Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Truthers can't seem to accept coincidences and see conspiracy in all of them. Shows their lack of maturity and knowledge. For example (one amongst many), Borders in Australia went into receivership yesterday. The day before Borders in the US sought Chp 11 protection. Linked? No. Completely independent. Amazing coincidence that Borders stores in two different countries would go bust within a day of each other.

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?



Oh lookie here, Fox News putting shade on Ron Paul. Who would of thought?

But now they have really ****ed up and if anyone ever listens to them again, it really will boggle the mind when they just straight up lied to the people.
Imagine if that was done to Obama!

 

[Damp Squarie]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I'm not quite sure I follow.

Freak Dodgeball has pointed me to some commissioners who raised questions yet you being a fellow truther are now saying its/they're laughable.

Also, when you say 'basically wrote' what do you mean ?
Would like some clarification please.

Had a look at his background too. Doesn't seem too afraid to take on government.

No. The outcome was laughable.
FDs post on the commissioners statements says it all.
Dont these remarks smell fishy to you as a Truster?

Zelikow controlled what could and couldnt be discussed and how open this charade became (for example Bush and Cheneys evidence) so in effect, to quote Kerrey "we didnt have access"

As Farmer stated..."there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”... think Jersey Girls Questions, Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds etc.

Let me put it another way.
If the commission was given the task to investigate the murder of your family and at the end of it 5 or 6 of the panel told you it was a whitewash would you just accept it?

You would?
Then you are a truster.

 

[Daytripper]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Let me put it another way.
If the commission was given the task to investigate the murder of your family and at the end of it 5 or 6 of the panel told you it was a whitewash would you just accept it?

Exactly where and in what context did these 5 or 6 panel members say that it was a whitewash ?

And please, no youtube videos.

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

This thread is full of cointelpro

 

[Damp Squarie]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Well of course they investigated themselves. FFS, should they have asked the Ghanian police force to conduct it or something.

The 911 commission members were appointed by George Dubbya Bush which led to the criticism that the Commission was not independent. I mean lets face it, thats like letting the lunatics investigate the asylum.

The commission stated in its report that their "aim has not been to assign individual blame," ...Why Not If Its Warranted!!! ... a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.

Not to mention the fact that Bush never wanted the commission to happen in the first place and then when he bowed to public pressure he hamstrung it with Zelikow and little cash.


edit to add

Bush had originally appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as chairman of the Commission, but Kissinger stepped down within the first two weeks of taking the post rather than answer allegations of potential conflicts of interest.

 

[Daytripper]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The 911 commission members were appointed by George Dubbya Bush which led to the criticism that the Commission was not independent. I mean lets face it, thats like letting the lunatics investigate the asylum.

If it was a Senate appointment you would have complained that it was de facto Bush given that it would have been a Republican appointment, ditto House of Reps, ditto the Executive Branch, ditto the Supreme Court.

As it stood he appointed 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans. How can it not get any fairer than that ?

So who should have done the appointing ?

The commission stated in its report that their "aim has not been to assign individual blame," ...Why Not If Its Warranted!!! ... a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.

How is that relevant at all ?

Not to mention the fact that Bush never wanted the commission to happen in the first place and then when he bowed to public pressure he hamstrung it with Zelikow and little cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
"The Commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents. "

Bush had originally appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as chairman of the Commission, but Kissinger stepped down within the first two weeks of taking the post rather than answer allegations of potential conflicts of interest.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - should Kissinger have remained as Chairman ?

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Truthers can't seem to accept coincidences and see conspiracy in all of them. Shows their lack of maturity and knowledge. For example (one amongst many), Borders in Australia went into receivership yesterday. The day before Borders in the US sought Chp 11 protection. Linked? No. Completely independent. Amazing coincidence that Borders stores in two different countries would go bust within a day of each other.

LOL. Here we see the mind of a debunker at work. A bookchain goes bust and he tries to use it as an example. Totally irrelevant to the thread.

Apart from the fact Bloods will have to now buy his romance novels from another book chain, or heaven forbid on the evil interweb, I fail to see how this is in anyway relevant to the events of 9/11.

Was there allegations of fraud or wrongdoing? Is Borders another Enron, Big Tobacco, Madoff or Goldman Sachs? Did bookstores start collapsing at free fall speeds?

No offence, but you're making about as much sense as Daytripper. The only 'coincidence' I can see is that you and DT have returned to this thread at the same time. Where is ODN by the way?

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Where is ODN by the way?

Probably found out the truth.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

LOL. Here we see the mind of a debunker at work. A bookchain goes bust and he tries to use it as an example. Totally irrelevant to the thread.

Apart from the fact Bloods will have to now buy his romance novels from another book chain, or heaven forbid on the evil interweb, I fail to see how this is in anyway relevant to the events of 9/11.

Clearly.

Was there allegations of fraud or wrongdoing? Is Borders another Enron, Big Tobacco, Madoff or Goldman Sachs? Did bookstores start collapsing at free fall speeds?

No offence, but you're making about as much sense as Daytripper. The only 'coincidence' I can see is that you and DT have returned to this thread at the same time. Where is ODN by the way?

You are amazingly stupid - you can take offence at that, but it is clearly the truth as evidenced by your response, with its lack of logical, analytical thinking.

The simple and pertinent point is that coincidences occur in real life, and relatively frequently. The existence of coincidences - manna for the conspiracy theorist including the 9/11 Truthers - means nothing as evidence. That you can't understand such a simple analogy is unsurprising given your lack of intelligence demonstrated in pretty much every post you've made in this thread, resorting in each case to puerile and lame insults. You could barely even understand the need to determine motive and opportunity. But, you seem to amuse yourself and enjoy pretending to be a 'big man' so carry on...

 

[TheBloods]

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

I thought I'd just quote this again (there are plenty of other exapmples in this and other threads I could have quoted too, but this is the most recent) as it goes to the heart of the problem - the entire conspiracy makes no sense. And the Truthers continue to fail to address the underlying points, resorting instead to their delusional accusations or puerile insults.

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

You are amazingly stupid

resorting in each case to puerile and lame insults.

Does your hypocrisy know no bounds.

Any realistic chance of a show of intelligence from you, or should we let the local mods know you are just derailing the thread consistently at this point?

There's a few posters here engaging in debate. You are merely derailing the thread without adding anything of substance. I would appreciate it if you let them continue rather than pouting and throwing your toys out of the cot. Show some maturity or else leave the thread.

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Its all a coincidence. Don't you see people!

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Does your hypocrisy know no bounds.

Statement of fact - you resorted to insults and were unable to understand the point.

Any realistic chance of a show of intelligence from you, or should we let the local mods know you are just derailing the thread consistently at this point?

There's a few posters here engaging in debate. You are merely derailing the thread without adding anything of substance. I would appreciate it if you let them continue [/FONT]rather than pouting and throwing your toys out of the cot. Show some maturity or else leave the thread.

Laughable from you. You've failed to answer any critical points that underpin the conspiracy claims, you've shown no ability to understand the importance of the key linkages, and you've resorted to puerile and lame insults at nearly every turn, right from the beginning. So, you are clearly familiar with hypocrisy as you personify it in this thread, exemplified by your past couple of posts.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Its all a coincidence. Don't you see people!

Proves my point. You think that the possibility that any of the events cited could be coincidence is something to be laughed at. Just further supports the point that Truthers lack knowledge and maturity.

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Statement of fact - you resorted to insults and were unable to understand the point.
Laughable from you. You've failed to answer any critical points that underpin the conspiracy claims, you've shown no ability to understand the importance of the key linkages, and you've resorted to puerile and lame insults at nearly every turn, right from the beginning. So, you are clearly familiar with hypocrisy as you personify it in this thread, exemplified by your past couple of posts.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

As long as you continue to personally attack posters, you will be taken to task. You are rapidly losing any credibility you had in this thread. I'm hoping you will begin to contribute to the thread in a mature manner. And I'm not just singling you out, what I have said goes double for Dayripper

That is all I have to say on the matter.

carry on...

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

As long as you continue to personally attack posters, you will be taken to task. You are rapidly losing any credibility you had in this thread. I'm hoping you will begin to contribute to the thread in a mature manner. And I'm not just singling you out, what I have said goes double for Dayripper

That is all I have to say on the matter.

carry on...

Thank you Captain Hypocrisy... Your multiple must be a heady number...

 

[Daytripper]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Does your hypocrisy know no bounds.

Any realistic chance of a show of intelligence from you, or should we let the local mods know you are just derailing the thread consistently at this point?

There's a few posters here engaging in debate. You are merely derailing the thread without adding anything of substance. I would appreciate it if you let them continue rather than pouting and throwing your toys out of the cot. Show some maturity or else leave the thread.

LOL - this is coming from the same person who posted a video of the Pentagon earlier in this thread asking if anybody could see a plane there - the implication was obvious. He didn't believe there was a plane.

Official Story siders assure me there's a plane in this video. I got up real close to the screen and I still can't see it. Slowed it down. Watched it twice.

No plane, no plane!

I know what a plane looks like dammit, I've seen it on the internet.

Maybe the pilot watched Top Gun the night before and had the plane 'inverted', and that's why we can't see it.

I want to believe the Official Story, I really do...it's my eyes, they won't let me!

After 4 or 5 pages of posts, ET then recants and says "where did I say there wasn't a plane?'

I never mentioned missiles once in my posts, merely stated I didn't see a visible plane in the Pentagon footage.

But lets not let facts get in the way of a great story...

And you're accusing others of not adding anything of substance.

BTW - School off early today.

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Selective quoting, ad hominem attacks, internet bullying, trolling.

I'm shaking like a leaf I'm so perturbed.

Lets try and steer this thread somewhere in the direction of a vigorous and respectful debate. Thank you.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I thought I'd just quote this again (there are plenty of other exapmples in this and other threads I could have quoted too, but this is the most recent) as it goes to the heart of the problem - the entire conspiracy makes no sense. And the Truthers continue to fail to address the underlying points, resorting instead to their delusional accusations or puerile insults.

That would be the same Matt Taibbi who once wrote:

Who was really behind the attacks on the World Trade Center? Are we really sure it was bin Laden? And even if it was bin Laden — do we even know who he is, really?
There was something incredibly suspicious about the rapid announcement on the part of the United States that Osama bin Laden, a figure the world had scarcely heard of before 1998, was responsible for the New York and Washington attacks. Less than eight hours after the attack, CNN — acting on leaks from unnamed Washington sources that there were “strong indications” of bin Laden’s guilt — had already exonerated some six billion suspects of the crime, and settled on the shadowy cleric.
There are a great many reasons to question the American government’s guilty verdict in this matter.
For one thing, there is the experience of Oklahoma City, when our government publicly pointed the finger at Islamic terrorists in the first hours after the bombing.
More importantly, there was the fact that so many of the people who were telling us that the culprit was bin Laden were long ago proven to be completely without credibility when it comes to terrorism and identification of the enemy. The first night of CNN coverage featured Richard Holbrooke, who lied to the world about Rambouillet, and a parade of ex — Iran-Contra Defendants, who previously covered up their own ties to terrorist states. Osama bin Laden himself was once a beneficiary of U.S. government funding, a fact that is now being carefully covered up in the American media. Take, for example, this bio of the Enemy published in The Christian Science Monitor last week

An interesting debate that took place between Taibbi and David Ray Griffin can be found here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/10068...wn:_david_ray_griffin_vs._matt_taibbi/?page=1

In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11, about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions. After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I'm pleased to share their written exchange -- all 24,000 words of it.

Taibbi comes across as a fool and ill-informed

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Its all a coincidence. Don't you see people!

Agreed.

When intelligence 'evidence' links the perpetrators Al quada to Iraq & Saddam and sovereign nation states independently choose to go to war but some of the same words in those nations leaders respective speeches to their own respective parliaments written by their own respective speechwriters overlap it must be a coincidence. Either that or 'independent nation states' are puppets to some scriptwriter behind the scenes.
That a nations leader would read a speech written by an unknown foreigner (with unknown interests) to that nations parliament in order to rally support amongst it's citizens for a war is highly irregular at best and perhaps treasonous at worst. Who is guilty of this - Australia or Canada?

Agreed, far more comforting to use the three wise monkeys approach and put it down to coincidence.

[youtube]RK7g8nGkF8s[/youtube]

 

[Daytripper]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Selective quoting, ad hominem attacks, internet bullying, trolling.

I'm shaking like a leaf I'm so perturbed.

Oh - that wasn't you then ?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but putting a theory out there on a thread, posting and debating about it for 4-5 pages, then eventually stating in conclusion that you didn't believe in the initial theory anyway - well, that sounds a lot like trolling to me.

You know - engaging in arguments with people for no reason whatsoever.

Now if you genuinely believe in something (however ******ed it is) then feel free to debate. But why you would want to debate something that you don't even think is possible ?

Very odd.

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I'd be happy to educate you Daytripper.

You see, for the most part this has been a reasonable debate and discussion on a variety of issues regarding 9/11.

When you discuss/debate, you are allowed, nay encouraged to bring to the table your views and arguments, and back them with available facts. Or in this case theory.

I presented to the discussion a video of the pentagon security footage, as you have seen. Footage of a Boeing slamming into the side of the Pentagon. I argued that I couldn't actually see a plane. Several posters presented reasons why this was the case, such as:

- poor footage
- speed of the plane
- distance etc.

I am happy to concede these may be contributing factors.

Are you starting to understand how it all works now Daytripper? Both sides present their arguments, and we all are free to form opinions, change our minds or gain a greater knowledge of the events of 9/11.

You see, it's not 'very odd' when you're a thoughtful person.

Hope that clears things up

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

That would be the same Matt Taibbi who once wrote:



An interesting debate that took place between Taibbi and David Ray Griffin can be found here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/10068...wn:_david_ray_griffin_vs._matt_taibbi/?page=1



Taibbi comes across as a fool and ill-informed

Ah, the ad hominem approach to completely avoid his perfectly valid comments.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Agreed, far more comforting to use the three wise monkeys approach and put it down to coincidence.

Further support for both my point and ET's lack of comprehension.