9/11 an inside job? yay or nay?

[TranLover08]

Honestly, at first i thought this idea was just too far fetched to be true but as i became open minded to this particular subject and started exposing myself to documentaries such as loose change my opinion quickly shifted.

What do you guys think?

[happychris]

I have seen a few of the web documentaries, and while they make some good points, I don't buy it. Although the stuff about the Pentagon is very interesting, like lack of plane wreckage at the site.

[vegasboy]

Have seen both loose change and the many dozens of rebuttals for it. The only convincing thing in the entire loose change video is that they say something like "the hole in the pentagon was 19 feet wide, how could it have been a plane". Then they talk about the lack of wreckage at the pentagon. From what I've read, the assertions about the Pentagon are outright lies and distortions. The hole was reported as being over a hundred feet wide by investigators at the scene and there was plenty of wreckage. Nothing said about the wtc is convincing. They give the melting point of steel and then tell you the temperature jet fuel burns at.

The problem is, the steel doesn't have to melt for the building to collapse. It just has to lose enough strength that the building will collapse on its own.

Anyway, I haven't seen anything remotely convincing about any of the videos and sites making the assertion 9/11 is an inside job. They rely on very dubious methods...which is obvious, like people at the scene's eyewitness reports when they're in harms way. Almost all of the evidence points to Attah, and the 19 hijackers...the main culprit Bin Laden has never denied it and has even taken credit.

Why shouldn't that be good enough for a thinking person? Particularly when the alternatives are so weak.

[TranLover08]

I have seen a few of the web documentaries, and while they make some good points, I don't buy it. Although the stuff about the Pentagon is very interesting, like lack of plane wreckage at the site.


So if you dont buy it, what conclusion did you draw from the wreckage, or lack thereof, at the pentagon?

[TranLover08]

Have seen both loose change and the many dozens of rebuttals for it. The only convincing thing in the entire loose change video is that they say something like "the hole in the pentagon was 19 feet wide, how could it have been a plane". Then they talk about the lack of wreckage at the pentagon. From what I've read, the assertions about the Pentagon are outright lies and distortions. The hole was reported as being over a hundred feet wide by investigators at the scene and there was plenty of wreckage. Nothing said about the wtc is convincing. They give the melting point of steel and then tell you the temperature jet fuel burns at.

The problem is, the steel doesn't have to melt for the building to collapse. It just has to lose enough strength that the building will collapse on its own.

Anyway, I haven't seen anything remotely convincing about any of the videos and sites making the assertion 9/11 is an inside job. They rely on very dubious methods...which is obvious, like people at the scene's eyewitness reports when they're in harms way. Almost all of the evidence points to Attah, and the 19 hijackers...the main culprit Bin Laden has never denied it and has even taken credit.

Why shouldn't that be good enough for a thinking person? Particularly when the alternatives are so weak.


What conclusion did you draw from the windows popping from the LOWER levels of the building? Certainly the pressure cause by the plane couldnt be that great.

and if you can provide a video of a rebuttal that you think addresses most of the point brought up in loose change i would greatly appreciate that. I am guilty for not looking at the other side of this subject.

[vegasboy]

Absolutely. Always gotta look on both sides of the issue. I don't have video, but I have some websites that offer point by point rebuttals of most of the issues that were raised. I'll post them tomorrow.

As scientists say, even in a controlled experiment, there are always things that are unexplained. This is something that has no precedent in American history so there's no basis for comparison.

The best way to do figure out if it was an inside job or not is to do a point by point comparison of the two possible causes. On the one hand the U.S government, and on the other hand, Al Qaeda. When you start laying out the evidence side by side, you see how much relatively stronger the case is for Al Qaeda operatives. But if you only start from the conventional theory and try to pick holes in it, you're really only being contrarian and not really proving any other plausible cause.

The hallmark of any type of historical revisionism is a burden of proof that is unattainable. There will always be things that are unexplained, even about events that unfold in broad daylight.

[vegasboy]

Here you go.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

I have others but I hear these aren't bad. Also consider what I said about burden of proof. If it wasn't Bin Laden, and you believe it was the government, how much evidence do you have to make a positive case against the government

[TranLover08]

Here you go.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

I have others but I hear these aren't bad. Also consider what I said about burden of proof. If it wasn't Bin Laden, and you believe it was the government, how much evidence do you have to make a positive case against the government

ok guys, i have thoroughly and i promise thoroughly read ALL of these documents and i could buy MOST of the things they were saying(which shocked me). However!, a trend amoungst these document is that they dont provide a believeable scenario for the collapse of building 7(the 47 story building that collapsed that no one really hears about.)

I read that falling dubris from WTC called internal fires in the building that ignited fires in the buildings, exploding gas tanks, and yadda yadda yadda. My question is, how can dubris from a 100+ story building cause internal fires from the lower level of the building? Its there guys... check it out. AND!! there is a video of Larry Silverstein(the man who had over $1million of insurance on those buildings) admitting to the fire department to pull building 7 because they couldnt contain the fire.

His exact words were pull it....pull it huh? as if all buildings have explosives set at the right place in case of a disaster, lmao.

[vegasboy]

Larry Silverstein actually got something like 5 billion dollars in total for the destruction of WTC and building 7. But why shouldn't he? He had an insurance policy that offered him this protection, and his company paid something like 3.5 billion for the leasehold.

So I'm to believe that someone with a net worth presumably in the billions of dollar blew up three buildings in order to make 50% more or something....in the process killing thousands of innocent people. There were tons of workers at ground zero, and tons of people who were looking for people through the wreckage. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, somebody would have known about it.

But as I said about building a case. Who are we building a case against? Larry Silverstein or the U.S government? We have to draw up something plausible in terms of what actually happened. It's not enough that he said something suspicious. And nobody investigates fraud better than insurance companies. If they were being defrauded out of billions of dollars by a company, they'd protect their assets before the lives of the deceased.

I have trouble believing that investors would blow up three buildings; be able to orchestrate what looks like planes flying into two of them just for insurance money. Until further notice I'm inclined to believe it was Al Qaeda. But the fact that we now have two alternative culprits is enough to make me suspicious of where we're headed.

[TranLover08]

Larry Silverstein actually got something like 5 billion dollars in total for the destruction of WTC and building 7. But why shouldn't he? He had an insurance policy that offered him this protection, and his company paid something like 3.5 billion for the leasehold.

So I'm to believe that someone with a net worth presumably in the billions of dollar blew up three buildings in order to make 50% more or something....in the process killing thousands of innocent people. There were tons of workers at ground zero, and tons of people who were looking for people through the wreckage. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, somebody would have known about it.

But as I said about building a case. Who are we building a case against? Larry Silverstein or the U.S government? We have to draw up something plausible in terms of what actually happened. It's not enough that he said something suspicious. And nobody investigates fraud better than insurance companies. If they were being defrauded out of billions of dollars by a company, they'd protect their assets before the lives of the deceased. (very true)

I have trouble believing that investors would blow up three buildings; be able to orchestrate what looks like planes flying into two of them just for insurance money. Until further notice I'm inclined to believe it was Al Qaeda. But the fact that we now have two alternative culprits is enough to make me suspicious of where we're headed.

That point you've made is very, very true. I didnt even think of it that way. But you have to admit, pull it...very suspicious. And you also made a good point at the end as well. To this day i scratch my head at why are we still in afganistan and what's with the increasing turmoil with Iran. And I believe there is an hidden objective for us being in Iraq. Other than oil of course because that has already become clear.

[TranLover08]

Larry Silverstein actually got something like 5 billion dollars in total for the destruction of WTC and building 7. But why shouldn't he? He had an insurance policy that offered him this protection, and his company paid something like 3.5 billion for the leasehold.

So I'm to believe that someone with a net worth presumably in the billions of dollar blew up three buildings in order to make 50% more or something....in the process killing thousands of innocent people. There were tons of workers at ground zero, and tons of people who were looking for people through the wreckage. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, somebody would have known about it.

But as I said about building a case. Who are we building a case against? Larry Silverstein or the U.S government? We have to draw up something plausible in terms of what actually happened. It's not enough that he said something suspicious. And nobody investigates fraud better than insurance companies. If they were being defrauded out of billions of dollars by a company, they'd protect their assets before the lives of the deceased.

I have trouble believing that investors would blow up three buildings; be able to orchestrate what looks like planes flying into two of them just for insurance money. Until further notice I'm inclined to believe it was Al Qaeda. But the fact that we now have two alternative culprits is enough to make me suspicious of where we're headed.

Adding to that, I remember Larry Silverstein was putting pressure on that insurance company because they paid him SOME of what he was inherited due to those collapses and they refused to pay up. However, that was a while ago and I really dont remember the cause for them doing that. Or if they gave him the money. Something to look into.

[NeedBlackup]

I don't think it's feasible. It would require coordination from every level in the government. Out of the hundreds of people that would be working on the setup, they would all have to be spineless, gutless, and amoral. Someone would've blown the whistle.

I think the simpler explanation here is the better one - bloodthirsty religious fanatics murdered people.

[TranLover08]

...That's kind of why i believe what i believe. Americans tend to go with what is simpler to understand and never challenge what they are told by "newscasters" who insist back-flipping dogs and Brittany Spears outbursts are news worthy. No offense.

[NeedBlackup]

Saying that newscasters aren't believable is one thing I'd agree with. However, it doesn't mean that theories formulated by crackpots are true. I personally am fond of my pet theory of fairies sprinkling pixie dust on the towers causing their collapse, but to each his own.

If you want to believe that the government - the same people who couldn't coordinate aid in New Orleans after Katrina, couldn't keep Valerie Plame's identity a secret, and were completely wrong in predicting how the Iraqi people would react to our presence... well, that's your call, bro. I think you're giving them a little too much credit when they manage to bungle everything else.

Skepticism is a good thing. Always be skeptical of the official response. But you're applying it in the wrong context. I ask you to consider what is more likely. The 9/11 Truth cause is being championed by rogue scientists, the same types who chase UFOs and claim the moon landing was a fabrication, and Charlie Sheen. Not exactly the class of intellectuals I'd throw my chips in with.

[thx1138]

Well, we know for sure Bush came into office on day one looking to attack Iraq. The question to ask is: would bush have gotten the support to mount an attack on the middle east IF BIN LADEN HAD NOT ORDERED THE 9/11 EVENT? One wonders who bin Laden was actually working for.

[hippifried]

All conspiracy theories require one to believe that a whole bunch of people can put together a complicated series of events without a hitch & keep their mouths shut about it too.

It matters not that I've never seen one single shred of actual evidence to support this particular theory. I've never seen any evidence that there's enough competence in washington to pull off a fix on T-ball game let alone something this big. I've also never seen any evidence that 3 out of 3 people in Washington can keep a secret.

Y'all're giving these yokels waaaaaay too much credit for having anything at all on the ball. Get real.

[chefmike]

All conspiracy theories require one to believe that a whole bunch of people can put together a complicated series of events without a hitch & keep their mouths shut about it too.

It matters not that I've never seen one single shred of actual evidence to support this particular theory. I've never seen any evidence that there's enough competence in washington to pull off a fix on T-ball game let alone something this big. I've also never seen any evidence that 3 out of 3 people in Washington can keep a secret.

Y'all're giving these yokels waaaaaay too much credit for having anything at all on the ball. Get real.

Exactly.

[El Nino]

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

... An outline in simple talking points ...


THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story


THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dyalisis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) poisoning new="" york="">
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests. poisoning>

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?


GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?


HISTORY

38) "Al-CIA-da?"
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.

[Jamie Michelle]

Honestly, at first i thought this idea was just too far fetched to be true but as i became open minded to this particular subject and started exposing myself to documentaries such as loose change my opinion quickly shifted.

What do you guys think?

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2).

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are four videos which contain some of this footage:

"Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv
http://www.plunder.com/Video-of-Thermite-on-9-11-at-the-W-T-C-and-Physicist-Steven-Jones-Ph-D--download-84738.htm

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten%20Metal%20from%20WTC.mpg

"Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see Steven E. Jones's (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University) below paper:

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

"Experiments to test NIST 'orange glow' hypothesis," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glowhypothesis.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

"A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lif ferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination" in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS) that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

"Revisiting 9/11/2001--Applying the Scientific Method," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

See also the below on additional physical remains of thermite (in the form of unreacted flakes of thermite) from the demolished World Trade Center, collected even before clean-up operations began:

"Announcing a discovery: Red/gray bi-layered chips in the WTC dust," ProfJones (Steven E. Jones), 911Blogger.com, December 22, 2007 http://911blogger.com/node/13090

Dr. Steven E. Jones_Boston 911 Conference_12-15-07_Red chips_Thermite.mov http://www.sendspace.com/file/aoi6hr

"Dr._Steven_E._Jones_Boston_911_Conference_12-15-07_Red_chips_Thermite.mov," December 21, 2007 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

##########

Prior to the 9/11 attacks, high-level U.S. government officials stated their desire for a massive attack upon the U.S. in order to serve as a pretext for global domination and tyranny. Such as the Bush, Jr. administration stating in their own official policy report in September 2000 (i.e., before they even came into presidential office), commenting on what will be needed for the U.S. government in order to take over the Middle East,

""
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.
""

From pg. 51 of "Rebuilding America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century," Project for the New American Century, September 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf .

Here we see that the U.S. government wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" in which to terrorize the U.S. population in order to get them worked up into a war-fervor. And the U.S. government got its desired "new Pearl Harbor" twelve months later. How very fortunate for it.

In this same document the Bush, Jr. administration state their intent to invade Iraq even if Saddam and his regime no longer existed. So this invasion had not the slightest thing in the world to do with Saddam or whatever political system was in operation in that country--the U.S. was going to invade Iraq no matter what. From pg. 14:

""
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
""

And from pg. 17:

""
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.
""

Below are the June 3, 1997 signers of the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ):

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

##########

Terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself a subset of terrorism), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control. In the below post by me is contained voluminous amounts of documentation which refutes the U.S. government's mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks, as well as documentation on many other government-staged acts of terrorism:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," TetrahedronOmega, September 30, 2005 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

Also see my below article:

"9/11 'Hijackers' Trained on U.S. Military Bases," TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58&mforum=libertyandtruth

##########

More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. (This is also historically true for the U.S. govermment, as no group has killed more U.S. citizens than the U.S. government. Viz, the Civil War; etc.)

Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that--but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite piddling by comparison.

Related to the above hellish misanthropy of governments, in the below post by me I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them--including homosexually anally raping them--and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government:

"Crushing Children's Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom," TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruth

[chefmike]

:roll:

[trish]

Why were so many people out that morning, camera ready, batteries charged with crisscrossed bandoleros loaded with memory chips? This squadron of “anonymous” photographers captured the disaster from every angle and every moment from impact to collapse. How could this be? Who informed this trigger happy troop of zoom and doom fanatics? The only possible answer, the ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER is this conspired disaster was planned and staged. Planned by exactly that group which has the most to gain from an apocalypse in the Middle East. Not the oil companies. Not the Zionists. Not the Islamofascists. Not even the Islamopacifists. Who has the utmost to gain from Armageddon? The Rapture Ready, that’s who. The 444000 who gain the ultimate real estate on the right hand side of god, that’s who. They’re tired of waiting for their just reward and rightly so, considering how often it’s been delayed and put off in the past because of rain, miscalculation and other unforeseeable events. This time they took matters into their own hands. Want irrefutable proof? Look how they’re gloating! Look how they’re laughing at the rest of us in those end time books they devour like candy. That’s motivation. The twin towers were open to the general public. Anybody could just walk inside. That’s opportunity. Finally every single Rapture Ready Righteous Reverend who died in the collapse is already up there in heaven laughing it up. That’s evidence. Motive, opportunity and evidence. Game and set. Proof positive. Case closed. Anyone who doubts my widely acclaimed expertise in these matters is just a deluded pawn. This evil scheme could only have been hatched by the most merciful and holy of Earth’s populace: the already saved.

[chefmike]

LMFAO, trish...brilliant!