911 Conspiracy Facts - Incriminating

Originally posted by IvanZana
THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

This cut and paste job shows nothing but outdated BS. Where is your evidence to back any of this nonsense up? This is the same old tired crud.




[edit on 10/23/0808 by ThroatYogurt]

MU this is starting to get out of hand. I thought at first you would provide substance for an intellectual debate but it seems I am wrong....

I should have known at first you weren't from the U.S. so you don't see first hand Bush's failures or how him and his boys have absolutely no support.
You are the one seeing things in a different light and YOU are the one living in a fantasy world if you think Bush and gang are as powerful as you claim or that Bush is some genius disguising himself as a baffoon.
You have absolutely no evidence to back any of that up.

Originally posted by mind is the universe
You know the Government are trying to have the consitution changed, that if we were to accused them of been the terrorists, we would be deemed terrorists or a threat etc.

Where did you get this from? Are you talking about the nonexistent EU constitution
People on here and elsewhere claim Bush is a terrorist all the time. How many have been deemed a terrorist?

It's Ironic that he has made so many public appearance stating, that people who believe in conspiracy against the government on 9/11, are deluded and not to be listened too etc.

Can you cite one example of this?
I'm seriously asking. I can't recall him ever addressing that.

Bush doesn't act like he does in the video that I posted above all the time, I'm sorry to say

Can you cite one press conference where he didn't act like that. I guarantee you you won't find one.

But your perceptions are not well developed.

No they are clearly developed. You're not here. You haven't seen him for the past 8 years.

He was cleary panicking and his face was shown nothing but fear of been cot out on lies, as to whatever he was hiding will be revealed in the coming months I'm sure. His body language was very obvoius. Bush does not act like this all time. He was red faced. That is very incorrect judgment.

Problem is....he was talking about Howard Dean....

Your very unspecific in your points and opinions..

BS. Name one thing I haven't been specific about.
Just because you don't understand something or can't read quotes doesn't mean I was unspecific.

Bush was picked, for many reasons, like any other president. In this case To be the genious that he is, and to show the world hes an illerate stupid fool that can't seem to do anything right. But still gets the job done and put the world into raging wars and a created finacial crisis for his cronies. He stuck right by his own political agenda. As far as wall street and the bankers are concerned, Bush was terrific.

*yawn*
1. You have nothing to back this up with
2. The bankers and wall street are hurting right now
3. Why is Obama (or even McCain) about to be picked to undo everything Bush has done?

He's at home rolling his eyes to people like you, who live in fantasy.

Riiiiiight....

Oh yeah, you keep saying that, this is how sheeple react, when they are not fully aware. Of course there are powerful, they have thousands of troops fighting in wars for them, that shows power I'm afraid.

Most people who don't know what they're talking about or don't have an argument usually resort to calling people "sheeple"
Ridiculous tactic if you ask me.
This does nothing to address my point. If they are so powerful, why didn't the finish the first Gulf War, and why are they failing in the second Gulf War?

Seriously what age are you?

Old enough to have been around Washington long enough to know what's going on. How old are you? Have you ever been to the U.S.? Why are you so concerned about the U.S.?

Do you actually understand what happening in the real world?

It's painfully obvious more than you.

So if 9/11 is a coverup don't you think, they have covered their asses quite well

Which is the problem. Given their history (and the history of the government period) for them to have covered all bases and do it well is HIGHLY improbable.

What have they failed, really I don't get what you mean by they failed.

fail (verb) - to be unsuccessful in the performance or completion of

You said they were set out to dominate the middle east. They didn't the first time they went in in 1991. They didn't this time when they went in in 2003.

It's the American solidier's that are dieing over there not them. The regimes over the last 50 years have worked for time policy that was brought there by American interest, where dictators were called in and other political goals were done to achieve political control over the regions. I.e Saddam rise to power pre gulf war, was given all the weapons he needed from the US etc. Iran in 1979 for example too.

Cold war politics. Please research it.
And note (since you apparently have no clue): Not all U.S. politicians are NeoCons.
Now I realize why you apparently don't even know what a neocon is. Please also research "neoconservatism"

George Senior had the business with Saddam. Then Saddam breaks the deal and has enough of the dirty business with the American elites, Saddam has complete control of the country and oil, he can do what he pleases. its perfect opportunity for America to invade and then overthrow him, thus having the peoples support. Government's throughout history has incited incidents for wars to break out, or to create an opportunity for one.

What are you referring to? The first or second Gulf War?

As far as the Neocons perspective, they achieved many goals, you just refuse to see that. The CIA have been in the ME making millions on selling arms. The US has taken over the country of Iraq for example, and the oil etc. The neocons will not stop until they have control of the ME. Look at the war games the elites are creating with Israel and Iran. Iran doesn't want to attack Israel, certainly the jewish don't Israel to bomb either. Yet the Neocons, Zionist's and Elites are all plotting for this war to happen, if this war happens, it mean's they have acheived their goals, not failed.

Wow. All you are doing is throwing around buzz words. Elites. Neocons. Zionists. Making me think you either weren't alive during the cold war or were very young then. And you have a very limited (and possibly distorted) view of what those words actually mean.

You'll need to do some real research but this is from Wiki, I implore you to dig deeper.
On "neoconservatism"

Criticism of the term neoconservative
Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).
Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[38] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."

And your last response was "and so on" is that a reason too? Honest to god, what planet do you live in?

My goodness man. Are you joking or are you really not understanding? The "and so on" means they had everything they needed and all the support they needed I just didn't list them all the stuff they had so I said "and so on" meaning ".etc"
Perhaps you don't use that phrase in Ireland

I think they took a step back, mainly because they either A. got what they wanted. B. let saddam live under sanctions and then take him out the easyway by having the world by American's side.

The world was already on America's side. 10000x more than they are now. They were there right there with us.

The fact that the gulf war having support, shows the fallacy of peoples minds back then.

And how brainswashed people like you are.

What are you talking about? Do you you even know why it was fought or anything about history at all? Do you realize what would have happened with we allowed Saddam to continue? Is that what you're suggesting?

Wait, Just because it doesn't make sense to you, does not mean it's not logical.

Please read what you wrote and what I said again....

You said

Government can't create 9/11 as they are not god lol
Link? Context?
Where did I say this?

Incoherent rambling, and reducing yoursef to trolling. Please quote that I actually said this, because I know you will have trouble finding these "quotes"

Nonsense. Before each statement I have quoted you.

middle of page 5:

My gut instinct tells me, that 9/11 for them was a step to far and people are waking up, They didn't expect people to waken up[./b]

Originally posted by cashlink
I can promise, the disinfo agents will be in this thread later, I am sure they are getting their emails now, to railroad this thread. So prepare your self! They cannot let the truth get out, they will tell you its all lies, nothing but lies, that you have lost it. They will hand wave your proof, they will tell you that you have moved the goal posts. They will ask you to prove something that is imposable; they will try to sidetrack you, also to keep you busy.

You were right on the money cash.

Funny thing is that no one buys into their tactics anymore. Their lies lead us to the truth. The first post still stands undebunkable.

Its not important for the 'truthers' to prove a conspiracy. All we have to do is prove the official story is a lie which we have countless of times in hundreds of threads.

Originally posted by IvanZana
Funny thing is that no one buys into their tactics anymore. Their lies lead us to the truth. The first post still stands undebunkable.

BWAHAHAHAH... what is there to debunk? 1/2 your links didn't work. You proved NOTHING Ivan. Just like the rest of your threads. I responded to your OP and you have yet to refute anything from my response.

You have failed as usual.

Its not important for the 'truthers' to prove a conspiracy. All we have to do is prove the official story is a lie which we have countless of times in hundreds of threads.

No you haven't. You fail.... again.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Originally posted by IvanZana

Its not important for the 'truthers' to prove a conspiracy. All we have to do is prove the official story is a lie which we have countless of times in hundreds of threads.

No you haven't.

Um yes we did. The official story is bunk. We all know it and we proved it in hundreds of threads.



Btw your avatar shows how ignorant you are to make fun of the seriousness of the matter and how offensive it is to the victims of 911.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by IvanZana]

TY could you perhaps lets some of the readers of this thread judge who "won" the debate.
Stick to the arguing and discussion and debunk the OP.
Let the remainder of us decide if you win soundly or not. Is that fair?
If the links do not work then ask for them to be resent.
Then when you get to the link, you can rebutt it appropriately.

reply to post by fmcanarney


edit... Im going to be nice tonight.

Ivan will not fix anything... he never does.

[edit on 10/23/0808 by ThroatYogurt]

reply to post by IvanZana



Agree with both of you!

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans
Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”

January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood.

Dr. Ellsberg is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11. [2] Best known for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, Dr. Ellsberg is a former U.S. State Department envoy to Viet Nam and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Another State Department critic of the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ann Wright, who said in a 2007 interview with Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network, “It's incredible some of these things that still are unanswered. The 9/11 Report -- that was totally inadequate. I mean the questions that anybody has after reading that.” [3]

Col. Wright is one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served for 16 years as a U.S. Diplomat, including assignments as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. She helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001. She also served for 13 years on active duty and 16 additional years on reserve duty with the U.S. Army.
She continued in her interview with Greene: “How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action? And I totally agree, I always thought the Pentagon had all sorts of air defense equipment around it; that they could take out anything that was coming at it. And for a plane to be able to just fly low right over Washington and slam into that thing is just -- I mean, you still just shake your head. How in the world could that happen?”

Fred Burks, former Presidential interpreter, is another State Department veteran who questions the official account of 9/11 and who signed the petition to reinvestigate. “How is it possible that our military's highly touted missile detection systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?,” he asked in an essay. [4]

During his 18-year State Department career, Mr. Burks served as interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright and many others.

Mr. Burks continued, “An even bigger question is why isn't our media asking these questions? Why isn't our military spending many millions of dollars to find out why military defense systems failed on 9/11? Why is it that the 9/11 commission budget was far less than the budget allotted to the Challenger Disaster or even the Monika Lewinsky affair? Why aren't we, the public, asking these questions and demanding answers?”

Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former State Department employee who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11. He served as a Senior Analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Dr. Goodman also later served as Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and as Professor of International Security at the National War College, 1986 - 2004.

In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report, Dr. Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it.” [5]

Dr. Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.
Another former career Foreign Service Officer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Michael Springmann. He is also one of many signers of the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.

In a speech at the National Press Club, Mr. Springmann said, “I used to be in charge of the visa section at the CIA's Consulate in Jeddah. ... There for a year and a half I issued visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and its asset Osama Bin Laden. ... Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah
During his more than 20 years of U.S. government service, Mr. Springmann worked at both the State Department and the Foreign Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Among his many assignments, Mr. Springman served as Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he supervised the issuance of visas.

In a later interview with the BBC, Mr. Springmann said, “In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence. ... What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.” [7]

Another State Department veteran publicly questioning the official account of 9/11 is former career Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney, who served as Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. He resigned his commission in 1991 over U.S. policy towards the Yugoslav conflict. He then served as consultant in residence at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Currently he’s a consultant and commentator on foreign affairs and current events.

In a commentary after a 2007 interview of David Ray Griffin, PhD, Mr. Kenney said, “We should strive to clearly separate what we know from things we don't. Thus, we have a reasonably high level of confidence that the Establishment conspiracy narrative is absurd. The World Trade Center structures came down through controlled demolition. Flight 93 was shot down over rural Pennsylvania. And whatever it was that hit the Pentagon could not have been Flight 77. Further, whatever his peripheral involvement, the planning and implementation of 9/11 did not originate with Osama bin Laden.”

This is the first part enjoy.
www.opednews.com...

Michael Mennard, PhD, is another U.S. State Department veteran who questions the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation. Among his assignments as a career Foreign Service Officer, Dr. Mennard served as Regional Public Affairs Officer in India.

In a statement to this author, Dr. Mennard wrote, “I am concerned about the numerous inconsistencies in the official account of 9/11. I support a new investigation regarding the tragic events of that day, the events leading up to it, and subsequent efforts to ignore the whole matter.”

Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition [9] urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to six former CIA officials, [10] the signers included Daniel Ellsberg, Melvin Goodman, Fred Burks, Michael Springman (all mentioned above), and Edward Peck.

Edward Peck served as Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. He later served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peck, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, also served as U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq (1977 - 1980).

The petition stated, in part, “We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”

These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these eight U.S. State Department veterans show, the need for a new thorough and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America’s security and the future of the entire world.

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by more than 800 credible individuals can be found at PatriotsQuestion911.com...

Additional information about prominent skeptics of the official account of 9/11 can be found in the author's other articles on this subject, listed below.
Dec. 13, 2007 - Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation - Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Fatally Flawed” featured statements by:
• Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
• David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist. Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
• Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association
• Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy
• James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center
• Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities
Dec. 4, 2007 - Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - “Not Possible”, “a Whitewash”, “False” featured statements by
• Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
• Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush
• Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush
• Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
• Mary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton
• Barbara Honegger, Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and White House Policy Analyst
• Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq
• Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
Sept. 23, 2007 - Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report - Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up” featured statements by CIA veterans Raymond McGovern, William Christison, Melvin Goodman, Robert Baer, Robert David Steele, Lynne Larkin, and David MacMichael.

Sept. 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot.

Sept. 4, 2007 - Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11 featured the statement of Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.

Aug. 27, 2007 - National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation featured the statement of Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world renowned scientist.

Aug. 21, 2007 - Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation featured the statement of James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world's leading fire science researchers.

July 16, 2007 - Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement featured the statement of J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission.

www.opednews.com...

Lets see the disinfo call these people a lair!
If they do, then we know who they are working for.



[edit on 10/24/2008 by cashlink]

1] Interview of Daniel Ellsberg by Jack Blood on the Deadline Live radio show July 14, 2006 www.infowars.com...

[2] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Oct. 26, 2004 www.911truth.org...

[3] Interview of Col. Ann Wright and Laurie Van Auken by Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network Sept. 11, 2007 www.yourbbsucks.com...

[4] 9/11 and Star Wars: Billions on Missile Defense Can't Stop Four Airliners on 9/11 by Fred Burks www.wanttoknow.info...

[5] The 911 Commission Report – One Year Later, a Congressional Briefing July 22, 2005 www.vt911.org...

[6] Video of Speech by J. Michael Springmann at the National Press Club June 10, 2002 youtube.com...

[7] Interview of J. Michael Springmann by the BBC News Nov. 6, 2001 news.bbc.co.uk...

[8] Audio interview of David Ray Griffin, PhD, by George Kenney on Electric Politics May 11, 2007
www.electricpolitics.com...

[9] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by Over 100 Prominent Americans Oct. 26, 2004 www.911truth.org...

[10] Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report by Alan Miller, Sept. 23, 2007 on OpEdNews www.opednews.com...

Some goodies to listen to, more truth that is damaging to the Government version of lies.

Originally posted by cashlink

This is so perfect an example of why I love this place! Posts like this one! Whenever the Troofers try to add an air of legitimacy to this whole soup sandwich by invoking the names of "prominent" Republicans or conservatives or pass on the old "He even worked in the Bush (or Reagan) White House!", it always begs the question - if this administration is so freaking evil, WHY would ANYONE trust ANYONE who worked for it? THEY would be just as evil, except when, I suppose, they are on your side.

The other thing I absolutely love to see here is the old "Supposedly Smart People asking Stupid Questions" routine. Case in point are the following:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

They were followed. Read Lynn Spencer's book Touching History. It provides a superb account of the events in the sky the day of 9/11.

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

WHAT missile batteries? Having worked in the building many times before 9/11 and for a number of years afterwards, I can categorically state there were not, in any way, shape or form, "missile batteries" extensive or otherwise, at the Pentagon. To ask this question does nothing than to highlight complete and absolute ignorance about the building or point-missile defense systems.

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

This has been discussed before ad nauseum. The Secret Service had a known, controlled situation in hand at the school. Security personnel love a controlled environment, and they controlled the environment in and around the school at that particular time.

4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

This might be.....might be the only thing I agree with, in miniscule part. The CIA failed here, miserably, and George Tenet and most if not all of his staff should have been fired on 12 September. Problem is, the CIA has become increasingly more of a liberal think-tank than anything else, so shedding blame for 9/11 would be par for their charted course.

5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?

Already done. Nothing strange. Check out Snopes...if the web site dedicated to confirming or squashing Internet-generated urban legends squashed it, that is good enough for me.

Then there's the old Lurch Kolstead deal. I'm not calling the guy a liar, but I am saying he is out of his mind and has a reputation within the Navy fighter and F-14 community of being an idiot. Reputation is everything in Naval Aviation and Kolstead has none since he hopped on board the "Moron Pilots for 9/11 Truth" express and started on this "no-plane" BS.

Sept. 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot.

The reference to his being a "Top Gun" pilot is misleading to the max, as well. He was, at best, a Top Gun program "student" pilot and an adversary/fleet support pilot as a reserve officer with VFC-13. Using that criteria I was a "Top Gun" naval flight officer 4 times, so my word oughta trump his.

Keep it up though, Cash. Keep posting these foolish cut-and-pastes of things you know nothing about. The Clue Train has passed by these stations long ago, but keep posting - it sure makes for fun reading.


[edit on 24-10-2008 by pinch]

reply to post by cashlink

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

Which "standard operating procedures" were violated?



Be specific, please.

Originally posted by pinch

This is so perfect an example of why I love this place! Posts like this one! Whenever the Troofers try to add an air of legitimacy to this whole soup sandwich by invoking the names of "prominent" Republicans or conservatives or pass on the old "He even worked in the Bush (or Reagan) White House!", it always begs the question - if this administration is so freaking evil, WHY would ANYONE trust ANYONE who worked for it? THEY would be just as evil, except when, I suppose, they are on your side.

The other thing I absolutely love to see here is the old "Supposedly Smart People asking Stupid Questions" routine. Case in point are the following:

First off what makes one government shills word worse than the others. Your statement is implying that because one government shill says one thing that makes him less or more "prominent" than the other. In this case because some former government officials dont drink the GWB kool aid that they are somehow less prominent than the officials who released the report. Which as pointed out an investigation never would of been done in the first place if it wasnt for a bunch of ticked off widows and when it was done less was spent on that than Bill Clintons Blow***.

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

I wasnt aware of missile batteries also so I agree with you here. A simple question about the pentagon I want to know is why they wont release the Days Inn video footage. I mean if there was nothing to hide there should be no issues in releasing it right?

This has been discussed before ad nauseum. The Secret Service had a known, controlled situation in hand at the school. Security personnel love a controlled environment, and they controlled the environment in and around the school at that particular time.

Hmm a controlled environment? If we are being attacked by crashing planes into buildings I dont care how many men you have there with guns they arent stopping a jet period. They kept him there because for some reason they felt that a jet coming for Bush was impossible. Thats a hell of a call to make considering we are under attack. Or did they KNOW something that we didnt?

This might be.....might be the only thing I agree with, in miniscule part. The CIA failed here, miserably, and George Tenet and most if not all of his staff should have been fired on 12 September. Problem is, the CIA has become increasingly more of a liberal think-tank than anything else, so shedding blame for 9/11 would be par for their charted course.

Correct. In the biggest failure of both military and government in American history how is it that people didnt lose their heads. This is simple. People get fired they start asking questions. Questions lead to investigations. This was to be swept under the rug quickly.

The reference to his being a "Top Gun" pilot is misleading to the max, as well. He was, at best, a Top Gun program "student" pilot and an adversary/fleet support pilot as a reserve officer with VFC-13. Using that criteria I was a "Top Gun" naval flight officer 4 times, so my word oughta trump his.

Keep it up though, Cash. Keep posting these foolish cut-and-pastes of things you know nothing about. The Clue Train has passed by these stations long ago, but keep posting - it sure makes for fun reading.

There you go demonizing the messenger again. First off even if he wasnt in Top Gun chances are he knew a little about planes. I mean to be a Top Gun student you have to be good with planes right? If his opinion was fitting yours then you would have no issues with this guy.


The fact is 9/11 and the events after are as simple as following the money. Who has gained from 9/11? Who has lost from 9/11? If Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 then who did? Why are 10 of the Hijackers still alive? Why have we fought 2 wars to kill Osama Bin Laden and supporters of him? Face it 9/11 just like other American events were set up for one reason and that is money. There are a good group of people who made a TON of money because of 9/11. Certain countries out there (no names to be mentioned) of under the full umbrella of American protection now and their citizens even work in very high places in our government. There are to many un answered questions in regards to 9/11 and the government has not been exactly forthright on the issue and HAS had to change positions several times.

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by cashlink

This is so perfect an example of why I love this place! Posts like this one! Whenever the Troofers try to add an air of legitimacy to this whole soup sandwich by invoking the names of "prominent" Republicans or conservatives or pass on the old "He even worked in the Bush (or Reagan) White House!", it always begs the question - if this administration is so freaking evil, WHY would ANYONE trust ANYONE who worked for it? THEY would be just as evil, except when, I suppose, they are on your side.

The other thing I absolutely love to see here is the old "Supposedly Smart People asking Stupid Questions" routine. Case in point are the following:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

They were followed. Read Lynn Spencer's book Touching History. It provides a superb account of the events in the sky the day of 9/11.

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

WHAT missile batteries? Having worked in the building many times before 9/11 and for a number of years afterwards, I can categorically state there were not, in any way, shape or form, "missile batteries" extensive or otherwise, at the Pentagon. To ask this question does nothing than to highlight complete and absolute ignorance about the building or point-missile defense systems.

Oh God I was just going to jump on this, but you beat me to it!

I love it, just LOVE IT, when they come up with this nonsense. Secret missile batteries all over the Pentagon? What are we? North Korea? Hey, ask them where did they hear this from and where is the proof! It always gets them.

The only time I can think of where there were AA missile sites around DC and the Pentagon was during the Cold War during the Cuban Missile Crises. After that threat passed, there were no missile batteries. The only AA system ever there in this century was AFTER 9/11 when the Avenger Missile Systems came to defend the region.

And yes, you are also correct on the hijacking procedure. Which was "Comply with the hijacker, alert the authorities, and continue to comply with the hijacker. "

Originally posted by mybigunit

First off thanks for feeling the need to prove my point.

A simple question about the pentagon I want to know is why they wont release the Days Inn video footage. I mean if there was nothing to hide there should be no issues in releasing it right?

Days Inn? Sure you don't mean the Traveler's Lodge? Or the Motel 6? The Bates Motel? There IS no "Days Inn" near the Pentagon. There are 2 in Arlington, both over a mile and a half away, one the other side of Arlington Cemetery, the other way down Columbia Pike at the intersection with S Walter Reed Drive. Neither one would even have a ghost's chance in hell of even seeing the Pentagon, much less record anything.

If you are talking about the Sheraton, 3/4 of a mile up the hill above the Navy Annex and next to the Marine base at Henderson Hall, please explain to me why a hotel, nearly a mile away from the Pentagon, would have surveillance cameras trained on a government/military building when their main concern would have been their own immediate area? This "Sheraton" surveillance footage is one of the biggest urban myths in this whole mish-mash.

There you go demonizing the messenger again. First off even if he wasnt in Top Gun chances are he knew a little about planes. I mean to be a Top Gun student you have to be good with planes right? If his opinion was fitting yours then you would have no issues with this guy.

Demonizing WHAT messenger? Kolstad? If the guy truly believes no plane hit the building, he's a moron, pure and simple. Captain Bob and his troop of happy aeronautical experts are the ones using the "Top Gun" reference as a boni fide for the moron. I've been in and around the Navy as an officer, aviator or dependent for 42 years. I learned long ago that regardless of your rank, position, experience, whatever (admiral, Top Gun God, mess crank, you name it), you can still be an idiot. Ralph Kolstad is proof positive of this.

Who has gained from 9/11?

Are you serious? Ever study any national security issues? What is a terrorist act? Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. What is a terrorist act designed to do? Primarily, achieve a specific or general political aim. In the 9/11 attacks, it was to cause a cessation of US and allied involvement (diplomatic, militarily and economic) in the Southwest Asian region allowing for the expansion of a greater Islamic state. Any act of terror is a calculated risk. It will work in some cases, won't in others. It worked in Spain in 2004 (influenced Spanish elections, Spain pulled out of OIF in later that year), it didn't work in Bali in 2002 (Aussies stayed in OIF), it didn't work in Britain in 2005 (Brits stayed in OIF), it didn't work in the US in 2001 (US stayed in the region), it did work Beirut in 1983 (US pulled out of Lebanon).

If Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 then who did?

Aside from some apologists for bin Laden, who has ever said he wasn't responsible for 9/11? As I mentioned above (in a part of the post you perhaps didn't read), the FBI (as well as Britain) has no problems whatsoever assigning blame to bin Laden for 9/11, they just won't indict him because of the potential compromising of intelligence assets and sources.

Why are 10 of the Hijackers still alive?

What was it I said in the other post? People asking stupid questions? This "hijackers are still alive" canard is one of the funnier ones coming from the Troofers. In 1988, Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson had his Olympic gold medal taken away because he used steroids. A simple free Yahoo People search found 468 people named "Ben Johnson" in the US. I have no doubt there are hundreds more. According to Troofer logic, *all* of them could have an Olympic gold medal that has been taken from them. Second point about this "hijackers are still alive" crap - ain't identity theft a b*tch?


[edit on 24-10-2008 by pinch]

reply to post by pinch


Ok so I got the hotels wrong. This still doesnt change the fact that there is a hotel with clear footage of what hit the Pentagon that is not being released. Why is it not? What is the big deal?


Ok so you still believe Bin Laden was behind 9/11? Its obvious you dont pay attention to your own party the neo cons. They have already came out and admitted now that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. Oh but you wouldnt believe little old me telling you that would you. You want proof right? Ok here you go

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


Edit to add: So are you telling me no one has gained from 9/11? Hmm I might want to beg to differ. Without going into to much detail I think you need to look into certain banks, defense contractors, and foreign entities that have made a mint off of 9/11 and have other "perks" because of it. Google is your friend on this one.


As far as the Hijackers go correct now you are catching on. Identity theft. But WHO stole their identity. Who had these means to steal identities from 10 men in 10 different parts of the world? Almost sounds like an intelligence agency could have some means. Oh BTW Im not talking about the CIA either. Contrary to popular belief I dont think it was our government that did this. I do however know and I mean know they do know who did do it however and they are hiding it. Because if it came to light the ramifications would be immense and it would change the world as we know it.



[edit on 24-10-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by mybigunit
Ok so I got the hotels wrong. This still doesnt change the fact that there is a hotel with clear footage of what hit the Pentagon that is not being released. Why is it not? What is the big deal?

Yeah, who cares about accuracy, anyway? Just grab a hotel - any hotel will do - and bring on the ol' "What about the Security tape!!!!" There are probably 2 dozen buildings that have a clear view of the Pentagon. Tell me again WHY they would have security cameras pointed towards the Pentagon when their concern would be their own immediate environment, their own parking lots, their own entrances, their own area. I want you to go out and buy a building, establish a company, and spend a bunch of money on a high tech high-def surveillance system watching a building 3/4 of a mile away that you have nothing whatsoever to do with. Unless you can tell me that the Sheraton (not the Dew Drop Inn) surveillance cameras had a clear view of the Pentagon and the cameras were of sufficient high-def quality to actually see something and was in a recording mode, please drop this BS.

Ok so you still believe Bin Laden was behind 9/11? Its obvious you dont pay attention to your own party the neo cons. They have already came out and admitted now that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11.

You sure have a wicked weird interpretation of things. From the transcript of that 10 Sept briefing by Perino:

Q Well, what, in this White House's opinion -- what was the role of Osama bin Laden, then, for 9/11?

MS. PERINO: Well, obviously, as the leader of al Qaeda, he is somebody that we want to bring to justice. He was the one that asked his deputies to plot and plan and carry out attacks. And that's why we've been aggressively going after them, as well.

That sure as hell doesn't sound like the WH Press Secretary "admitting" bin Laden "had nothing to do with 9/11".

Google is your friend on this one.

Google Rangers. You gotta love 'em, I guess. Google makes everyone an expert.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Target rich environment, Gen! Michael Jordan, when he was in "the zone", used to say the basket looked like a 10-foot round bucket. Plenty of opportunities to go around.

The only time I can think of where there were AA missile sites around DC and the Pentagon was during the Cold War during the Cuban Missile Crises. After that threat passed, there were no missile batteries. The only AA system ever there in this century was AFTER 9/11 when the Avenger Missile Systems came to defend the region.

Exactly. I believe they were Nike Surface to Air missile systems, deactivated since the late 60's or early 70's now. You can still see historical markers all around the area as you drive around, saying something to the effect of "Nike Missile Battery Charley-5 was located 2 miles west of here". You can still see the old sites on Google Earth. There is one not that far from where I live, over in Lorton, VA.

I've tried to tell these people that the defenses of the Pentagon lay in its location - tens of thousands of miles away from any potential enemy, unless that enemy comes to our shores and uses our own devices (i.e. commercial aircraft), with no advanced warning, against us.

I've also tried to educate them about point-missile defense, and how you would *never* put your main defensive missile batteries directly at the point being defended, in this case the Pentagon. You install them outside your defended asset, giving yourself the best radar footprint and engagement zone away from your defended asset. Last-ditch capabilities, like some sort of ground-based close-in-weapons system (CIWS) that fires 3-4,000 rounds a minute of radar-guided projectiles would be on-site, but that would only be in a combat zone.

Having said that, I'm reiterating that I'm pretty dang sure the Pentagon NEVER had ANY missile defenses, even back in The Day of the Cold War. Just not practical.

As far as the Avenger is concerned, I used to see them in the days immediately after 9/11 when I would drive through the Pentagon Parking lot headed to the HOV lanes. Those are long gone, but I know of at least 2 pretty-permanent surface to air missile positionings now, and you can see them on Google Earth, as well (if you know where to look).

reply to post by pinch


So your argument is none of the hotels have a clear view of the pentagon? Why did the FBI confiscate all the tapes. If there was no good footage from the hotels then why was there the need to go in and snag the tapes. Instead we get some pentagon footage that shows nothing. Cmon dude your trying oh so hard and lets face it truth is treason in a house of lies.


In regards to Perino she says Osama did attacks and he should be brought to justice. He did do attacks and did order them I dont think I said he didnt order attacks. I said he had nothing to do with 9/11 and it doesnt say he did on the FBI site either and both Perino and Cheney which is in the 2nd video you must not of watched said it not once but TWO times Usama DID NOT DO IT. This is after it was pounded in our head for 3 years that the evil Osama did it and we need to invade the world till we get him.

Also I notice how you wont answer the question about who made a ton of money off of 9/11. Im not talking about the investments or the puts that was done before 9/11. You assumed I meant that because your view is of a small screen TV. Im looking at the BIG picture. The wars, the goods to fight the wars, the funding of the wars, and on and on. Someone made some lute.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 24-10-2008 by mybigunit]