Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,230
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The story so far...

etc, etc, etc!
WTF????

So many things in the above post misrepresents what I’ve said. Is this a deliberate effort on your part to tear down my post without having to respond to the points raised? “Bawling out”, “pwn”??? What are you five years old?? That is possibly the most infantile thing you’ve written in a post that has much shaking of the fist and stomping of the foot without an actual argument being raised. But then why actually make an argument when you can simply pick apart someone elses. I thought this was a discussion, I didn’t realise that the whole object was to “pwn” your opponent! If the whole purpose is just to add another notch your belt then fine, go ahead - I’ll take solace in the fact that I’ve at least made an argument and put myself in the firing line.

Not wanting to turn this into a he said/she said thread but I must respond to your assertions. Firstly, I fail to see how I “backpedaled” as you so colourfully put it or make unsubstantiated claims. I responded to your request by posting a video which illustrates exactly what I had stated using a mathmatically and physically correct computer model that sourced substantiated and real evidence from the crash site as it’s data.

You then responded by saying nothing of the clip but questioning why it needed an explanation in the first place. Asserting that because the US Government hadn’t released anything clearer or more definitive then that was actually evidence of a cover up. Tacking on at the end an extract from a pseudo-trial that basically summed up your thinking.

My rebuttal continued with the mock trial allusion, updating it with my take on the situation (which I noticed in your response you’d made edits to - classy!!!). I’m sorry you found it insulting, however I won’t apologise for calling the ideology and speculation by the 911 truth movement “moronic and ignorant”. I then offered a response to your question with my thoughts as to why there hasn’t been higher quality footage of the crash at the Pentagon released and how it is possible that there isn’t. This was pure speculation on my part but as your question comes from your own unsupported assumption that there is better footage being suppressed I didn’t feel I should have to offer up any evidence. Where is your evidence that this suppressed footage exists? Show me the whistleblower who says they have seen it and know for a fact that it has been buried! You are positing that this is fact yet you have provided nothing to back this up. Show me the statements from nearby businesses alleging the confiscation of security footage showing the impact! The burden of proof is on you! Yet you posit an assumption, with no evidence, then demand evidence from my own speculation while completely dismissing what I already have provided (without actually saying why I might add, just that it had been “whipped up”!)

On the subject, if the dark overseers of the Bush admin can orchestrate 911 then surely it would be just a simple task to have a realistic video clip made up of flight 77 flying into the Pentagon. With all the tricks and omniscient intelligence they so obviously possess, I’m sure they could have got some computer graphics students, provided them with the latest software and an open budget with the only request - “make it look real”. It is incredible in fact that if this was indeed masterminded by inside sources with the immense resources they seemed to have that something like this hasn’t been released!

In my previous post it was quite clear that I was referring to the 911 truth movement, if you take offense at this I apologise but I was not pointing my criticism directly at you however, I maintain my right to hold in contempt adherents to this ridiculous ideology. It is offensive to the memories of those who died on September 11 2001; it is allowing the real perpetrators of these attacks to get off the hook, in some cases looking like innocent pawns caught in an impossible net of political idiocy; it is affording a ludicrously backwards, inefficient, bumbling and arrogant administration the mantle of political masterminds - to the extent never before seen in history; through the corruption of evidence and investigation it is allowing the shoe horning of a truly tragic event into an illegal war to go unchecked, the conspirators allowed retire in comfort without prosecution.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

WTF????

So many things in the above post misrepresents what I’ve said. Is this a deliberate effort on your part to tear down my post without having to respond to the points raised? “Bawling out”, “pwn”??? What are you five years old?? That is possibly the most infantile thing you’ve written in a post that has much shaking of the fist and stomping of the foot without an actual argument being raised. But then why actually make an argument when you can simply pick apart someone elses. I thought this was a discussion, I didn’t realise that the whole object was to “pwn” your opponent! If the whole purpose is just to add another notch your belt then fine, go ahead - I’ll take solace in the fact that I’ve at least made an argument and put myself in the firing line.
First of all, pardon the attitude. I was annoyed at parts of your last post in what was until then an amicable exchange.
That said I hadn't made any assertions prior, my entering the thread was in response to what you had claimed to see in the video released.
I had made no argument requiring support, simply an inquiry.

Not wanting to turn this into a he said/she said thread but I must respond to your assertions. Firstly, I fail to see how I “backpedaled” as you so colourfully put it or make unsubstantiated claims. I responded to your request by posting a video which illustrates exactly what I had stated using a mathmatically and physically correct computer model that sourced substantiated and real evidence from the crash site as it’s data.
With all due respect, I don't accept that computer model as proof at all. I hope you can appreciate that in light of your statements regarding 'truthers' making unsubstantiated claims. ie. I could claim it was made by kids using shareware downloaded from tucows but couldn't reasonably expect you to simply accept my claim as evidence of 'truth'.

You then responded by saying nothing of the clip but questioning why it needed an explanation in the first place. Asserting that because the US Government hadn’t released anything clearer or more definitive then that was actually evidence of a cover up. Tacking on at the end an extract from a pseudo-trial that basically summed up your thinking.
Although I believe the US government 9/11 explanation has more holes than a whorehouse, I hadn't made any cover up assertions - rather the total sum of irrefutable evidence, amounting to nil, was damning for such a secure installation. Hence my interest in your claim concerning the released footage.

My rebuttal continued with the mock trial allusion, updating it with my take on the situation (which I noticed in your response you’d made edits to - classy!!!). I’m sorry you found it insulting, however I won’t apologise for calling the ideology and speculation by the 911 truth movement “moronic and ignorant”.
This is where I find problems with consistency. You have made many claims - most if not all unsubstantiated, including posts other than those in response to mine, yet claim 'truthers' to be moronic and ignorant based on their speculation when speculation is in fact the sum total of what you yourself have offered.
Without definitive proof both sides of the argument rely on speculation to an extent, and without definitive proof I cannot see how you can claim 'truthers' to be moronic and ignorant without condemning yourself as such by your own words.

I then offered a response to your question with my thoughts as to why there hasn’t been higher quality footage of the crash at the Pentagon released and how it is possible that there isn’t. This was pure speculation on my part but as your question comes from your own unsupported assumption that there is better footage being suppressed I didn’t feel I should have to offer up any evidence. Where is your evidence that this suppressed footage exists? Show me the whistleblower who says they have seen it and know for a fact that it has been buried! You are positing that this is fact yet you have provided nothing to back this up. Show me the statements from nearby businesses alleging the confiscation of security footage showing the impact! The burden of proof is on you! Yet you posit an assumption, with no evidence, then demand evidence from my own speculation while completely dismissing what I already have provided (without actually saying why I might add, just that it had been “whipped up”!)
Having re-read your position it does not come across as pure speculation on your part. They are simply claims made without that condition. Having now stated this, I accept that it was pure speculation on your part, however that now leaves the point I made unrebutted. Both our claims being unproven assertions leaves the question not properly answered.
Also the question I asked does not hinge on my claim re: outside footage hence it starts "Notwithstanding .....'the outside footage'.." however there are plenty of sources claiming this:
"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

Although the footage (now released) suggests Velasquez didn't know where his own cameras were pointing the FBI themselves admit they are in possession of footage from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington which (to my knowledge) has not been released. There's two instances straight off the bat.
Another website (granted, a truther site) stated that the FBI are in possession of 84 surveillance videos, however these were the subject of FOI lawsuit and the FBI in their response have admitted they are in possession of said videos, have already analysed them but are still keeping them under lock and key (as at May, 2006). Not sure how many if any have since been released.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

On the subject, if the dark overseers of the Bush admin can orchestrate 911 then surely it would be just a simple task to have a realistic video clip made up of flight 77 flying into the Pentagon. With all the tricks and omniscient intelligence they so obviously possess, I’m sure they could have got some computer graphics students, provided them with the latest software and an open budget with the only request - “make it look real”. It is incredible in fact that if this was indeed masterminded by inside sources with the immense resources they seemed to have that something like this hasn’t been released!
Who can say. At the end of the day that is simply your 'ideology and speculation', no?

In my previous post it was quite clear that I was referring to the 911 truth movement, if you take offense at this I apologise but I was not pointing my criticism directly at you however, I maintain my right to hold in contempt adherents to this ridiculous ideology.
I respect your right to your own opinion - whether I agree or not, however stating this in response to my post suggested those statements were relevant to me.

It is offensive to the memories of those who died on September 11 2001; it is allowing the real perpetrators of these attacks to get off the hook, in some cases looking like innocent pawns caught in an impossible net of political idiocy; it is affording a ludicrously backwards, inefficient, bumbling and arrogant administration the mantle of political masterminds - to the extent never before seen in history; through the corruption of evidence and investigation it is allowing the shoe horning of a truly tragic event into an illegal war to go unchecked, the conspirators allowed retire in comfort without prosecution.
The first part is an emotional guilt trip laid on by many 'trusters' which has no bearing on the truth of the matter, and can serve no purpose but to stifle discussion - which to my thinking is contrary to any stated objective to find said truth. Boiled down it amounts to 'our version of events must remain unchecked and unquestioned or else you will offend others'. I cannot conceive of any situation where the search for truth could be offensive to anyone but a perpetrator of untruths.

I suggest you give the government of the day too much credit.
That this and a long line of previous administrations is anything but a puppet of those who pull the levers from behind the scenes is clearly disabused by an even longer line of eminent public figures dating back to Andrew Jackson's presidency. Short of your requiring proof I will not further pollute this thread with quotes from many such men spanning almost two centuries proving as much. I think this was also referred to by Nuts a few pages back in his/her post regarding Federal Reserve Bank.

Can you prove what you posted about the released video, that is a plane is clearly visible, a stabiliser fin proving it is a plane (missiles also having stabiliser fins) is visible and not only is smoke visible but obviously linked to an engine damaged on approach? Can you prove the other assertions you have made in these and previous posts?
If not, thats ok but do you then accept you may be a little harsh in judging 'truthers' so quickly as ignorant and moronic when in many instances both sides are, after all, using the same standard of proof - speculation and unproven assertions?

FWIW I feel this whole exchange is useless filler in a thread in which many commendable contributions have been made. ODN, for one, appears to have gone to considerable trouble to provide information which has caused me to rethink some (but not all:p) of my previous beliefs.
Not wanting to go into such detail covering a myriad of topics due to already burning too much time on BF is the reason I have kept out of - although kept up with - a thread tailor made for a 'tin-hatter' like me. Carry on...
 

crowmyzone

Baghdad Kayoosh
Joined
May 20, 2001
Posts
28,841
Likes
23,131
Location
Beetaloo
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Baghdad Bombers
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Im not a big fan of this site but this piece was so beautifully peppered with sarcasm :D I had to share it. My apologies, its fairly long; so hang in there.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/24/nila-sagadevan-911-mission-accomplished/

The Greatest Lie Ever Sold
Yes, 9/11 changed everything. Every war since 9/11 has come about, one way or another, because of 9/11. This entire bogus “global war on terror” and the whole concept of “terrorists” and “terrorism” has been sold to the world at large according to what is supposed to have happened on 9/11.
9/11 lies at the heart of every deprivation of civil liberty we silently suffer; 9/11 lies behind every oppression of freedom we quietly endure; 9/11 lies at the root of every invasion of personal privacy to which we meekly accede. As with the proverbial frog unsuspectingly allowing it to be boiled slowly to death, 9/11 is the singular pretext used to gradually raise the heat so “we the people” begin to accept, resignedly and without question, every despotic diktat thrown at us—until it’s too late.

Let’s face it. If not for 9/11, people would be leading lives that have at least a modicum of normalcy—traveling about freely sans fear; enjoying their families, friends, and communities sans the ever-looming threat of crouching “Muslim” maniacs; heartily savoring life, instead of trembling in this constant false shadow of imminent extinction under a hail of “Islamic” bombs.
And this whole living nightmare, this all-pervading incubus of ever-present fear, began on… September 11, 2001.

To think it’s all rooted in a story so ridiculous, so laughable, so utterly incredible, that any reasonably intelligent High School kid exposed to a brief presentation of the facts of 9/11 would see through this monstrous farce in short order. But, as Hitler’s propaganda genius Goebbels shrewdly prescribed: “The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.”
And lies don’t get any bigger than 9/11, the mother of all lies. That’s why it was swallowed so readily.

We’re told that on that fateful day, nineteen Arab “evildoers” launched a ‘holy war’ on Western civilization. As the story goes, this cadre of inept layabouts, led by an arch-villain holed out in an Afghan cave, outwitted the most advanced, ultra-sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar, defense system on the planet.

Four times.

These spectacularly incompetent “pilots” who could barely fly little trainers, are said to have wrested control of four massive, 100-ton jetliners. How did these scrawny little fellows manage to overpower the pilots, some of whom were strapping, battle-hardened ex-Vietnam fighter jocks? Why, with little box-cutters. And these burly combat veterans, we’re told, then meekly vacated their seats, compliantly relinquished control of their craft to these pint-sized yokels, and obligingly retreated to the rear of the aircraft to sit back and watch the show.

In such big a hurry were these ex-fighter jocks to escape to the sanctuary of the passenger cabins, they fled their seats without so much as touching the transmit buttons—positioned literally at their fingertips on the control yokes—to make one single Mayday call to alert controllers. Yes, all eight pilots failed to execute a standard emergency action that would have taken them all of five seconds. [For the moment let’s overlook another little snag in this unfolding narrative: any kind of struggle in the tight confines of a cockpit would very likely have led to a yoke being impacted, thereby automatically disengaging the autopilot and sending the airplane careening wildly—but that would end this fairytale far too soon.]

We’re told these inept student-pilots, who could barely fly a trainer around an airfield, then took control of these monstrous aircraft and expertly flew them willy-nilly around the most securely protected and strictly controlled airspace on the planet for almost two hours, all the while being thoroughly ignored by NORAD and FAA radars and the most formidable air force in the world.

Then, exhibiting a series of masterly maneuvers well beyond the ability of even the most seasoned test pilots, these novices, we’re told, managed to navigate to their targets with pinpoint precision, and ram three of their missiles, kamikaze-style and with stunning accuracy, into three structures killing thousands of innocent people. [At least six veteran airline captains (one, a friend) who tried these exact maneuvers in their company B767 simulator failed even after several attempts—but let’s not be spoilsports and kill this fascinating yarn.]

And through all this chaos, the greatest superpower on earth—one that routinely scrambles fighter jets to intercept any errant craft in its airspace within minutes—sat patiently on its hands for close upon two hours, obviously marveling at the mayhem and the awesome aeronautical prowess of these camel-cavalrymen-turned-jet jockeys. [On average, during the previous year, these kinds of scrambled intercepts of unidentified aircraft in American skies occurred at a frequency of one every three days—a total of 67 intercepts in 2000. On 9/11, not a single fighter turned a wheel for almost two hours. But stuff like this would only ruin this terrific tale.]

It gets better.

While NORAD was taking a breather, the leaders of our nation, too, were otherwise engaged, far too busy to be disturbed by something as trivial as four hijacked jumbo jets heading heaven knows where. You see, while the nation was under attack, the President of the United States was busy reading to little schoolchildren about a pet goat. When interrupted in mid-sentence by his Chief-of-Staff and told of the crisis, the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces not only didn’t bother to ask who the enemy might be—Russia? China? North Korea? —he wasn’t even the least curious about the nature of the attack—was it nuclear? Biological? Chemical?

The pet goat took precedence over it all.

And the nation’s Secretary of Defense was out to lunch for the duration of what was, quite literally, a declared state of war. As the nation’s top executives and their minions continued to blithely ignore the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, innocent Americans continued to leap, in pure terror and desperation, from smoke-filed towers, plunging to their horrific deaths on sidewalks hundreds of feet below. [When later queried about his petrified immobility on first hearing the news, the President could only offer that he didn’t wish to upset the kids. So, while Rome burned and citizens perished by the thousands, our Nero spent the next twenty minutes taking full advantage of a photo op casually posing with teachers.]

The extraordinary skills of this team of diminutive Arabian suicide-SEALs were by no means confined to exceptional airmanship—they also evidently possessed an arsenal of supernal godly powers, which they wielded with apparent ease to … momentarily suspend the laws of Newtonian physics.

How so?

They caused three steel-framed skyscrapers to literally freefall—I.e., fall as though nothing existed beneath them but air, at a rate indistinguishable from that of a falling brick—through the path of greatest resistance—and collapse, like pillars of sand, into their own footprints. Such a shocking violation of physical laws has never before been witnessed in the history of the world. [Except, of course, in instances where explosives are used in what are called controlled demolitions, but that would be to digress.]

What adds to the amazement of these “collapses” is that the two taller towers were actually designed to safely withstand not one, but multiple strikes by fully-loaded Boeing 707 jetliners—which would in fact have imparted more kinetic energy (by virtue of their higher speeds) than did the 767s that crashed into them that day. [Just another of many 9/11 mysteries that can only be attributed to the hand of Allah.]

And that mysterious third tower—WTC Building 7, a huge 47-storey skyscraper few people have even heard of—wasn’t even struck by an airplane. Yet, it suddenly self-imploded several hours later and collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble—again, in a near-perfect 6.6-second freefall. So utterly unbelievable was this unprecedented event, the much vaunted 14-million-dollar “9/11 Commission Report” decided to ignore it altogether by not mentioning it anywhere in its 624 pages. [Oh, the fact that the new owner of the entire WTC complex is on record having given the order to “pull it”—insider jargon for a controlled demolition—would, again, be to ruin this riveting saga.]

Not quite satisfied with their handiwork, for good measure these uber-terrorists then chose to flout the laws of thermodynamics as well. They caused the fuel aboard the aircraft—simple kerosene—to melt (yes, literally melt) tons of high-grade construction steel. Firemen who witnessed this amazing phenomenon reported seeing “Molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” [1]
Since this is a feat impossible to achieve under the known physical laws of this universe, it must, again, be attributed to the awesome power of Allah. This could also explain why Underwriters Labs is reportedly considering placing labels on steel skillets warning against their use on kerosene stoves lest they melt and run all over stovetops. [To mention here the fact that molten iron is a direct byproduct of the high-tech military explosive Nano-Thermite would, again, trip-up the story. And a peer-reviewed report by independent scientists actually confirming the existence of large amounts of this explosive in WTC dust samples should be totally ignored lest it blow this little fable to bits—not to mention seriously upset Allah.]

It gets even better.

To ensure there’d be absolutely no doubt about his identity, one of these villains had his passport miraculously tear through layers of his clothing, rip through the aluminum fuselage of the Boeing, sail through a hellish fireball, blast its way through untold feet of concrete and steel and… [drum roll] float gently down to the street below to be found later, buried under a foot-deep layer of chalky dust, by a clearly clairvoyant FBI agent. [While the passport made it through the fireball unscathed, whole human bodies, on the other hand, were literally blasted to smithereens—some tiny bone fragments were just a fraction of an inch long—and deposited on distant rooftops six hundred feet away. Amazing thing, gravity.]

It seems one of the killers aboard Flight 93—the plane we’re told “crashed” in Pennsylvania—also wished to be unmistakably identified in Allah’s eyes so he could be enshrined in the Jihadi Hall of Fame. This chap made sure his red bandana and plastic ID card survived that hellish fireball (again, conveniently discovered by yet another FBI sleuth) when everything else—the entire aircraft and all its contents—simply evaporated leaving behind nary a trace, save a shallow scar in the ground.

This extraordinary airplane crash boasted another aspect worthy of the Guinness Book: One of the airliner’s 6,000-lb engines evidently bounced upon impact (yes, bounced, like one gigantic India-rubber ball) and landed almost two miles away from the aforementioned “wreckage-free crash site”. [Testimony by scores of ground-based witnesses who heard a military jet overhead, followed by the sound of a missile, a loud explosion, and debris raining down “like confetti” onto a nearby lakeside marina would only confuse this issue and would be best ignored.]

Having defied the laws of physics, these holy warriors then turned to… [grin] metaphysics. You see, they managed to mentally deactivate not only the several SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile) batteries defending the Pentagon—the most heavily protected and unapproachable fortress in the world—they also psychically switched off the scores of surveillance cameras located around the building’s perimeter that would otherwise have captured, in great detail, their impressive aerial theatrics. [This sudden desire for secrecy by a bunch of raging exhibitionists just seconds before meeting their Maker continues to baffle authorities.]

Given all their amazing achievements that day, perhaps none was greater than how these nineteen brigands actually managed to board their respective aircraft: Not only were there no reservations made under any of their names, nor any record of boarding cards having been issued to these men, not one of their names appeared on any of the four flight manifests. [Since they obviously boarded invisibly, the FBI is yet undecided as to whether these men were seasoned sorcerers or practiced illusionists—or mere circus contortionists who slithered their way up into the aircraft toilets via “honey-wagon” hoses. The fact that nine of these geniuses are, according to the BBC, alive and well today in the Middle East only serves to further confound FBI sleuths.]

Enough.

There’s simply too much to cover; and the inconsistencies mentioned above barely begin to scratch the surface of this monumental fraud… Magical phone calls made from nonexistent seatback phones (the aircraft weren’t equipped with these devices); cell phone calls made by passengers from 30,000 feet (an impossibility given the technology of the time)… Miracle upon miracle, impossibility upon impossibility, on and on the fairytale goes.

So—Why, pray tell, did these fiendish Muslims do this to us?
Because they hated our “freedoms and lifestyles”!

Yes, these devout god-fearing religious zealots who just the night before tore up the town guzzling vodka-tonics, snorting coke, ravishing hookers and lapping-up lap dancers by the dozen (all in the name of Allah, of course)—absolutely hated our “freedoms and lifestyles”!
And so it is we’re told that on 9/11, in one savage swipe, nineteen Islamic terrorists managed to permanently shatter the socioreligious equilibrium of this planet and polarize huge chunks of its inhabitants forever.
Naturally, this demanded an immediate response from the “civilized” world. And its furious battle cry was swift in coming:
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us!”

And with that inane pronouncement from the supercilious new high priest of the “Free World”—himself a puppet unto unseen puppeteers—the terrified American populace, brains shrink-wrapped with the flag of “patriotism”, unleashed their collective fury upon the Islamic world.
Thus was born this phony “global war on terror” and its litany of draconian laws.
Throughout my recent travels, country after country, airport upon airport, I watched in angry silence the chilling efficacy of this Machiavellian fear machine in full swing. There is no doubt: it is working very well indeed.
Mission, accomplished.
 

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
9,967
Likes
1,706
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Throughout my recent travels, country after country, airport upon airport, I watched in angry silence the chilling efficacy of this Machiavellian fear machine in full swing. There is no doubt: it is working very well indeed.
Mission, accomplished.
On the basis of this irational and unproven claim I must refute everything your post alludes too, you see Shappelle corby got a heap of drugs saftly threw 2 Australian international airports elaborate security without being uncovered (that a 5 second bag check in bali found).:)
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,230
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

First of all, pardon the attitude. I was annoyed at parts of your last post in what was until then an amicable exchange.

etc, etc
Sorry it has taken so long to post and thank you for your measured response. I do apologise also for getting worked up and letting it creep into my responses to you. As my partner has told me on many occasions, not everyone can be an Eagle supporting, atheist, skeptoid lefty like myself and I do respect the right of anyone to hold their own beliefs - whether I agree with them or not.

To your point about the released video footage and my interpretation of it. I was simply responding to ET’s “Occam’s Razor” challenge. I stated it was blurred and difficult to make anything out of but if slowed down and I should have added enlarged, you could make out the top of the plane and the stabilizer fin. It is still blurry but it can be defined. I offered the YouTube video simply to illustrate this interpretation. I never assumed it should be taken as evidence by itself, but with the other information we do know about the crash, it should serve as a kind of summary of how it is likely to have occurred - from my point of view.

“The white streak trailing it is obviously smoke billowing from one of the engines damaged when it struck the lamp post on the nearby highway.”

I can see how this reads as a statement of fact, I should have phrased it as “The white streak could obviously be smoke billowing . . ." Again the YouTube video was included to illustrate my point, not as evidence of fact. Now, of course I can’t “prove” that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, but nor can you prove a missile hit the Pentagon. However, I have shown that it is possible for the image in the released video to be a plane. This along with the many examples of eyewitness testimony (links below) along with the actual physical evidence from the crash site (links below) is enough in my mind to confirm the official story. Of course there will always be anomalies and unanswered questions, however I find it unreasonable to assume that these gaps can only be filled by a complex and (to my thinking) preposterous conspiracy theory. Especially when to do so we must dismiss all other evidence which flatly contradicts the theory.

(The links below are just five examples of over 100 confirming a large aeroplane hit the Pentagon):

http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy_response/read_messages.html
http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/dobbs.txt
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/ads/chronology2001/page2.html
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

For a more thorough list of witness statements please refer to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Photographs of the debris from Flight 77 can be found at the below site.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Please note also that both of the sites referenced above are anti-official story sites.

To your point regarding the withheld footage confiscated from local businesses, thank you for the link and the clarification. However, as you’d pointed out the footage from the petrol station is useless because it was aimed not at the Pentagon but at the gas station (which, being surveillance footage, was the whole purpose of it in the first place) and as such shows only a small flash at the time of impact, therefore nothing to support either story. The other footage you mentioned, from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, has also been released and I have submitted that below:

[YOUTUBE]bapUohJn1E8[/YOUTUBE]

As you can see this is barely more useful than the petrol station footage, at least you can see the explosion but again there is nothing to support either theory. After the FOI request to release the other footage from the 84 allegedly suppressed videos (as highlighted in the link to Alex Jones’ site you submitted) a statement from the FBI’s Jaqueline Maguire outlined the content of all the other videos. Here is a link to her statement and the list of video footage in possession of the FBI.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
Basically she is saying that of the 85 videos the FBI has on file, 56 are not relevant to the Pentagon crash site at all, 16 did not show the crash site or the impact, 12 of the videos showed only the site after the crash. Therefore only 1 video in the FBI archives shows the crash at all. This has been released and is the footage in contention. Now, I realise you aren’t happy with this and can’t believe that the most secure building in the world has such little video coverage of the incident, however my (admittedly unsupported) hypothesis posited earlier is a viable reason why the many cameras around the Pentagon didn’t collect the actual impact. And at this point speculate as to why the footage isn’t available is all we can do. For me though, filling the gaps with a cover-up and complex conspiracy isn’t a logical progression. We will never have all the answers but in the end, for me, if you weigh up the evidence, it overwhelmingly supports the theory of a plane strike on the Pentagon.

What’s more, it would appear that many of the more prolific advocates of the 911 truth movement are distancing themselves from the assertions that a missile hit the Pentagon also. David Chandler from 911SpeakOut.org writes:

“The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a cruise missile. The eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon. Read through the many eyewitness accounts.”

Steven Jones from Journal of 911 Studies (www.journalof911studies.com) notes:

“The recent complete decoding of the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.”

While www.oilempire.us states:

“There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied “theories” pretending that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon”

These people now claim that the whole Pentagon crash is simply a transparent red herring, most probably initiated by the Government/Illuminati/Freemasons/Stonecutters as a means of disinformation and to split the truth community.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,230
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Im not a big fan of this site but this piece was so beautifully peppered with sarcasm :D I had to share it. My apologies, its fairly long; so hang in there. etc, etc . . .
So many, many errors and distortions in this post I don't know where to begin.

Please, before posting rubbish like this, do some research beyond the 911 Truther sites. At least read the document you are attacking. You can access the whole thing here - free!! You don't even have to read it, it's available as an Audiobook through iTunes or listen for free here!!
 

crowmyzone

Baghdad Kayoosh
Joined
May 20, 2001
Posts
28,841
Likes
23,131
Location
Beetaloo
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Baghdad Bombers
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

So many, many errors and distortions in this post I don't know where to begin.

Please, before posting rubbish like this, do some research beyond the 911 Truther sites. At least read the document you are attacking. You can access the whole thing here - free!! You don't even have to read it, it's available as an Audiobook through iTunes or listen for free here!!
I wasnt attacking the 9 11 report:confused:, I was sharing a sarcasm piece that gave me a laugh. If I wanted to ROFL then Id take you up on your offer. Feel free to point out the many, many errors and distortions though.
 

crowmyzone

Baghdad Kayoosh
Joined
May 20, 2001
Posts
28,841
Likes
23,131
Location
Beetaloo
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Baghdad Bombers
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

On the basis of this irational and unproven claim I must refute everything your post alludes too, you see Shappelle corby got a heap of drugs saftly threw 2 Australian international airports elaborate security without being uncovered (that a 5 second bag check in bali found).:)
Yeah love the irony...Shappelle busted after 911 in a predominantly muslim country.

I flew from LA to Dallas in august 2006, was tested for explosives and happened to see some dude armed with an ouzi.Then Houston to Las Vegas about 10 days later when the "liquids on flights" were first disallowed. Ive done the shoe removal thing through Heathrow last year and Id have to say theres plenty of shit ahappenin' in airports.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,230
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Im not a big fan of this site but this piece was so beautifully peppered with sarcasm :D I had to share it. My apologies, its fairly long; so hang in there.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/24/nila-sagadevan-911-mission-accomplished/

The Greatest Lie Ever Sold

Etc, etc, etc

Mission, accomplished.
I was in the middle of preparing a rebuttal for your lengthy post when it suddenly hit me that the arguments raised (apart from the racist observations of “Arab layabouts . . . holed out in an Afghan cave”!!? and statements that seem to have no other source than the author’s own delusions) have all been discussed at length in the 124 pages of this very thread. With that in mind I’ve figured why bother so instead have posted an article that I found beautifully peppered with sarcasm also . . .

(Sorry, I don’t have a link but it appeared in the September 2006 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. The entire article is reproduced below.)

I, Left Gatekeeper

Why the “9/11 Truth” movement makes the “Left Behind” sci-fi series read like Shakespeare
by Matt Tabbi


A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “clinically insane.” I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of ****-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

“You’re just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America,” said one writer. “What you do isn’t journalism at all, you dick,” said another. “You’re the one who’s clinically insane,” barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of his administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I’d be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.

Secondly, it’s bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.

I don’t have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I’ll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn’t offer an affirmative theory of the crime.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about “Able Danger” and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski’s Pirates.

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a “Pearl-Harbor-like event” that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda.

How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD’s expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn’t the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious “white jet” that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what’s the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we’ve decided
to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street
and the Pentagon, say they’re real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it
on the towelheads; then we’ll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we’ll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we’ll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won’t.

RUMSFELD: We won’t?

CHENEY: No, that’s too obvious. We’ll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we’re just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam’s fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we’re not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I’m a total idiot who can barely read, so I’ll buy that. But I’ve got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don’t we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don’t understand. It’s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we’ll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it’ll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it’s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It’s not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren’t we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you’re missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I’m saying, why don’t we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We’ll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it’s sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we’ll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It’s always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can’t pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there’s one thing about Americans -- they won’t let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they’d never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I’m sold on the idea. Let’s call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we’ll need to pull this off. There isn’t a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don’t forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They’ll be thrilled to know that we’ll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we’re going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn’t the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they’ll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the “Big Wedding”!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you’re using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won’t see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the “conspiracy” they’re describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

We are to imagine that not one of Bush’s zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker’s tripod before the Towers’ collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn’t prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It’s absurd.

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the “sonar evidence” proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can’t put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you’re doing is jerking off -- and it’s not like no one’s ever done that on the Internet before.

Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you’ve aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush’s America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush’s own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they’re insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There’s not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity’s followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer.

In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of “your fellow citizen” has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.

Copyright © 2006 Rolling Stone
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

crowmyzone

Baghdad Kayoosh
Joined
May 20, 2001
Posts
28,841
Likes
23,131
Location
Beetaloo
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Baghdad Bombers
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I was in the middle of preparing a rebuttal for your lengthy post when it suddenly hit me that the arguments raised (apart from the racist observations of “Arab layabouts . . . holed out in an Afghan cave”!!? and statements that seem to have no other source than the author’s own delusions) have all been discussed at length in the 124 pages of this very thread. With that in mind I’ve figured why bother so instead have posted an article that I found beautifully peppered with sarcasm also . . .

(Sorry, I don’t have a link but it appeared in the September 2006 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. The entire article is reproduced below.).........


Touche'...even I laughed.
 

weagles_fan

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Posts
11,593
Likes
22
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Ajax,Stuttgart,Bayern,Eagles,Braves
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Not sure if it's been discussed in here but you could've made millions and millions of dollars if you knew September 11 2001 was going to occur. Apparently both AA and United stocks declined 40% the next trading day they opened. If you had known it was going to happen and shorted those stocks you couldn't lose.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-bombshell-points-to-911-stand-down/

Wikileaks Bombshell Points To 9/11 Stand Down

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 2, 2011

Image: US State Department
Newly released Wikileaks documents concerning the activities of three Qatari men who conducted surveillance of the World Trade Center and boarded flights on the eve of the 9/11 attacks adds to the plethora of evidence that at the very least US authorities were aware of the plot and deliberately stood down.
“The FBI has launched a manhunt for a previously unknown team of men suspected to be part of the 9/11 attacks,” reports the Daily Telegraph.
Secret documents reveal that the three Qatari men conducted surveillance on the targets, provided “support” to the plotters and had tickets for a flight to Washington on the eve of the atrocities.
http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-bombshell-points-to-911-stand-down/
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,407
Likes
16,976
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The Telegraph which is used as the source of the Infowars story doesn't claim the FBI 'stood down'. Vivid imagination it seems.

Am I missing something? If anything the wikileaks confirms that it was Islamic terrorists that did 9/11.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,230
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The Telegraph which is used as the source of the Infowars story doesn't claim the FBI 'stood down'. Vivid imagination it seems.

Am I missing something? If anything the wikileaks confirms that it was Islamic terrorists that did 9/11.
No it's all a government cover up, read between the lines. What's not written is true. Alex Jones says so!!

Here is the champion of the 911 truth movement at his best . . .

[YOUTUBE]BVveVxxDfWY[/YOUTUBE]
 

FIGJAM

FigBooty Legend
Joined
Feb 2, 2001
Posts
19,326
Likes
2,095
Location
Valhalla
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
VFL Magpies
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Man, it is amazing how people believe what they want to believe with absolute fervour and think they know everything about everything.

Sounds familiar, eh evo?! ;)
 

TheBloods

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Posts
17,894
Likes
94
AFL Club
Sydney
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I was in the middle of preparing a rebuttal for your lengthy post when it suddenly hit me that the arguments raised (apart from the racist observations of “Arab layabouts . . . holed out in an Afghan cave”!!? and statements that seem to have no other source than the author’s own delusions) have all been discussed at length in the 124 pages of this very thread. With that in mind I’ve figured why bother so instead have posted an article that I found beautifully peppered with sarcasm also . . .

(Sorry, I don’t have a link but it appeared in the September 2006 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. The entire article is reproduced below.)

I, Left Gatekeeper

Why the “9/11 Truth” movement makes the “Left Behind” sci-fi series read like Shakespeare
by Matt Tabbi


A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “clinically insane.” I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of ****-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

“You’re just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America,” said one writer. “What you do isn’t journalism at all, you dick,” said another. “You’re the one who’s clinically insane,” barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of his administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I’d be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.

Secondly, it’s bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.

I don’t have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I’ll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn’t offer an affirmative theory of the crime.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about “Able Danger” and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski’s Pirates.

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a “Pearl-Harbor-like event” that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda.

How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD’s expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn’t the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious “white jet” that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what’s the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we’ve decided
to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street
and the Pentagon, say they’re real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it
on the towelheads; then we’ll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we’ll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we’ll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won’t.

RUMSFELD: We won’t?

CHENEY: No, that’s too obvious. We’ll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we’re just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam’s fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we’re not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I’m a total idiot who can barely read, so I’ll buy that. But I’ve got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don’t we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don’t understand. It’s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we’ll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it’ll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it’s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It’s not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren’t we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you’re missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I’m saying, why don’t we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We’ll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it’s sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we’ll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It’s always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can’t pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there’s one thing about Americans -- they won’t let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they’d never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I’m sold on the idea. Let’s call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we’ll need to pull this off. There isn’t a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don’t forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They’ll be thrilled to know that we’ll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we’re going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn’t the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they’ll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the “Big Wedding”!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you’re using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won’t see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the “conspiracy” they’re describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

We are to imagine that not one of Bush’s zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker’s tripod before the Towers’ collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn’t prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It’s absurd.

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the “sonar evidence” proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can’t put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you’re doing is jerking off -- and it’s not like no one’s ever done that on the Internet before.

Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you’ve aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush’s America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush’s own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they’re insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There’s not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity’s followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer.

In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of “your fellow citizen” has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.

Copyright © 2006 Rolling Stone
Brilliant.
 

Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Posts
3,357
Likes
2,621
Location
New Eden
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
lakers
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The Banker Rockefeller knew about it in advance and told his friend Aaron Russo. Russo was about to revea more to the press but died 2 weeks prior due to "cancer". Rockefeller is a illuminati heartless jewish pig.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,230
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The Banker Rockefeller knew about it in advance and told his friend Aaron Russo. Russo was about to revea more to the press but died 2 weeks prior due to "cancer". Rockefeller is a illuminati heartless jewish pig.
Hmmm . . . interesting

Would that be the same cancer that Jack Ruby died from? :rolleyes:

I'm sure you have reams of evidence for all this.

Otherwise it is nothing more than a mindless speculative rant with racist slurs thrown in for good measure!
 

Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Posts
3,357
Likes
2,621
Location
New Eden
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
lakers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom