who saw an actual bomb? What floor was it on? How big was it? It also sounds plural so more than one person saw a bomb and there was more than one bomb seen, yes?

[BeFree]

92. Heard bombs going off

If anyone was close enough to see a bomb going off, well...

One or two did claim to have witnessed the damage done from a bomb. In the basement.

People saw planes. I saw the videos. Didn't see the numbers of the planes. Did you?
Did they find the black boxes?

All you have is the words from bushco on those matters. Do you trust bushco to tell the truth?

[zappaman]

68. "bush, at the school, looking like a fucking idiot"

How exactly does that strengthen the case that 9/11 was an inside job?

[LARED]

38. Explain 'independent source of evidence'

please. Since you seem to believe Bushco controls the facts about 9/11

Post 19
Have you any evidence, facts or statistics NOT from bushco, that support the OCT?

this answer from you could be key to understanding what you are babbling about.

[LARED]

54. Still waiting nt

[BeFree]

56. Gawd, Lared

Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

Can you even imagine what an 'independent source' would even entail?

Get yourself a dictionary. I'll wait.

[LARED]

58. Nice punt.

Afraid to answer the question?

[BeFree]

59. Punt?

More like a kick to the balls to get you to do your own critical thinking, eh?

[LARED]

60. Now that's ironic

Your concern for my critical thinking skills is well ....touching, or something like that.

Why not just admit the second you explain your version of an 'independent source of evidence' and how Bushco controls everything you will be made to look foolish.

[BeFree]

61. Ok

An independent source of evidence would be by example: Pilots for truth or any other such organization. A dependent source would be something like NBC.

Gawd, I feel like I am talking to an elementary school child.

Bushco, should you have cared to read, has imo, tried to control the flow of evidence.
Only an idiot would think otherwise.
They have been successful, but not completely.

"Why not just admit .....<snip>.... you will be made to look foolish." ??

[rschop]

75. er; Simply ridiculous.: Do you actually believe Bushco controlled all the facts about 9/11.

Bush made sure that the 9/11 Commission was set up with 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats as 9/11 Commissioners, and made sure the rules were written so that no subpoena could be issued without the approval of at least 6 commissioners.

He also made sure that Zelicow was appointed the staff director in spite of the fact that Zelicow and Rice had not only worked together but had written a book together. It is clear Zelicow sabotage much critical information from ever reaching the 9/11 Commission.

[SDuderstadt]

77. More bullshit from rschop...

since the 9/11 Commission was created by congress, could you explain how Bush controlled its composition? More importantly, Zelikow was chosen by Kean and Hamilton, not by Bush. Have you even read the public law that created the Commission?

Also, subpoenas could be issued simply by agreement between Kean and Hamilton, so there is yet one more area where you cannot get simple facts straight. I have rarely seen an "author" research a book so poorly. And, it's Zelikow, not Zelicow.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

83. Dude...

As I already pointed out, the members of the 9/11 Commission were, by public law, appointed by the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House and Senate. Could you please explain how Bush got the Democratic leadership to do his bidding? Have you even read the public law that created the Commission? I'm willing to bet you haven't.

Secondly, do you deny that Zelikow was chosen by Kean and Hamilton , and not Bush, as you claimed earlier?

Lastly, in your final paragraph, you accuse me of defending a criminal cover-up, yet you have never established that one took place. That's called "begging" the question, dude.

In the meantime, wouldn't your toime be better spent trying to shore up the flagging fortunes of your "book"? It's down to nearly #91,000 on Amazon, dude.

[rschop]

87. RE: yet you have never established that one, (a criminal cover-up) took place

"From a prior post:

"Could you please explain how Bush got the Democratic leadership to do his bidding?"

He did not have too, he just get the 5 members rule for subpoenas. They needed 5 democrats and one Republican to get a subpoenas, something they could never could get because no Republican would allow a subpoena. So how many subpoenas did Kean and Hamilton issue. I am assuming not one.

Your post:

"Lastly, in your final paragraph, you accuse me of defending a criminal cover-up, yet you have never established that one took place. That's called "begging" the question, dude."

I have already established a cover up took place many times at the 9/11 Commission.

I could give you many examples but just look at the information on FBI Director Louis Freeh, just one single example from the many examples of criminal conduct covered up by the 9/11 Commission.

The account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright says that Soufan had asked FBI Director Louis Freeh in November 2000, if Freeh would make an "official request" to the CIA and George Tenet for any information the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash and any meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information.

But according to page 238-239 of the DOJ IG report, Freeh was given this information by the NSA in December 1999, and according to page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report, this same information was given to Freeh in January 2000 by the CIA and this information appeared in Freeh’s daily briefing papers on January 4, 2000.

Notice that to put this together, since each report left out critical details of this account, you had to use at least three different documents, Lawrence Wright's account of Soufan, the DOJ IG report, and the 9/11 Commission report to get the complete account on just this one single detail on 9/11. The account of Soufan is approximately 20 pages, the 9/11 Commission report about 550 pages, and the DOJ IG report about 380 pages.

But the 9/11 Commission never connected the fact that the CIA had given Freeh the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting with the fact that Freeh had withheld this information from FBI Agent Ali Soufan in November 2000, a clear case of out and out criminal obstruction.

Does this answer your question: "yet you have never established that one took place".

How in the world would the 9/11 Commission not know that Freeh had withheld this information from FBI agent Ali Soufan, when in fact they actually had public testimony from Freeh, had access to all of the material from DOJ IG interviews, and had to know who the lead of the FBI Cole bombing investigation was.

Also notice that if you read just the 9/11 Commission report you would never know that Soufan had made this request to FBI Director Louis Freeh, and if you read just the DOJ IG report you also would never know about Soufan’s request. It was only after you combined these three reports would you start to have a even a semi-reasonably accurate account of just this one fact, the request by Soufan to Freeh in November 2000 and his out and out criminal obstruction of the FBI’s own investigation of the Cole bombing and the horrific murder of 17 US sailors.

Freeh had not only deliberately withheld critical information from an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into the murder by the al Qaeda terrorists of 17 US sailors but had Freeh given Soufan this information, the FBI Cole bombing investigators could have been able to prevent the attacks on 9/11, and save the lives of the 3000 people killed in this attack.

It is clear I have established the accuracy of my prior post.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Dude...

Are you seriously claiming the 9/11 Commission issued NO subpoenas?? Seriously?

Because you're dead wrong:




http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/politics/08TERR.html?hp

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/16/911/print.html

Dude, if you had a shred of credibility, it's gone by now. You simply don't know WTF you're talking about. You could have saved yourself considerable embarrassment by properly researching your "book", rather than shoot from the hip as you've demonstrated over and over.

This is why no one here takes you seriously, dude

[SDuderstadt]

6. "What I don't understand is why some people are so afraid to talk about this stuff"

Another "truther myth".

[Little Star]

9. What does that mean?

[zappaman]

11. it means no one is afraid to talk about it

unless you personally know someone who is afraid to talk about it...
many of the people who believe that thermite, or thermate, or mini-nukes, or UFOs, or secret government ultra-sound weapons brought down the towers, also like to say that people who don't believe any of the wacky shit I just mentioned, is somehow "afraid to talk about it".

[Little Star]

14. Maybe I used the wrong wording.......

But you seem to be very aggressive with your responses on this subject. Ya know, I'm just asking questions. I need to learn my own truth about this subject in my own way. I feel that some people want to shut down the conversation. How about you let me ask some questions and hopefully I will receive some helpful answers if you just stop being so confronting. For all I know you could be right but I need to seek my own truth in my own way. Peace

[zappaman]

21. so what are your questions?

if you take a look around, you can find a thread for all of them, I'm sure.
no one is trying to shut down the conversation.
but that doesn't mean we can't call bullshit on...bullshit.

[BeFree]

24. Good idea

So, lets have a conversation on why the CIA and FBI shut down the investigations of the hijackers.

Or maybe you'd rather not?

[SDuderstadt]

12. It means exactly what I said...

It's a "truther" myth that anyone is afraid to talk about 9/11. Most people just don't buy "truther" bullshit about 9/11.

[Little Star]

15. How do you know what MOST people buy?

You don't know anymore than I know about that. There is no need to try and shut down this conversation. I am trying to learn and I have to do that in my own way with my own questions. I'm sorry that you don't like it.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Oh, please....

tell me how I am trying to "shut down this conversation". And, I do know more about "that" (people not buying "truther" bullshit) than you do.

[quickesst]

32. Trying to shut down the conversation....

"It's a "truther" myth that anyone is afraid to talk about 9/11. Most people just don't buy "truther" bullshit about 9/11.

is a great example. Why, besides DU are there so many forums, discussion, and interest in the subject to this day? If your side is right, just quit talking about it. If you're right, it should die a natural death. Thanks anyway for providing an excellent answer to the afore mentioned poster. You guys keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.
quickesst

[zappaman]

33. "Why, besides DU are there so many forums, discussion, and interest in the subject to this day?"

so?
there are plenty of sites that say Obama is not a US citizen.
does that make the idea credible?
hurry up and solve this.
maybe you're in too deep a hole?

[SDuderstadt]

34. "If your side is right, just quit talking about it"

You DO understand why my irony meter just blew up, doncha?

[smiley]

69. Those people are here to keep you from discussing 9/11

If you notice there are some main characters down here in the dungeon. I've made it a rule to ignore most of those common characters.

:)

[SDuderstadt]

95. yet there are nearly 100 replies to...

the OP!

Oy.

[BeFree]

96. Too, it's quality, not quantity that counts

Some of us desire honest discussions. Mele Kalikimaka to yall!

[defendandprotect]

97. Exactly ... you can waste your time with nonsense, or decide to discuss the issue ...

[SDuderstadt]

100. I hereby nominate this as...

unintentionally ironic post of the century.

[RKP5637]

111. I saw them and thought they were interesting. I always try to keep an

open mind in all of this stuff. Throughout history a lot of weird stuff has happened. I find his show interesting, but sometimes a bit over the top, as you say, a bit cheesy, but still interesting IMO.

[k-robjoe]

16. Online

The episode is online :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

[spooked911]

18. the Pentagon show youtube link is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s&feature=player_embedded

I haven't seen this episode but it is supposed to be decent. In general, I don't like the style of the show, though.

[KDLarsen]

22. From what I've read, Jesse really screwed up

and made several lies and unsubstansiated claims about what happened at the Pentagon.

Such as the missing $2.3 trillion, which weren't really missing in the first place.

Such as the missing Black boxes, which weren't really missing, though only the FDR could be analyzed.

Such as the missing airphones on AA planes, which weren't really missing.

A good thing his show is billed as entertainment, otherwise I'm fairly sure good ol' Jesse would be landing himself in some very hot water.

[spooked911]

41. unfortunate

there was quite a bit of good material in the show, but of course the few errors will be endlessly paraded as proof that the conspiracy is bull.

I don't know whether Ventura was just sloppy, or knowingly planted false info. I did see he called Hani Hanjour "Hanji" at one point, suggesting he just wasn't 100% sure of key facts.

I'm no fan of the show. But it did have some good parts, for instance, it's pretty hard to argue with April Gallop's story.

[wildbilln864]

114. so where did the 2.3 trillion go?

Rumsfeld said it couldn't be accounted for. And it never was accounted for or even mentioned again AFAIK. But it wasn't lost in your opinion? :crazy:

[defendandprotect]

37. Missed it last night but you can watch at the website which I plan to do....

though I am familiar with evidence of the "pilots" -- which I think the show was about?

So what kept you from challenging the evidence of 9/11 on your own --

nothing seemed odd about that event?

And what kept you from at least reviewing what 9/11 truthers were saying about it?

Did you not ever see the many challenges to a plane having hit the Pentagon?


Thanks for the update -- when I see this particular episode, I'll be back!



:)

[SDuderstadt]

39. Just for the record...

there are 100+ eyewitnesses who saw AA11 hit the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

40. not really

maybe a dozen who claim to have seen the actual impact. But lots of people saw the plane; I'm sure there was a plane that flew low over the Pentagon.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Yes, really...

dude. We've been through this before and all your spinning doesn't negate it.

No one is buying your goofy "no-planes" bullshit.

[eomer]

62. There are "eyewitnesses" who "saw"... "AA11 [sic]"... "hit" the Pentagon..

When you drill into the lists of people who allegedly fit your description you will find that many of them did not literally see a plane hit the Pentagon.

None of the eyewitnesses, obviously, can say that the plane was AA77, so you can take that part out right away and change it to "the plane".

Some of the purported impact witnesses have been tracked down later and interviewed for more details and then admitted that they didn't actually see the plane impact the Pentagon. They saw a plane headed toward the Pentagon and inferred the impact of the plane with the Pentagon based on things other than actually seeing it impact.

Remaining witness reports that stick to a statement of actually seeing the plane impact the Pentagon are still consistent with the explanation that the plane did a low flyover and that explosions were timed to give the appearance of impact.

On the other hand, the eyewitness reports of the flight path of the plane by Pentagon Police officers, by employees at Arlington National Cemetery, and others do rule out the official explanation. There is just no way those witnesses could have been mistaken in their detailed recall of where the plane flew by them, which was north of the Citgo. And if the plane flew by north of the Citgo then it could not have knocked down the lightpoles that were somehow down and it could not have created the damage to the Pentagon (because of the angle and other details). Therefore, the lightpoles being down had to have been staged and the damage to the Pentagon had to have been from planted explosives.

For those who are not familiar with the "north of the Citgo" issue, go here if you'd like to know the details:

http://thepentacon.com/

[SDuderstadt]

63. This post is so silly...

it doesn't need a response.

[eomer]

64. Agreed, but why did you post it then? (eom)

[SDuderstadt]

65. I'm talking about...

your post, dude.

Cute.

[zappaman]

66. I have a response

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

[eomer]

72. Do you understand the implication of the Pentagon police officers' eyewitness observation?

I personally don't see how they could be mistaken in their observation of where the plane flew. And if they are not mistaken then the official story, including the official flight path and the claim that the plane impacted the Pentagon cannot be true.

Here's a clear explanation of it that is fairly short:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-alleged_impact_witnesses.html

Or anyone who's interested can watch the longer version here:
http://thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm

I don't think it is a funny topic, but I guess that's what you guys do when you've got no substantive answer.

[SDuderstadt]

73. So, they're right and the other witnesses...

(who vastly outnumber them) are wrong?

[eomer]

78. Yes, most likely that's correct.

The statements of the Pentagon police, Arlington National Cemetery employees, and others that I referenced are clear and unambiguous as to which side of the Citgo the plane was on. These witnesses have been questioned in such a way as to be completely sure that that is what they are saying and that they were in a position to be able to say that.

On the other hand, the statements that you're referencing are not unambiguously clear on the point of actually seeing the plane impact the Pentagon. Some of the statements that at first appear to be a claim of witnessing impact turn out to not be that at all. For example, some witnesses have clarified on further questioning that they saw the plane approaching, saw an explosion, and only inferred that the plane impacted the Pentagon without actually seeing impact. In fact, some of the witnesses who say they saw the plane impact were in a geographical position where it would have been impossible for them to have seen impact, whether it occurred or not. They saw the plane headed toward the Pentagon, saw a fireball, but did not see actual impact because their view of the alleged impact location was blocked by a hill, some trees, a building, or some such. And yet these impact "witnesses" are on your list. So, then, how can we know that the ones who did have a view of the impact location were not similarly inferring without actually seeing? For how many witnesses can you demonstrate questioning that was sufficiently detailed and on point to distinguish between inferring that the plane impacted and actually seeing it impact?

And even in that subset of witnesses who did "see" impact, how can you distinguish between them seeing real impact and seeing an intentional illusion of impact created by a timed explosion? There really is no way from their witness statements to tell which thing they are actually reporting. For the north of the Citgo witnesses, however, it is very easy to know that they really are stating that they saw the plane pass on the north side of the Citgo, which then completely repudiates the official story and the impact theory.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Dude...

this is getting stupid beyond belief. In order to believe the goofiness from the CIT, you'd have to believe that:

1) Somehow the "perps" would have to plant a large amount of aircraft debris both inside and outside the Pentagon.

2) Somehow the "perps" had to plant the DNA from the passengers of AA 77 within the Pentagon

3) the "perps" somehow had to rig explosives in such a manner that it blew out an outline that matched the dimensions of a 757 precisely where a number of witnesses saw the airliner hit the building

4) you'd have to explain why several witnesses had to dive to avoid being hit by the aircraft.

5) If the "perps" carried off such an elaborate hoax, it would have taken hundreds of people to pull it off, yet not one person has blown the whistle.

As far as your spin on why all the witnesses who saw the fucking plane hit the Pentagon merely believe they saw the plane hit, I don't know what witnesses you think you're referring to, but you can read many of the actual statement in the Pentagon section of "WTC 7 Lies". Their statements are not in the least ambiguous.

It should be clear to everyone but the least rational people why nearly everyone points and laughs at "no-planers". With that, I'm not going to waste any more time on your utter silliness.

[eomer]

90. No.

1) Somehow the "perps" would have to plant a large amount of aircraft debris both inside and outside the Pentagon.
No, they would have had to plant a small amount of aircraft debris. There was very little debris compared with the typical amount at a crash of a commercial airliner, which is one of the key discrepancies that points to the official story being a fabrication.

2) Somehow the "perps" had to plant the DNA from the passengers of AA 77 within the Pentagon
No, they didn't have to plant DNA at the Pentagon. The DNA tests were done elsewhere, not at the Pentagon. And they did not necessarily have to plant DNA anywhere because they could instead have falsified the DNA test results. They completed identification of 179 out of 184 alleged Pentagon fatalities by November 16, 2001. Two months is a suspiciously short period of time for such a task, unless you're falsifying the results in which case haste would be helpful in covering up what you're up to.

3) the "perps" somehow had to rig explosives in such a manner that it blew out an outline that matched the dimensions of a 757 precisely where a number of witnesses saw the airliner hit the building
Rigging explosives to create damage to roughly match the outline of a 757 would be easy. The damage did not match the outline of a 757 precisely. As to witnesses about the location, please produce some for whom you can demonstrate they were not merely inferring where it hit based on where they then saw the damage.

4) you'd have to explain why several witnesses had to dive to avoid being hit by the aircraft.
I've heard and read witnesses reports like this and they were all from people who did not actually need to dive to avoid being hit by an aircraft, even if the official story were true. They felt like they needed to dive but didn't actually, which is a natural reaction. If you have a specific witness that you think doesn't fit my description then produce it.

5) If the "perps" carried off such an elaborate hoax, it would have taken hundreds of people to pull it off, yet not one person has blown the whistle.
No, it wouldn't take hundreds. Just a few in the right spots. And people who would be willing to participate would obviously not be likely whistleblowers.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Okay, dude...

Please lay out how it would have "only taken a few in the right spots". I'm dying to hear this and I suspect others are too. Lay it out for us.

I'm not going to respond to any of your silly challenges until you do.

[eomer]

93. Reponse:

A small unit of one of our covert services, probably outsourced, would already have in place the capabilities of flying an unmarked 757 and of planting explosives. The number who would have to be in on the actual operation that day (on a need-to-know basis) would be a few to plant and detonate explosives and maybe a dozen to prep and fly the airliner. Add a few people to plan and organize and you've still got a unit of only a couple dozen operatives who needed to be in on the plane and explosives.

Regarding identification of remains, I haven't really looked into this aspect and would need to know more of the official story. Planting a few DNA technicians to fake DNA tests would not take many people. Physical evidence might be harder depending on the details. What I've read about it so far does not fill in much detail so I can't give a very detailed theory of something that is mostly not publicly known. If you've got a detailed, step-by-step description of this operation then we could think further about what it would take.

[SDuderstadt]

94. And, no one saw them plant the explosives???

What happened to AA77? Where are the passengers? Are you sure you'd just have to plant a few lab techs to pull off the DNA "ruse"? Wouldn't you have to compromise the entire effort and defeat all the checks and balances? Where did all the aircraft parts come from? How many would it take to plant them and why did not a single person see them? Are you saying the FAA would not have tracked this phantom aircraft the "covert forces" maneuvered over the Pentagon?

Do you realize how absurd your claims are becoming?

[eomer]

98. Really?

It's hard for you to think of a way to bring explosives into an area that was under construction? How about disguised as equipment, crates of equipment, palettes of supplies, ...? This is obvious and easy. And the relatively small volume of aircraft parts could be smuggled in similarly, perhaps even mixed in with explosives in order to have it blown up into the air and rain down. Is this stuff seriously that hard for you?

Regarding tracking by the FAA, there were plenty of discrepancies between the tracks of aircraft that witnesses saw that day and what the FAA says it tracked. Are you not familiar with these facts?

You're right that this is silly. Why don't you think a bit harder before posting ridiculous questions?

[SDuderstadt]

101. Because rational people don't think...

they're ridiculous questions, dude.

[defendandprotect]

103. Nice job .... and #3 was likely a bunker buster .... a huge circular frame that

would have been set up inside the Pentagon and blows out a huge circular hole --

just as we saw at the Pentagon --

April Gallop was in the wing being renovated -- just behind the alleged entry --

she saw NO PLANE at any time -- either as she exited thru the circular hole,

nor prior to exiting, or after exiting --

And she has had a lawsuit vs the Pentagon because the alarm system never warned

employees to evacuate the building!

Let's see now ... cameras at the Pentagon which captured nothing that looked like

a plane -- no missiles protect system at the Pentagon though it is the most heavily

secured building in America -- and alarm system didn't work ....


hmmmmm.....

[zappaman]

104. how nice that you have everyone on "ignore"

so you can spew your fantasies without having to have your "theories" called out for the absolute nonsense that they are...

[wildbilln864]

115. I would submit that...

his theories are quite possible and your feeble attempts to discredit them are absolute nonsense. IMHOOC! :eyes: Good reason to ignore your posts I would think.

[defendandprotect]

99. Quite a difference between this solid investigation and what 9/11 Commission did ....

and the NIST -- a private company relying on government for contracts!

Also the OCT reports a plane altitude which would also have been too high

to have hit the poles.

The entire OCT is fantasy -

[SDuderstadt]

102. NIST is a division of...

the U.S. Department of Commerce.

[apocalypsehow]

71. As a rule, I prefer science fiction programs to have actual actors. But, yeah, I confess that I

blocked off some time, and sat down and watched one of Mr. Ventura's fiction pieces.

It concerned a place/facility called Plum Island, and Ventura conducted the program in a manner that was about what I expected: loads & loads of speculation without a scrap of credible evidence; lots of scary flash-overs and ominous background shots; "interviews" that consisted of loaded questions, false premises, and phony rhetorical semantics.

All in all, it was textbook CT'er drivel.