A Challenge for All 9/11 Debunkers

The subject of 9/11 is a complicated one. Over 4,000 threads, and almost 100,000 replies on this site alone are a testament to this statement. For the past several months I have read thru a myriad of these threads, theories and speculations of one of the greatest tragedies to ever strike the United States of America. Threads ranging from logical and intelligent debate over discrepancies in the “official” story, to childish schoolyard bickering over the definition of a ‘squib.’ There are so many theories, so many details to absorb in regards to the events of that fateful day, it’s easy to get bogged down in the minutia of it all. Hell, even the fruit-stand guy has been placed into question as to his mysterious disappearance from his usual location in front of the towers on 9/11.

But while we argue every last detail and chase our tails in an endless quest for the “truth,” the important questions remain unanswered and more importantly “un-debunked.”

So I issue this challenge to the 9/11 debunkers out there: I have found no reasonable explanations for the following facts in regards to the official story. I challenge you to debunk the following statements.

1) The fact that the Government had prior knowledge that these types of attacks were possible, and even probable. Though in the days after the event, we were LIED to by every government spokes-hole in the Bush administration that there was no knowledge, no way that anyone could have imagined something like this happening.

This simple fact is what we should be focusing on. This is where the lie begins. So many yell “smoking gun” when they show a video of windows being blown out of a collapsing building, when the smoking gun has been in our faces the whole time, from the very beginning (or before the beginning in this case). This is the crack in the dam that can bring down the whole facade. If they are lying about this simple fact, why would you believe anything else that is spoon fed to you by the same people? These lies have never been explained away.

SOURCES
www.usatoday.com...

www.boston.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.washingtonpost.com.../specials/attacked/archive

2) The fact that the 9/11 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was, “ . . . of little practical consequence,” and ,” . . . we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding.”

WHAT?? Does this make sense to anyone? Didn’t the United States invade 2 countries because of their supposed involvement in 9/11? What about the evidence that Pakistan’s ISI (intelligence agency) director Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to 9/11 terrorist ring-leader Mohammed Atta. Why has this information been buried and underreported by the media? Why haven’t we invaded Pakistan? Weren’t they “harboring” terrorists when Bin Laden supposedly fled there from Afghanistan? According to President Bush, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

SOURCES
www.9-11commission.gov...

www.famousquotes.me.uk...

edition.cnn.com...

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

On a side note about funding, did you know that the 911 committee was originally given only 3 million dollars to fund it’s investigation? (although this was eventually increased to 12 million.) To put this in perspective almost 40 million dollars (80 million if you include independent probes) was spent on investigating the Clintons’ various schemes and scandals. Think about that for a second, almost 4 times the money

[edit on 19-8-2007 by DrZERO]

was spent on investigating a real estate scam and who the president was sticking his wick into, than the murder of 3,000 American Citizens. [sarcasm] Glad we have our priorities straight [/sarcasm]

SOURCES
edition.cnn.com...

transcripts.cnn.com...

www.time.com...


3) The fact that the only video footage we have of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon is from the security booth, and even that footage wasn’t released for 6 months! Additional footage from better angles exists and has been confiscated by the FBI.

Wouldn’t this missing footage clear up any questions on what really happened at the Pentagon that day? Why is it being withheld? Don’t the American people, and the world for that matter, have a right to see that evidence?

SOURCES
www.judicialwatch.org...

www.washingtonpost.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

pentagonresearch.com...


So once again I ask, can someone, anyone, explain one or all of these statements? No arguing about CD, no arguing about planes, missiles, squibs, melting steel, holes in fields with no plane wreckage, fruit-stand guys or any of the other millions of minute details.

The questions are (1) Why did they lie? (2) Why did they fail to investigate thoroughly? and (3) Why have they stolen evidence?


[edit on 19-8-2007 by DrZERO]

This is one of the better challenges I have seen on ATS and I commend the way you went about it by asking specific questions and providing sources the whole way through. Great job!

You won't find any debunking from me. I really don't understand how others can debunk many 9/11 theories. Unfortunately I think all we will ever have is theories and we will never find out the real truth behind 9/11.

[edit on 19/8/2007 by section8citizen]

reply to post by section8citizen


I think most of us know the truth it is the undeniable verification that we are lacking. We will never see that.



[edit on 19-8-2007 by GKHaley]

These are all very good questions that have not, and most likely won't be answered. No matter how we might disagree on what we think happened leading up to and on 9/11, we can agree that all these unanswered questions (and for me a few more questions) are concerning and point to dishonesty in our government.

I have not posted in a few weeks because it's the same stuff over and over and the same arguments. I read Dr. Zero's post and thought I would take a stab at it.

I am not trying to "DEBUNK", but I will annswer your questions as honestly as I can.

Originally posted by DrZERO
1) The fact that the Government had prior knowledge that these types of attacks were possible, and even probable. Though in the days after the event, we were LIED to by every government spokes-hole in the Bush administration that there was no knowledge, no way that anyone could have imagined something like this happening.

Nothing to add here. Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy.... the clan were and still ARE a pack of liars. There are however more than one way to look at this. LIHOP? Perhaps. Disregarded the threats ? Sure Didn't think the threats were credible? Yup. Anyway, I could go on and on ...but there is nothing here that screams "inside Job" There is also nothing that proves it WASN'T.

Originally posted by DrZERO
2) The fact that the 9/11 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was, “ . . . of little practical consequence,” and ,” . . . we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding.”

Didn’t the United States invade 2 countries because of their supposed involvement in 9/11?

Well, no. We invaded Afghanistan for 911. We invaded Iraq for WMD......and Bush tried to link 911 to Iraq when he gave his speech to all of us when he outlined the threat Iraq had to the United States in March 2002.
www.whitehouse.gov...

What about the evidence that Pakistan’s ISI (intelligence agency) director Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to 9/11 terrorist ring-leader Mohammed Atta.
edition.cnn.com...

This article does not state who wired them the money:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta, the suspected leader of the terrorist hijackings, CNN has been told by law enforcement sources.
Pakistan is a common conduit for money going in and out of Afghanistan, home to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect in the attacks. But at this point it's not known exactly where the funds may have originated.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

This article does show that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the provider of funds...and....

Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.

I am curious about this. Lets keep an open mind here at the source. Most in here are quick to dismiss our own governments words.... Think about the relationship India has with Pakistan. If anyone has any other sources for this claim, Id be interested in reading it.

Originally posted by DrZEROOn a side note about funding, did you know that the 911 committee was originally given only 3 million dollars to fund it’s investigation? (although this was eventually increased to 12 million.) To put this in perspective almost 40 million dollars (80 million if you include independent probes) was spent on investigating the Clintons’ various schemes and scandals. Think about that for a second, almost 4 times the money

Almost true.... 3 million plus an additional 12 million so it was actually 15 million dollars.
www.9-11commission.gov...
Agreed though, it was underfunded from the start.

Another point you may make Dr. Zero.. The Columbia tragedy was allowed a budget of 50 million dollars to investigate the accident that happened. Not to take anything away from their deaths, but there were only 7 of them.


Let me look into your other questions.

Originally posted by DrZERO
3) The fact that the only video footage we have of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon is from the security booth, and even that footage wasn’t released for 6 months! Additional footage from better angles exists and has been confiscated by the FBI.

Wouldn’t this missing footage clear up any questions on what really happened at the Pentagon that day? Why is it being withheld? Don’t the American people, and the world for that matter, have a right to see that evidence?

If there is in fact any footage that shows a plane. Do we know how many cameras are on that side of the building? Do we know how many would be pointing in the right direction? If there was in fact one poiting straight down to show the impact, what would we see ( think abour the speed of the aircraft)? This is another question that can't be answered by anyone....on either side of the argument.

The FBI has allegedly sent a memo out that states that none of the confiscated tapes show the plane making an impact with the Pentagon. ( i doubt it shows Jack Trippers infamous fly over either)

Originally posted by DrZERO
The questions are (1) Why did they lie? (2) Why did they fail to investigate thoroughly? and (3) Why have they stolen evidence?

1. Well... the ol CYA ... cover your a** Bush and his croonies didn't want to look bad..or that they were not doing their jobs.
2. See question 1
3. What stolen evidence? The Pentagon tapes?

CaptainObvious,

Why do you keep taking things and turning them to some one trying to imply an inside job? Why can't you look at the question without reading it from some point of view you're clearly in opposition to? I don't see the question(s) in this thread as pointing to an inside job, so what do you have to say about them to some one not asking the question from that perspective?

Yes, you are absolutely right, and there STILL is overwhelming evidence that Pakistan is harboring terrorists.

Barrack Obama came forward to say that we NEED to get into Pakistan because of this, yet he was critisized by a biased media for saying it...EVEN THOUGH HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

Are we really fighting a war on terror if we won't go into the place where we know they are?

reply to post by Valhall


Valhall....Read the OP. He is looking for DEBUNKERS. That means his posts are making a point to show that the goverment has some involvement in 911.

Now read my posts. I am not trying to debunk his claims.... I am looking at both sides objectivly, and looking into the evidence.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Valhall....Read the OP. He is looking for DEBUNKERS. That means his posts are making a point to show that the goverment has some involvement in 911.

Right, but you're missing a viewpoint and you're doing it by centering on the "inside job" perspective. There's a difference between "inside job" and "involvement". I believe the government did have involvement in 911 via it's inexcusable incompetence to prevent it. I believe they did know what they say they didn't know, but they just blew it off and didn't do what needed to be done. And I believe they have lied to cover up the degree of their negligence and they have lied us into Iraq where our sons and daughters are dying for their lies. Well, that last statement shouldn't read "I believe", it should read "I know", because they've pretty much admitted that.

[edit on 8-19-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
Right, but you're missing a viewpoint and you're doing it by centering on the "inside job" perspective. There's a difference between "inside job" and "involvement"..........

We are in 100% agreement here Valhall. As I stated, the entire Bush administration is corrupt liars. Perhaps i should have refrained from linking "Inside Job" to "Invlovement" ... My mistake in assuming the O.P. was stating that "911 Was an Inside Job" ( like the majority of posters do)

Well, not knowing what his intention was with the thread, I have to admit it might be that he's trying to some way use these questions to support an "inside job". In which case, I guess I have to say good luck...I don't see any of these questions being able to prove that theory. So I guess you and I really are in 100% agreement.

Anyway, I think these are all really good questions that demand answers.

reply to post by Valhall



Agreed... but you and I both know, they never will. I still want to spit on Bush when he is asked why him and Cheney are begin questioned together...here it is again if you haven't seen it:



Another question he can't answer:

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by DrZERO
1) The fact that the Government had prior knowledge . . .

Nothing to add here. Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy.... the clan were and still ARE a pack of liars. There are however more than one way to look at this. LIHOP? Perhaps. Disregarded the threats ? Sure Didn't think the threats were credible? Yup. Anyway, I could go on and on ...but there is nothing here that screams "inside Job" There is also nothing that proves it WASN'T.

Hello Captain, haven't seen you in a while, thanks for posting.

You make a good point, would you consider Letting It Happen On Purpose and “inside job” one in the same? If I know a murder is going to happen and I do nothing to prevent it I can be arrested, tried and convicted of Accessory to Murder after the fact. I am, in the eyes of the law, a part of that crime, on the “inside” one might say.

Even if they didn’t think the threats were credible, or they were disregarded, or whatever, they still flat out LIED about it. Each of the Fab 4 (Bush, Cheeny, Condi, Rummy) is on record making such statements as, “No one could have imagined . . . “
But they could imagine, and did imagine, and drilled and practiced and “prepared” for such events. My point is if we are being LIED to on the most basic premise of these attacks how can you believe anything else that spewed forth by this administration or it’s “independent” commission?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Well, no. We invaded Afghanistan for 911. We invaded Iraq for WMD......

Although WMD’s became the official reason to invade Iraq, 9/11 was used indirectly as a reason to invade. i.e. – “We don’t want another 9/11 on our hands”

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This article does not state who wired them the money:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta

On the contrary, it says that the money came from Pakistan. So the 9/11 Commission finding of ” . . . we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding,” is yet another lie.

And again I ask, why have we not invaded Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter) if in fact we are to believe President Bush’s statement, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” ??

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
. . . Think about the relationship India has with Pakistan. If anyone has any other sources for this claim, Id be interested in reading it.

You make a good point here, it is hard to find any information these days that is not influenced by someone's agenda, but there are additional sources on the connection between Pakistan and the funding of 9/11, I will look for more sources to post on this subject

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Almost true.... 3 million plus an additional 12 million so it was actually 15 million dollars.
www.9-11commission.gov...
Agreed though, it was underfunded from the start.

I stand corrected, but 15 million for 9/11 compared to 80 million for the Clintons (or even the 50 million for the astronauts) is still an absurdity.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

If there is in fact any footage that shows a plane. Do we know how many cameras are on that side of the building? Do we know how many would be pointing in the right direction? If there was in fact one poiting straight down to show the impact, what would we see ( think abour the speed of the aircraft)? This is another question that can't be answered by anyone....on either side of the argument.

This is the whole point!! Is there in fact any footage? I don't know because the tapes have been confiscated and I'm not allowed to see them!!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The FBI has allegedly sent a memo out that states that none of the confiscated tapes show the plane making an impact with the Pentagon

Great, a memo, WHY DON'T THEY JUST RELEASE THE TAPES?? And we are supposed to believe what the FBI says when we are being lied to from the top down?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
3. What stolen evidence? The Pentagon tapes?

Yes, all the footage that was taken out of cameras that would have a view of a plane hitting the Pentagon. They have released one, and it took them 6 months to do that.

Originally posted by DrZERO

Hello Captain, haven't seen you in a while, thanks for posting.

You make a good point, would you consider Letting It Happen On Purpose and “inside job” one in the same? .....

Well, lets draw the line at what the inside job was. Ignoring threats is one thing... was this an intentional act? Did Bush ignore the threats (along with the rest) in order for this to happen? If so, then YES it is indeed an inside job.

Or, did he just ignore them...saying... "Those Arabs don't have the nads to do that!" then goes back to his Texas ranch?

We can't prove either scenario. Withthe evidence I have seen, I personally lean toward the later.

Originally posted by DrZERO
Although WMD’s became the official reason to invade Iraq, 9/11 was used indirectly as a reason to invade. i.e. – “We don’t want another 9/11 on our hands”

Scare Tactics.... SciFi Channel i think still has that show.... Bush and the Republicans were the masters of it post 911 and into the re-selection of Bush.

Originally posted by DrZEROOn the contrary, it says that the money came from Pakistan. So the 9/11 Commission finding of ” . . . we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding,” is yet another lie.

And again I ask, why have we not invaded Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter) if in fact we are to believe President Bush’s statement, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” ??

Point taken......now lets think this through. If we know for 100% certainty that an offical from Pakistan was involved with wiring money to fund 911...we attack the entire country to get him? What if Prince Charles wired some $$ to Atta? Should all of England get attacked?

Look, I think Pakistan is filled with terrorists and is a safe heaven for many of them...I can't prove it, nor do I know enough about the politics behind the relationship we have with them. If we were to walk in there with our military, you would see serious reprecussions within the Arab world that we can't even imagine. Occupying two Arabs countires is bad enough. Can you imagine a third?

Originally posted by DrZEROI stand corrected, but 15 million for 9/11 compared to 80 million for the Clintons (or even the 50 million for the astronauts) is still an absurdity.

Agreed....it's not even as much to do about the money more so than the time it took to get it going. Over 400 days. Bush and Cheney were against it. If not for the families of the victims, there never wold have been an investigation.

reply to post by DrZERO


The tapes were confiscated ...i would not say "stolen" . Lets be honest here...it's been almost 6 years. If the tapes were released and showed a plane hitting the Pentagon...most Ct'ers would instantly yell "CGI", "Photoshop", or whatever they would want to call it. That being said, I can't tell you why the tapes are not released. ( i'll refrain from derailing the thread with Pentagon arguments)

I don’t want to get bogged down in the differences between “involvement” and “inside job.”

The purpose of the thread is this:

If the government has lied to us from the start, used the lie to finance a war against terror invading countries of it’s choosing to further a far different agenda, and concealed evidence thereof, where does the lie end? How far does it go? Is it “involvement” or lack there of (negligence), or does it lead to something more sinister? (ie inside job).


[edit on 19-8-2007 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by DrZERO


If the government has lied to us from the start, used the lie to finance a war against terror invading countries of it’s choosing to further a far different agenda, and concealed evidence thereof, where does the lie end? How far does it go? Is it “involvement” or lack there of (negligence), or does it lead to something more sinister? (ie inside job).

As Doctors, (you and I ) we need to look at things realistically. There is not any evidence that Bush used lies to finance the war in Iraq. I believe he used fear Yes, I believe that if there were no 911, Bush would have had a VERY hard time in getting congress and us to buy into his Iraq war plan. So indeed he used 911 to tap into the fears in all of us to justify his pathetic war. Thats politics...and it sucks.