Science is great, but what about the non-scientific smoking guns on 9/11?

Look.

I love science. It is a great discipline and tool. It does so much for our lives now. In short, science is the, well, ya know.

So, I guess it's natural that people use science to attempt to prove/disprove the official story on 9/11. The problem here is that the debate can and does go on all day. Of course, this is due to the nature of science; scientists routinely disagree with and argue against each other's points.

That's why I focus on the stuff that is not so debatable; the stuff that is not so scientific, but still as relevant. I'm talking stuff like this...

Govt people like Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly to New York on 9/11.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled a meeting scheduled for 9/11 on 9/10.

Members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country that day when no one else was able to fly.

War games mirroring the attacks took place before and during 9/11.

NORAD stood down and did not pursue the planes.

The identities of all the hijackers were easily produced the next day, yet these guys could not be IDed, found, and stopped before 9/11.

Prominent govt people have gone public saying the official story is a fraud.

Bin Laden is a known CIA asset.

The PNAC documents authored by people such as Dick Cheney outlined a list of countries to be invaded after a helpful Pearl Harbor type event occurred. Magically, the first 2 countries on this list have been invaded after 9/11. Iran, 3rd on the list, appears to be next.

Operation Northwoods shows that criminal elements in the govt have planned to carry out terror attacks to get the public behind war.

Criminals in the govt have committed numerous terror attacks in the past.

It goes on and on, but you get the idea. And, I know that this seems like the same old same old, but I wanted to give this angle because the current discussion in this thread focuses on the science of the whole thing. Besides, those who support the official story prefer to use science as their evidence and tend not to respond to the non-science evidence.

If you ask me, it's because it's a lot easier to argue the temperature at which steel fails or the pancake idea than it is to refute the Bin Laden family exodus or the PNAC documents. And to those who agree with me that the official story is taurus feces, I suggest that you stay with the smoking guns like these. Sure, the science is great, but they have a lot harder time refuting the stuff that doesn't involve science.

Just something to think about.

What about the stock puts on AA & UA a few days before 911 that were 1200% higher than normal and the SEC was investigating after 911 ?

Apparently it led to Israeli/CIA related origins and was never released due to National Security issues.... which by the way is a huge smoking gun and these groups should be investigated and indited for treason or be tortured to speak.

Sadly these facts are not enough for people to change their outlook on the whole situation. Just with this information it is easy to determin at the very least that members high up in the Government probablyknew what would happen, but allowed it to slip through for precisely the reasons you stated... becuase they needed the war for their own interests i.e (the bleeding obvious) oil, restrictions of civil liberties, and more support from an angry nation that looks to it's 'mighty protectors' to right the evils done to the country.......it's textbook fascism.

However people need, quite naturally, irrefutable scientific proof that something else happened on that day..and this is fairly hard. Government agencies like FEMA quite happily disposed of alot of evidence directly after the event and the masses are mostly satisfied ( I would imagine) with the whitewashed 9/11 comission.

As has been discussed, theories like the 'no plane at the pentagon' etc. have seriously reduced our credibility. Trying to find an avenue through which to investigate the real smoking guns is alot harder....especially because the people who hold all the information are running the country...........follow the money.....



Link

I don't see why this Bin Laden fly out is such a big thing. If they all knew the planes were going to crash WHY WERE THEY OVER HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why set up a situation that some would see as suspicous?

Its just not suspicous at all. Merely courtesy. Ok, planes weren't allowed to fly. BUSH IS THE FRICKING PRESIDENT. He gave the order, he can countermand it, if anyone can.

Good question! You should probably think it through yourself.

I find it quite a coincidence that the people which assisted the Bush families oil ventures since the seventies (seeBush&Bin Laden history ) is also the same family from which the person who created the reason for them to invade another oil rich country came from. Quite a history they've got going, it's all very oily isn't it!

D'ya want to know what I think? The Bin ladens, long trusted friends of the Bush family, wouldn't think twice about dropping their black sheep son of the family in trouble for the sake of the good American business they've enjoyed for so long. Why not? Especially when Iraq is the first target of the plan, you know how the Saudies love Iraq..........



[edit on 21/2/2006 by earthtone]

There are a lot of smoking guns, but there are also a lot of voices; endlessly arguing over the small details.
The truth has been reduced to opinion and semantics.

Perhaps it is like Platos' Allegory of the Cave; the world revealed to our senses is not the real world, but a poor copy of it - the real world can only be apprehended intellectually. Knowledge cannot be transferred, but if you can direct people's minds toward what is real and important, they will apprehend it for themselves.

Evidently, the truth speaks for itself, whether or not people will see and believe that truth is up to them.

People that aren't already convinced will chalk all of those up to coincidences, probably. It's like others have said here: points like the ones you posted can be dead give-aways, but some people will want more anyway.

See, that's precisely the problem with using science here!

Science works quite well when you have EVIDENCE to base your CONCLUSIONS on. So, how can science solve this one when the evidence was shipped out as scrap! Did you know that every truck that took the steel out had a GPS tracker on it? What is this, they care enough to track every single truck carrying the steel, yet they don't care enough to check every piece of steel scientifically to see what went wrong? The only time in the history of structural engineering and architecture that steel buildings fall from fire, and no one cares to see why? Wouldn't fires in the future have a possibility of collapsing a building?

See, the science on what we have is speculative at best for the official story, and strong but not conclusive for an alternative explanation. That's why the smoking guns that don't deal with science are so important. The problem is that since this evidence is so damning, people like albie choose to say, "So, what, Bush is an all-powerful dictator (like they've been pushing lately ), he can do what he wants. There's nothing suspicious about the orchestrator of the greatest terror attack on US soil's family being flown out when the average American couldn't fly. I don't care what Cheney and others wrote about a new Pearl Harbor. I don't care about Northwoods openly planning terror attacks. And, most of all, I don't care that the US govt HAS DONE NUMEROUS TERROR ATTACKS IN THE PAST THAT ARE ADMITTED!! I choose to believe whatever they tell me!"

Man, come on. Say there was a mass murder and the perps left choppers (AK-47s) and banana clips at the crime scene. The police decide to sell the choppers and clips for scrap, but save one gun and 2 clips. Then, the police chief comes out and says, "we know EXACTLY who did this" the next day. He gives a detailed description of each suspect, knows how many were involved, and has basically cracked the case. Now all they have to do is catch the perps.

How dumb would you have to be to believe that guy? OK, maybe I'm the real dummy here. Maybe the normal thing to do with a crime scene is sell the evidence. Send a memo to po pos and detectives; from here on out, sell most of the evidence you find at a crime scene!



[edit on 23-2-2006 by truthseeka]

Several more to add to the list, unless I missed them.

• US Intelligence identified several of the alleged hijackers before 9/11 and did not act against them.

• $100,000 was sent to Mohammed Atta al-Sayed shortly before the attacks from Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was working with the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, at the time.

• The ISI Director at the time, Mahmoud Ahmad, visited the US repeatedly in the weeks before and after 9/11 and was meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham in Washington when the attacks took place.

• Indian intelligence claims that Ahmad had ordered Saeed Sheikh to wire the $100,000 to Atta.

• White House and CNN transcripts of a Condoleeza Rice press conference remove references to the ISI director and replace them with "--" and ("inaudible)", respectively. Federal News Service has accurate transcripts including the proper references.

You make several good points, but these...

Prominent govt people have gone public saying the official story is a fraud.

Bin Laden is a known CIA asset.


you'll have to prove. I've not seen any prominent government people say the official story is a fraud, and bin Laden is not a "known CIA assset".

Hmm, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon in the conspiracy community that UBL was either an active, or rogue project.

Stuff like this and this has been floating around for a while. I can't vouch for the veracity of either claim.

I've kinda stayed away from the 9/11 issue because I don't know nearly enough to avoid stepping on unseen toes.





[edit on 23-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Here's a better thing to say, I think, since there is no way to prove he is currently employed by the CIA: Osama bin Laden was at one point employed by the CIA and allegedly it was reported by the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was visited by the CIA station chief while at a hospital in Dubai in July 2001.

I can't find that actual article and would like to and have it translated to see what it really says instead of assuming it says something it may not.

Man, please. Are you high?

Bin Laden has CIA ties and was in the CIA. That is PUBLIC. His code name was Tim Osmond. Just look it up yourself.

And, your second point was even more laughable. Try Morgan Reynolds, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney. Those are just 3.

Pentagon: Anti-Missile defense system should have shot down the plane. 2 reasons why it didn't: 1.) Pentagon turned it off to let the plane hit safely or 2.) The plane was a military aircraft that would have registered as a friendly target so would not have been shot down. The wing where the impact occurred was the most difficult approach path for any pilot, would have chosen Rumsfeld's wing, which would make sense. On any other day of the year jets would have intercepted the plane many miles before it even got to the pentagon. Stand down order must have been given.

Towers: The 47 centre beams were ignored in commission report, they said at the centre was a hollow shaft, convenient if they can't explain it then say it doesn't exist. Debris can be seen exploding upwards and out of the falling towers, only massive explosives could do that. Explosions heard and seen, video and audio evidence as well. Tower 7 was left out of the report because, well a 47 story building falling isn't that important(fires only on floors 7 and 12) too difficult to explain. Pyroclastic flows only occur naturally with Volcanoes and deep beneath the ocean at the continental shelf. 9/11 Pyroclastic flow could only have happened with huge explosions, no other possible explanation.

Activity: Thousands of put options bought for United, American and companies inside the towers. People are trained to look for such strange activity and would have been alerted. 3 FBI agents knew of the attacks and warned Clinton's prosecutor who tried to get hold of Attorney General who ignored him. FBI told them to piss off and they said everyone in the agency knew what was going to happen. I could go on and on.

After 9/11, USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in less than 2 years. Isn’t that amazing? USA was able to do the following in less than 2 years:
- They decided that Bin Laden was behind the Attacks in 24 hours
- They Provided 19 names of Al-Qaeda terrorists in less than 24 hours
- The whole detective work didn’t take from them more than a week
- They made the decision of a global war
- Preparation of the war , preparing the Logistics, moving a huge army All that in short period.
- Invading Afghanistan
- In the black list X was marked besides Afghanistan.
- Preparation of war against Iraq
- Bringing Blair to war
- Invading Iraq the second in the black list.
- In the black list X was marked besides Iraq.

Isn't it amazing that all the above were done in less than 2 years? If USA intended to do serious investigation about 9/11 , then will 2 years be enough to reveal the truth?
Some murder cases take more than 5 years to convict one man, the USA was able to convict a list of countries in less than 24 hours

A serious investigation about 9/11 would take 2 years at least to find the real guilty. Why the USA rushed in going into war after war , without any evidence of guilty of the people who they are invading? Why the USA Leaders didn’t wait for a 2 year investigation before the start a global war?
Didn’t they know that History will not forgive them , If our children find the truth one day?
These are the questions that no White-housian will dare to answer.



[edit on 24-2-2006 by Deep_Blue]

From the Wilderness Timeline Scroll down to no 30 on the list.

Le Figaro Article Article in french - link sourced from the above timeline.

Hope that helps.

Good points, fellas.

The reason I like to focus on these other damning pieces of evidence is that the so-called debunkers don't have much to say on them. Take the Bin Laden exodus; the best they could come up with was "well, why were they here in the first place if they knew it would happen." EXACTLY!

I STILL haven't seen one of these "debunkers" debunk the fact that govt people were warned not to fly to New York on 9/11.

Nor have they explained the shockingly paralleled war games.

Nor have they explained the stand down, apparently at the Pentagon as well according to NinjaCodeMonkey.

Nor have they explained why the Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled a 9/11 meeting on 9/10.

Now, they have tried their best at this one, I must admit, but I maintain that there is STILL no satisfactory explanation as to why bldg 7 fell, save of course that Silverstein had it demolished. Why did it fall JUST like the twins when no plane hit it? Oh, riiiight, the fires were what did it. Just like in Madrid and with other buildings lit up like Christmas trees. Hell, even FEMA has yet to explain that one!

Now, that last one crossed into the science realm, no doubt. BUT, they still can't explain it. See, all the physics mumbo-jumbo I can't understand (well, I do understand the whole exceeding free-fall speed thing) can be debated both ways for days. You get your science crew and yourselves, we get our science crew and ourselves. BUT, this stuff, ain't no debating. PUBLIC. No getting around that.

You "debunkers" tell me how a govt that can't track hijackers trained at it's OWN facilities before they attack can locate them all the next day with detailed descriptions, all the stuff DeepBlue (my bad if that's wrong ) said, and can determine for a FACT that a foreign country has WMDs. Riddle me THAT.

He is, how would they know in a short time, he is partener in crime with them.



Yes and amesing some of them even survived the crash they are well and alive , couple of them turned up alive back in arabic coutrys frustrated that they were blamed, the FBI put up names and pictures of them and they atleast blamed one of them for dircect connection in diveing the plane in to the towers, never the less they are all alive and safe.

You dont need to do detective stuff when you got it all figured out, you just folow the scenario.

It's all clear that you dont even need to go in to detail to see it's a scam, we dont even need to see how the planes crash ,evidence ,etc when we got all the pre 911 stuff, I think we should open for debate pre 911 facts and how the heck did the terorists turn up alive.
Another thing we should do is talk about things surounding 911 rather than talk about 911, there are things we didint even touch.
Well good thread.
I hope I see more threads like this one.


[edit on 26-2-2006 by pepsi78]

1.) The Passport of Atta being found within hours of the attack and in perfect condition. Especially strange when one considers that everything else including the plane itself and some steel sections of the building were "vaporized" in the attack as the plane "burried itself completely inside the building".

2.) Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principle and on the board of the security company that handled security for the towers up until the day they fell.

3.) Larry Silverstein buys the towers 6 mo. before the attacks and collects a bundle off the insurance payment. A payment which he actually attempted to collect on twice but was not awarded the second because the courts didn't agree with his idea that 2 Attacks should equal 2 full payments. Also remember that Larry's Building 7 is the one that collapsed simply from a fire and not being hit by a plane and was the furthest away from the towers that fell. He's also the one famous for his "Pull it" statement.

Also consider Team B, a documented and undisputed case of concerted deception for Straussian ends. Featuring Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, among others.

In a way, this seems much more relevant to the Iraq issue, but then again deception remains deception. If you haven't, be sure to check out BBC's trilogy The Power of Nightmares.