Information Clearing House provides a one-hour and 45-minute video.... new, independent, with frame-by-frame video and audio analysis...


Video: 911 Eyewitness :

What happened at the World Trade Center on 9.11.2001
with eyewitness testimony and scientific analysis

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12018.htm

So I'm curious, if you watched this movie, what you thought....

I think I don't need to watch any movies. I was there.

You do to know what really happened

Is this the same as loose change?

I watched most of that video.

Don't watch it if you are hoping to find a stunning revelation. There is none.

No new questions were raised.

No answers were provided.

The film didn't provide the credentials of the narrator or whoever provided the analysis. Sounded like a 2nd year liberal physics student had some fun with this one, but even I (a normal person) was not impressed with the thoroughness of the analysis (which wasn't very thorough).

If 911 didn't happen the way we were led to believe, this film brings us no closer to the truth or offers any real evidence.

What the ....

Pretty bad...

Someone got hold of about 10 minutes of video taken from a pier across the river, then replays the same things over and over...

Yea ... looks like a college freshman trying to cash in on the 9/11 conspiracy market. Or maybe a high school freshman.

How About this one?


Video: 9/11 Revisited - Were explosives used?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I

----

What is it you would like to see in a video that would constitute something of value and importance?

What constitutes real evidence?

Is there not enough here and elsewhere to continue asking questions?

I do not "vouch for" the validity of any of this, whether in these videos, the numerous web sites, books, movies, etc.

It just seems that there are an awful lot of questions than no one wants to acknowledge, let alone answer.

well, that's better.

What's good evidence?

Hmmm. I don't know.

It's like porn.... Hard to define but you know it when you see it.

I have not yet seen ANY strong evidence IMHO that 911 didn't happen any other way except the way we have been told and which seems the simplest explanation (Al Qaeda, without any help from any American, attacked the WTC and brought the towers down with jets).

I am not impressed with ANY of the points made in that first video, or with any 911 video I have seen yet. In fact, it seems OBVIOUS to me that many of their arguments are highly dubious and even plain wrong. For example, if a person can't figure out why massive dust clouds flow thru the streets of NYC after a tower falls without having them compared to volcanic pyroclastic flows, well, never mind.

If anything, the film made me even more convinced that the towers were NOT brought down with explosive devices. The explosions in each tower seemed to have occurred rather haphazardly in the MINUTES preceding the collapse (as you would expect in raging fires brought about by preceding collissions) instead of occurring in a tightly programmed sequence just seconds before the collapse as you would expect such devices to behave.

I welcome continued examination into the 911 facts, but I wish true scientists, demolition experts, and fed investigators, etc, were the ones doing the investigations. I am also hopeful that if any American was involved with 911, that someone would expose the truth.

Frankly Bush and his neocons are incapable IMHO of orchestrating something like a 911 and then covering it up. Also, it would require that 100s of Americans be involved and also that they remain silent about what they know--and that's unlikely IMHO. There's only ONE thing they are good at: LYING

I have seen many so-called unanswered questions answered right here at CGCS by myself and others. Also, a little common sense and investigative googling will answer almost all of them.

Which questions do you feel are unanswered?

Then how did at least 4 of the supposed hijackers contact relatives in days afterward?

How did 19 bumbling pilots do a military style hit?

How come there are proven written documents signed by the evil Nazi's, oops, mean the evil Bushfamilyinc show they planned a Pearl Harbor event to get us into Iraq

Why in Iraq at all?
When there never were WMD's nor where there any part of Bin-laden involved in Saddam?

When the inspections were working

When 3 buildings fell like never before

When a 1 tenth of one percent wind would have knocked the plane in the river

Why did WTC 7 fall?

How was it they couldn't id anytning, yet one passport survived in tact?

When Bush has lied about everything else he ever said, why do you think he told the truth here?

PROOVE IT HAPPENED THE WAY THEY SAID.
The conspiracy is in the lies the Bush people tell eveyr day.
Whether the Clinton's are in on it, has nothing to do with it.

There is a terror problem- it is in George Bush's mirror.

Bushfamilyinc is the only terrorist

Why is it that those that don't believe for whatever pervese reason, attempt to spoil all these threads?

Calling for solid evidence that hasn't previously been refuted and quality workmanship isn't spoiling the thread. The "evidence" presented in the movies is spoiling the thread.

None of it was refuted in any prior thread.
Just saying it was is just not true.

For one, the whole Lisa Beamer bullspit.
Cell phones could NOT have worked in 2001 from that height.
That has been proven.
Therefore no one said let's roll.

It was about as true as that Jessica Lynch story, when she did nothing was no hero at all.

Shoshanna Johnson was the hero, yet noone heard of her, and she did not get a time magazine cover, because she wasn't blond.

So whatever happened to that duplicate plane that crashed in Pa?

It certainly did not go down as it said.

PROOVE the events happened.

One can;'t.

They won't ever release the black boxes, even though they found them.

And remember- 9-11 was nothing at all. It scared everyone, but 3 blocks away, life went on. Stores were open, resteraunts, schools, MacDonalds.

The only changed was fear. We all became stupid pansies cowering in the corner save us bushie save us.
That was what they hoped.

When the bushfamilyinc did it

But then Noonan, you seem to be pro-war and pro-draft lately, aren't you? Why the sudden change?
That to me is odd?

Do you want your little students to all die a horrible death at the hands of bloodonhishands Bushie?

To be dupes of the bushfamily is to let everyone die.

We must stop the lies from being told about 9-11. And everything Bush said was a lie.

Pro-War? That must be why I ordered by "Bring 'em Home Now" magnets Friday night. Pro-draft? I haven't changed a thing since the rumors of reinstating the draft were first talked about - ask Marine, when he's feeling better - he'll tell you about me and the draft

Maybe it's the fact my kids have me drinking their Kool-Aid with them insteadof my normal root beer.

The rest of the stuff you spewed doesn't deserve a response other than it reinforces the things others have been saying about you in other threads recently. I'm sorry I've stuck my neck out for you in the past. What's happened to you debating skills, why the shrillness and snarkiness?

Then how did at least 4 of the supposed hijackers contact relatives in days afterward?

Prove it. This is probably urban legend.

How did 19 bumbling pilots do a military style hit?

They obviously weren't bumbling. They took training. I do not believe it to be very difficult to guide a jet into some of the largest buildings. 1000s of Jet pilots guide their airplanes 1000s of miles and then touchdown on tiny runways every day around the world.

How come there are proven written documents signed by the evil Nazi's, oops, mean the evil Bushfamilyinc show they planned a Pearl Harbor event to get us into Iraq

Links please? And yes, I have heard the neo-cons/PNAC have wished for a "pearl harbor" event so as to launch their schemes. Perhaps they even were involved in 911, but we need proof.

Why in Iraq at all?
When there never were WMD's nor where there any part of Bin-laden involved in Saddam?

When the inspections were working

I'm on your side with that. If Bush was involved in 911, let's find ONE single piece of irrefutable evidence.

When 3 buildings fell like never before

Never before have fully fueld jetliners been driven into such buildings..

When a 1 tenth of one percent wind would have knocked the plane in the river

I don't understand your point?

Why did WTC 7 fall?

In that first link above, did you see all those HUGE chunks of WTC towers raining down onto the vicinity of WTC bldg 7 as they collapsed? It is obvious surrounding buildings were damaged by the collapsing towers

How was it they couldn't id anytning, yet one passport survived in tact?

Your point? Are you saying they had all those rescue/construction workers stealing evidence and hiding it? Are you saying they planted that one passport (which is possible, though it doesn't mean Bush planned 911 instead of maybe they decided to try to tie certain terrorist to 911 whether or not they actualy were involved).

When Bush has lied about everything else he ever said, why do you think he told the truth here?

I think Bin Laden hated anyone named Bush (BushSr inserted troops into the holy land). I think Bin Laden was also jealous of Bush friendships with his other bin Laden family members and other Arab royalty. When GWB became president, I think it became very easy for Bin Laden to pull the 911 trigger and strike at one of his dearest enemies (the Bush family). So, here was a case where the truth HELPED Bush. This shows the danger in reacting irrationally against one's enemies with emotion instead of fact. It usually hurts one's case and makes one look like a conspiracy theorist if latch onto even ONE proveably false accusation.

PROOVE IT HAPPENED THE WAY THEY SAID.

Can't prove it. But go look at the video. Everything seems consistent wiith the consequences of jetliners striking buildings.

The conspiracy is in the lies the Bush people tell eveyr day.
Whether the Clinton's are in on it, has nothing to do with it.

There is a terror problem- it is in George Bush's mirror.

Bushfamilyinc is the only terrorist

I have a gut feeling the Bush family is connected with some very dark forces in America and elsewhere. BushSR's long ties to the CIA and Prescott's ties to Nazis are troubling. Since WWII, the CIA or its predecessors have often acted as rogue agencies and have gone around the world doing black op missions that I believe Presidents didn't know about (like stealing and hoarding war booty from the Japanese/Germans/etc, and I suspect the Bush family has been plugged into these resources). I heard Jeb Bush has ties to some kind of South American thugs within Florida. I think they all are major crooks and GWB is now a war criminal because of Iraq. I think they cheated on elections and raised terror alerts for political purposes. I think GWB spies on political opponents and other Americans who he deems are threats to his ideology and religious goals. I think Bush is a fascist who is CAPABLE of orchestrating 911 style events--even on his own country. I think they have been caught in major lies and voting suppression tactics that most Americans don't seem to care about. I think Bush has a hidden agenda to starve the beast and restore America to the robber-barron kind of era. I can't prove hardly any of this (except certain lies). But I have to honestly say I have seen no strong evidence to suggest Bush was involved in planning 911, or that explosives were used at the WTC, or that a jet did not hit the Pentagon, and so forth. Most of the points you and others here bring up (like the ones in this post) about 911 conspiracies defy common sense, and they defy what is clearly visible in the videos and the public record. For example, WTC7 probably fell because TONS of debris fell on it and started a large fire. The video above shows the debris falling down around WTC7.

FYI, I recently saw a new book at B&N that purports to discuss the Bush family long-standing ties to the CIA. I may go get it later today and see what it says.

Without re-printing all of what you just wrote in #16 above, Sunshine, let me say "well done."

edit: Oops, I meant #15.

Pretty hard to argue with you on this Sunshine, can not wait to see if someone will try!


Good post!

Q: How do we really know the identities of ANY of the 19 "hijackers"? From their passports and credit card data? Security cameras?All we know is that those people, whoever they were, broke into the cockpits and sh*t happened.

Pilots routinely guide those airplanes to a 150 foot wide strip at 140 miles an hour. The jets hit the towers at 500 miles an hour.


It is contained in the 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (80pages)




If Bush wasn't involved either by commission or omission, then the US Government watched and did nothing while the worst atrocity in its history was committed.

no high rise building has EVER fallen on account of fire. Jet fuel burns quickly and at low temperature.

WTC N and S towers fell straight down into their own footprints. Pieces were small enough to load onto trucks.

And, if a passport was found, why not any of the 4 black boxes???
When Bush has lied about everything else he ever said, why do you think he told the truth here?

Bin Laden NEVER "pulled the trigger." The 911 plan was the work of Ramsey Yousef. When he was convicted and put into prison, his uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohmmad took over. Just because Bin Ladin was seen on a video (the dinner party) revelling in the news doesn't prove he had antthing to do with its execution. Sometimes I think OBL is just a convenient funny looking straw man for BushCo to periodically trot out when they need to scare us.

I direct you to: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org


for BushCo history, see http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

As far as WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, said "Pull it."

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/pp_fdny.htm

Pilots routinely guide those airplanes to a 150 foot wide strip at 140 miles an hour. The jets hit the towers at 500 miles an hour.

Nascar drivers routinely jerk their cars down a 50ft wide tightly circular strip of asphalt at over 200MPH. I would bet that anyone with enough simulator training could sit in a jetliner cockpit, and steer the plane along a river that leads them directly to one of the tallest bldgs in the world which they can see from miles away and towards which they can easily and continually adjust their flight path towards. It's simply RIDICULOUS to say that these terrorists who underwent simulator training on these jetliners could not have possibly steered a jetliner into the tallest buildings in NYC when they had rivers that led them directly to those buildings (radar tapes proved they followed the rivers).

It is contained in the 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (80pages)

These are the kinds of reasons I believe Bush is the kind of person who is capable to planning 911. However, it is not evidence he did so.

If Bush wasn't involved either by commission or omission, then the US Government watched and did nothing while the worst atrocity in its history was committed.

Fighter jets were indeed scrambled. But because we had never really expected this kind of thing to actually happen, we weren't fully prepared and the response was thus late and confused. I believe some jets were sent to the wrong vectors by radar operators who weren't sure of which planes had been taken over. If I recall correctly, the NG channel had a special wherein they played the audio tapes of the ATC folks and pilots. Had they not made these mistakes, they might have been able to stop the SECOND jet strike, though obviously there could have been a response until the FIRST strike had already been completed (until the FIRST strike, there was nothing to respond to).

no high rise building has EVER fallen on account of fire. Jet fuel burns quickly and at low temperature.

I repeat: No hirise bldg had ever been struck at 500MPH by fully loaded jetliners. Shall I say that again so it can again be ignored again? No hirise bldg had ever been struch at 500MPH by fully loaded jetliners.

WTC N and S towers fell straight down into their own footprints. Pieces were small enough to load onto trucks.

Watch the video and then come back and say that. First, much of the debris could not fit on trucks. There were still parts of several stories partially standing afterward (remember those pics of the girders still standing?). Also, the video clearly shows parts of the upper tower tipping sideways and large chunks of debris raining down to the sides of the towers and outside the immediate footprint. Also, when the jets struck the towers, there were probably large pieces of debris ejected some distance away from the towers. That's my reasonable guess anyway. While I can not say I have the proof debris was actually ejected or fell onto any nearby buildings, it is not so inconceivable that it could not happen. I would require a detailed physics and map analysis of this issue before I could personally support the idea that WTC bldg 7 was not in the path of ejecting debris. And YOU should require a similar study before you conclude it was impossible for WTC bldg7 to be safe from such debris.

So, I challenge you to provide us with the physics analysis summary of how far away from the footprint debris should fall during a jet strike of this nature? When you provide that info, please do so in two parts: Part A: how far would it be ejected due to the initial strike of the jet or when explosions caused by fire occur? Part B: how far could other debris fall due to simple collapsing segments which tilt out as they crumble? In other words, how big should the debris field be thoretically? And how far away was WTC bldg 7 from that theoretical debris field? And once you convince me you understand the physics behind those questions (which I do not), then I may start believing this is an issue supporting a conspiracy. Surely, if you are convinced the debris fell straight-down as you say, you are aware of the actual measurements of the debris field? IMHO, WTC bldg 7 is evidence that the debris footprint is not small as you claim, not the other way around.

And, if a passport was found, why not any of the 4 black boxes???

So, if the blackboxes got destroyed and melted, then so must every single other object in the tower? In your scenario, not ONE SINGLE thing could have made it out unscathed?

Now, if indeed, this was the only piece of ID evidence found at either tower, I would call that highly suspicious of someone trying to frame a certain terrorist with this act. However, I don't have enough info to know either way to know what objects were actually found. Since you are confident this is suspicious, perhaps you could share with us the list of all objects found?

When Bush has lied about everything else he ever said, why do you think he told the truth here?

My belief of what happened on 911 (or on any other subject) has nothing to do with anything Bush says.

Bin Laden NEVER "pulled the trigger." The 911 plan was the work of Ramsey Yousef. When he was convicted and put into prison, his uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohmmad took over. Just because Bin Ladin was seen on a video (the dinner party) revelling in the news doesn't prove he had antthing to do with its execution. Sometimes I think OBL is just a convenient funny looking straw man for BushCo to periodically trot out when they need to scare us.

I think you are correct, except that I do believe Bin Laden knew of the plan and gave support to it to ensure it would happen. If I am wrong, so be it. Perhaps Bush framed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. If he did, that doesn't mean he also planned 911. I have no doubt there are things about 911 Bush is lying about. But I think the evidence shows, at most, that he is lying about 911 to cover up his incompetence before 911 and possibly to frame certain terrorists (who he may sincerely believes caused 911).

As far as WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, said "Pull it."

I've heard that too. I dont know if it's true. I've only heard that on conspiracy theory links and here at CGCS. I estimate that about 100% of all stories I hear from any news source or website is at least 50% wrong. So until there is proof positive (multiple reputable sources) that he ordered it pulled, I will assume this to be a dubious claim--but one worth examining.

Let me ask you some questions about Silverstein:

- Assuming Silverstein ordered it pulled, what does that have to do with Bush and why would SIlverstein pull it?

- Where did he get the experts and explosives so soon after the bldg7 was damaged?

- Are you saying bldg 7 was never damaged or didn't have a fire in it or wasn't damaged by falling debris from the WTC towers?

Lastly, I will admit that the ONE thing that bothers me about the whole 911 issue is WTC bldg 7. But this is just ONE distracting issue from a mountain of contrary evidence that any American was involved in planning 911. Anyway, unlike the videos of the WTC towers, it looks to me from the same videos that WTC bldg7 was indeed pulled down. The center of the bldg seems to implode and then the exterior walls all come down. If WTC #7 fell on its own due to debris from the towers and later fires, well, it seems to me that the bldg probably would have fallen down in sections instead of all at once. In other words, it did indeed to appear to be a controlled demolition, though who am I to say? Also, I think I have learned from multiple sources that bldg 7 contained some US intel and other gvmt-related offices. That is an odd coincidence to me.

However, even if WTC#7 was pulled by Silverstein, it's more likely IMHO that it was due to insurance fraud reasons instead of it being tied to terrorist plans to destroy WTC towers along with a smaller bldg nearby.

And even if I am 100% wrong about everything and explosives were indeed used in either bldg7 and the two towers, maybe it wasn't our gvmt? Maybe it was the terrorists?

Sunshine:

We are being told that 3 (three) high rises did something on one day that no other high rise has ever done in history -- collapse straight down into their footprints due to fires in upper stories. That's a damned good place to start being suspicious. Damned good place. Now, if you tell me I'm a complete idiot for being suspicious about this, I would have to turn it around and say to flat out ignore 60+ years of history dealing with highrise fires, and then to believe that something that has NEVER happened before happened 3 times in one day... well... there's no arguing with you. No use.

And the real kicker -- here was all this forensic evidence, so to speak -- all the steel and material from the collapsed buildings -- and you would think that because of the absolutely unique nature of what happened, every structural engineer in the world would be dying to find out why this bizarre event happened -- not once, but three times in one day -- so that buildings they design wouldn't do the same thing.

And they get rid of that evidence as fast as they can. Boom... it's gone before anyone can look at it. Flat out gone -- shipped to Japan and melted down.

Those fires were billowing black smoke. What does black smoke mean? It means the fire is so cool its almost ready to go out on its own. Kerosene, or jet fuel, burns very cool. We hear "jet fuel" and think it must be some super high octane stuff -- not so. It's almost kerosene. Burns very cool to begin with. Any flames you was were dark orange -- cold fire. Black smoke -- cold fire, almost ready to go out. The bulk of the fuel from the second jet was blown out of the building almost immediately upon collision anyway.

Something is terribly wrong. Maybe the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists put forward is off base, but one fact stands out in my mind -- something is very wrong with the official explanation.

This is the same stuff as with the JFK investigation. We will hear, despite the fact that a large percentage of the population disbelieves the official story, that there is no need for another investigation, because the conspiracy theorists are all whackos. Same story, same pattern. Never mind that a true investigation, assuming no government involvement, and directly addressing the charges of the conspiracy theorists, would restore the faith of a huge chunk of the population back in the government. It still won't happen. Why not? Why not?

We are being told that 3 (three) high rises did something on one day that no other high rise has ever done in history -- collapse straight down into their footprints due to fires in upper stories.

Ever since the beginning of time, every skyscraper that has ever been struck in its upper floors by a fully fueled jetliner going at over 500MPH has suffered major structural and fire damage and withing hours has collapsed. Only two times in history have buildings been struck in this way (on 911). Thus, stop comparing these two collapses with any other building incident. The Pentagon was also hit by a jet, however, the jet struck the nexus of earth and reinforced concrete, and there were not dozens of floors under the strike area upon which debris could fall and further undermine surrounding supports.

Also, watch the first video above. You will see in one case that parts of the upper tower tipped over OUT OF THE FOOTPRINT and large chunks of debris fell outward. I've pointed this out twice already, and the video is right there to prove it, yet you all keep saying things over and over again even when it is shown you are wrong.

Structural tipping is one way debris can be ejected away from the footprint. Here's an experiment: take a broom and stand it on end then let it drop to the floor. Notice that although the footprint of the handle is only an inch or two wide at the bottom, the top of the broom will fall several feet away from the footprint. Much the same thing happened with the WTC towers, except that the towers fragmented as they fell, which tended to minimize the extent of the debris field afterward.

There are also two other explanations I know of for a wide debris field: First, debris can be thrown out due to the initial impact/explosion of the jetliners. Second, subsequent explosions due to the raging fires could cause material (flaming and not) to be ejected.

Don't take my word for it. The video shows that chunks of debris fell OUT OF THE FOOTPRINT at the time the towers collapsed and it appears some of it fell toward bldg 7.


That's a damned good place to start being suspicious. Damned good place. Now, if you tell me I'm a complete idiot for being suspicious about this, I would have to turn it around and say to flat out ignore 60+ years of history dealing with highrise fires, and then to believe that something that has NEVER happened before happened 3 times in one day... well... there's no arguing with you. No use.

Again what really was different about this day was that two jetliners slammed into two of the highest buildings in the world and then when they collapsed the faling debris fell OUT OF THE FOOTPRINT (due to tipping, or maybe due to explosions, etc) and damaged a nearby building.

And the real kicker -- here was all this forensic evidence, so to speak -- all the steel and material from the collapsed buildings -- and you would think that because of the absolutely unique nature of what happened, every structural engineer in the world would be dying to find out why this bizarre event happened -- not once, but three times in one day -- so that buildings they design wouldn't do the same thing.

And they get rid of that evidence as fast as they can. Boom... it's gone before anyone can look at it. Flat out gone -- shipped to Japan and melted down.

- That was a mistake by the city not to save the material. I think they were simply trying to clear the site as fast as possible to remove the blemish and find survivors (initially) or victim remains (later). In those early days, no one dreamed we should save the material in order to quash conspiracy theorists because we all believed we knew what had happened right in our own eyes and no one felt a need to perform an autopsy on the WTC remains. I also have seen at least one documentary by structural engineers wherein they put together animation models showing why what we saw on 911 is consistent with jetliner strikes and later fire damage. So, I am saying that I've seen engineers on TV disagree with the notion that these jet strikes couldn't bring down the towers.

Those fires were billowing black smoke. What does black smoke mean? It means the fire is so cool its almost ready to go out on its own. Kerosene, or jet fuel, burns very cool. We hear "jet fuel" and think it must be some super high octane stuff -- not so. It's almost kerosene. Burns very cool to begin with. Any flames you was were dark orange -- cold fire. Black smoke -- cold fire, almost ready to go out. The bulk of the fuel from the second jet was blown out of the building almost immediately upon collision anyway.

There was all kinds of colored smoke. White and black and grey, etc. Different materials cause different kinds of color at different stages of the fire--even at different temperatures. Or even while the fire raged at one location, it might have been dying in another.

Also, I saw a close up video of one of the fires. A man was waving his jacket and hanging out the window as a WALL OF AN INFERNO roared a few floors overhead. It looked like a furnace up there. He then lost his grip and fell to his death. In the video above you can also see those walls of inferno (not closeup though) shooting out of one of the towers at one point. People were jumping because it was an inferno--by any standard. That inferno eventually melted the internal steel supports.

Something is terribly wrong. Maybe the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists put forward is off base, but one fact stands out in my mind -- something is very wrong with the official explanation.

Fine. But make SOLID irrefutable arguments and avoid repeating debunked arguments. A list of 20 false arguments will mask and weaken ONE true argument, and ONE true argument is all that is needed. This nonsense that we should not see black smoke, or that the standards by which these buildings should fail/succeed should not take into account the fact that jetliners struck them, or that bldg 7 might not have been taken down due to falling debris, or that it is impossible for these trained terrorist to aim at and hit the towers, is just what it is--nonsense.

This is the same stuff as with the JFK investigation. We will hear, despite the fact that a large percentage of the population disbelieves the official story

And many millions of people believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

BTW, I believe we don't know the full truth about JFK. The reason is because it happened in Texas whilst a Texan was Vice President. BushSr was a CIA member at the time and is linked to certain people (e.g. Hunt) who are linked to the JFK situation. BushSr denies being a CIA member at that time, though I believe he was. Bush Sr was also the Vice President when Reagan was shot. Moral of the story? NEVER SELECT A TEXAN TO BE YOUR VICE PRESIDENT

Good Job Jeff, the principal reason that I do not accept the "official" story is that there are still too many unanswered questions...and ones that the 911 commission panel (more aptly named the 911 omission panel ) failed to address. If this administration was not actively involved in this atrocity, they certainly were in a passive sense, in that it was allowed to happen or by their negligence and incompetence they failed to stop it.

Now, I do accept personally that some believe the "Official" story, but I also think the majority of people fall along the spectrum of passive to active involvement of the admin in their disbelief of the "official " story.

OOPS

Sunshine and DWB04,

I'm not really a "tin foil hat" type, but I am a lifelong skeptic. I demand proof, and when I see something explained in a way that does not compute, I want to dig a little further.

I highly recommend two books:

"Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/086571540...glance&n=283155

"1000 "ears for Revenge" by Peter Lance

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/086571540...glance&n=283155

If nothing else, click on the links and read the reviews. They are amazing. Lance tends to focus on FBI f*ckups, but Ruppert concentrates on the actual attacks of 9/11, how Cheney was running multiple war games, sending our jets to the northern Minnesota border, while at the same time injecting bogus targets into NORADs radar screens. NORAD had no idea where to send the few planes they had at their disposal.


We all know the neo-cons have been itching for a "Pearl Harbor Event" so they could invade Iraq (read my other posts on the petroeuro).

There are SO MANY things wrong with the "official" story on 9/11. So many things that just don't add up right. They defy science and engineering.

I don't believe them.

I have my own theories, many of which I have posted, but I definitely do not believe the crap that has been offered as the truth.

Some thoughts on this issue:

First if we take a look at the initial response by this administration to try and quash an investigation into the 911 tragedy we have to ask ourselves why?

A: Any of the reasons discussed above could have precluded them from wanting an investigation, and that could range from their possible sheer negligence or allowance of the event (not wanting to be held responsible), to an orchestration of the event (the most horrific reason).

a defense such as "the material is classified information" or "executive priviledge "is no defense in terms of such a horrendous event. American families deserved answers to their loved ones deaths.

2.One also has to ask oneself, if they had no culpability at all why would they attempt to obsfucate an investigation, fail to provide important evidence, not subject the "crime scene" to immediate investigation, remove important evidence from the WTC site and elsewhere, and scrap the remains of the WTC buildings to China without evaluating important structural evidence of the supposed collapse?


3.We also have to then ask ourselves, Would an American administration be capable of entertaining a home grown terrorist act?

A: Well, we all know some answers to that. We know that there is a reason to suspect, although it is perhaps still debatable, that President Roosevelt allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor in WWII in order to influence an isolationist American public, and therefore be able to enter the war.

We also have quite recently learned of Project Northwoods, the CIA initiative that would have killed innocent Americans amongst other horrors that was in the end flatly denounced by the Kennedy WH.

There is also ample evidence that CIA operatives have killed Americans in some of their clandestine operations in foreign countries in order to bring about some sort of politically desired result. And that is in addition to training death squads worldwide to provide for the political interests of various administrations.

We also know about the PNAC plan designed by the same "men" currently and formerly occupying bush administration positions.


So, I could quite easily think that yes, they are not only capable of entertaining such a thought, but they have in fact acted on them in some cases. It is not beyond the pale to broach the thought of a government killing their own people. Our government certainly holds no moral superiority over that of any others even if we may convince ourselves that WE are not like that.



4. That leads me to the question of: Were they willing to orchestrate such an event? And what would be their motivation for doing so? This is where it gets fuzzier and we find ourselves able to come up with some plausible or reasonable rationales, but not always with the surety required or a more complete answer.


I think that's why there is reason to have some (or quite a bit of) reasonable doubt as to the efficacy of the "Official" story......certainly even if one only looks to the deceitful and secretive machinations of this administration on almost any of their projects we can see a predictable pattern.

"There are SO MANY things wrong with the "official" story on 9/11. So many things that just don't add up right. They defy science and engineering."

I have yet to see ONE issue brought up anywhere in which proof has been offered to show it defies science and engineering. I challenge someone to pick ONE issue that does so and offer the proof.

BTW, I have to reveal something about myself no one here knows.... I didn't want to do this, but you all leave me no choice.....

How do I begin?

Well, you may know that our scientists are just beginning to realize that an infinite number of alternate realities exist. What they don't realize is that in a large number of those alternate realities, scientists have discovered how to travel BETWEEN such realities. Well, as it turns out, I am not from THIS reality. I am what is known in MY HOME REALITY as a dimensional historian. Yes, due to technological advancements in MY REALITY, I travel between dimensional realities to document the historical differences between highly similar realities. I work for a firm known as Barnes&Siegel (a large bookstore and publishing company) to help write a best-selling series of dimensional history novels.

At first glance, both our realities seem identicle. However, there are some important differences in MY REALITY, for example, it turns out that George W. Bush is a janitor at the Robert E. Lee Jt High School in Waco, Texas and earns $18,000 per year and is despised by all the students and faculty there. Turns out he was disowned by BushSr for losing so much money on his oil business and sent packing. (unfortunately, Jeb Bush is the FL governor in my reality too, and he is forced to send money to his brother every so often for booze)

But wait. There is more to my story.

It also turns out that in my reality, the 22nd Amendment, which as YOU know it creates Presidential term limits, was never created, and Bill Clinton was reelected in 2000 and 2004. (Al Gore switched parties in 2000 and ran against Clinton as a Republican, but lost in a landslide because of voter sympathy for Clinton because of his failed and unfair impeachment and because Hillary ran away and hooked up with a hot lesbian in Chicago during the impeachment) (Monica is now the first lady in my reality)

Anyway, you may be interested to know that 911 happened in MY REALITY too, and now the conspiracy theorists in the Republcian party (led by Al Gore) are claiming Clinton planned 911 to ensure that he would get re-elected in 2004 because of security fears of changing horses in mid-stream. Oh I forgot. Clinton did NOT invade Iraq in my reality, but he didn't invade Afghanistan after 911 either, and now Al Qaeda has taken over Pakistan and Saudie Arabia and are threatening to shut off the oil flow to the west even as they rattle the nuclear sabre at India and Israel and the US.

Obviously this is relevant to this thread today, because many things are reversed in my reality. In my world, the Republicans are the ones screaming that no skyscraper in history has ever collapsed due to a fire, and it is the Democrat liberals who keep insisting that you MUST consider that no two skyscrapers had ever before been hit by fully loaded jet liners. Indeed, in some perverse cosmological twist of fate, the Republicans and Democrats in OUR realities seem to be saying the exact opposite things regarding the facts and lore behind 911 than they are saying here.

Go figure!

I certainly feel that Bush (not the janitor one) is capable of planning a 911 event. However, I don't think he did it. At least base on the evidence.

The simple explanation about why he is interested in covering up 911 facts is that perhaps, first, he doesn't want his incompetence to be revealed, and second, there may indeed be some of his Arab friends who are indeed implicated in the attacks and he thus wants to protect them because they are huge investors in the Bush family businesses.

notice, when you get too close to the truth, you make a joke of it.

Sunshine, the joke is on you. You believe the garbage Bush spews.

Noonan-I am only going by your posts about Bayh. You back someone who will bring the draft back in a split second, someone who is pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-bloodshed, those are things this guy backs.
I thought you were for Feingold. One cannot be on the side of both opposites at the same time.

Call me names, but it is not either denying or agreeing with my writing.

If one is anti-war, you cannot vote for someone who is pro-war, and going to run as an on the right person away from the others. Just doesn't make sense.
No conspiracy there.

Yes, I think I included those reasons above except for for the Arab affiliation with bush.......which is a posible factor to also include




I also think bush is too stupid to have orchestrated this....but he would still be responsible.......and he certainly could have known about it, if we accept that scenario.

"Sunshine, the joke is on you. You believe the garbage Bush spews."

Graham, now THAT is funneeee!

But Bush41, James slippery slope Baker and Dick Cheney are NOT too stupid.

And Bush's stupidity is just an act. Sure wish the dem's got rid of that mantra, it only hurt the dems to this day that they didn't. Saying Bush is stupid plays right in their hands.

I know this thread is about the imploding/exploding/plane/bomb question and I don't have 2 cents to add to that. So---off topic a little.

I do think that it is at least plausible that there was collusion among Bush/Cheney operatives to help them. In fact, I find it harder to believe there wasnt. They had motive--It got Bush his "war-time president" credentials that he so prized and it got them the momentum to get their war in Iraq.

Yep, I think it would have been the architects of PNAC and collusion with certain people in Intelligence

But he is stupid G4....I think the homespun downhome stuff is an act, I think the cowboy stuff is an act....but I think he's told what to say and do.....remember those Yale grades and business failures...?




And there are guys behind cheney too.......

Byah? Where do you come to the conclusion I support him? I'd love to see it because I've never even insinuated that.

I support threads staying on topic and people answering reasonable questions posed in a civil way. If that makes me a "Bayh Backer" in your eyes, I guess I am. I wanted PP's questions answered in a concise way, I could have answered them about Feingold, but that wasn't the place for it, so I didn't. Since no one has sent me a PM, I guess no one has, and you are still debating who knows what in that thread.

I'm still waiting (like Sunshine) for someone to add something new to this thread, something that we haven't discussed before, which is why it was originally started.

OK. Sorry if I misunderstood. Long as you aren't a backer. Sometimes it gets confusing.

As for this thread- I once suggested we be allowed to keep a 9-11 thread going with theories and all, and have it pinned.

As there are always new threads, and new people looking in, the same things get repeated that maybe sunshine didnot read about.

I think jeffmoskin has put the links and items needed for those that believe there was a cover-up can believe it.
Those that don't, don't.
Which is why they are called theories, until Watergate was proven, it was a conspiracy. Same with other past events.
One day they will show the 2000 election and 2004 were stolen, then it will be fact.

But if a liar lies, then anything the liar says has to be looked at as a lie. And Bush lied and admitted it on Iraq, therefore he is a liar.

Richard Clarke, head of CIA, stated that Bush asked him for an Iraq War Plan 10 days after he had "taken office" (I use that term literally)

And, in my eyes, those that back Bayh are perfectly correct in doing so. That's why the Democratic Party has been a 'big tent' for so many years.

More admittedly off topic--- I cant think of more to say about the Twin Towers crash, but I agree with Graham.

The Yale grades came at a time when a lot of people were goofing off in college and there were few consequences to doing badly. The business failures are probably because he didn't care. I think he is smart in one thing that he does know about which is getting elected. I think he paid some attention in his Harvard Business School because I have seen his attitude about how he is running the country there---meaning suck it dry and if people die it's just business.

I think he is a little wet-brained but that is not dumb per se. People function in executive positions wet - brained all the time with their native cunning intact.

well I suppose you could consider cunning a form of intelligence but I'll stand by my perception of him

Karl Rove got him elected.....

I have a more difficult time thinking of him as evil if I think of him as stupid.

Thanks for your replies, folks. It has been most illuminating.

whatever works Brookie! How's cunning and evil sound? that way he can at least be quasi-intelligent......

( I have a harder time with the intelligent thingy...but I'll acquiesce just for you)

More may come out some day who knows?

Okay -- so I'm supposed to believe that 9/11 conspiracies are bogus, but that you are from another dimension. Great.

Prove it, Sunshine.

BTW -- you still didn't explain how the third building fell straight down into its own footprint. I could argue with you all day about the jetliner struck buildings, but as I said in my original post, it would be a great waste of time.

But one last point -- you say the structural engineers already knew how the towers collapsed, so they didn't have to investigate the steel. How convenient. The same way the Warren Commission already knew what happened during the JFK killing, so they didn't have to investigate much of anything either.

You want to know the truth to those unanswered questions, just keep going to:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/

The rest is mere publicity stunt to save Bush and his warmongering NeoCons' butts!

I can't resist taking another poke at this. Many years ago, a friend and I were camping in Yosemite. We were staying in the Sunnyside walk in campground, near the bottom of Yosemite Falls (roughly).

Anyway, we met this guy with long grey hair and a big grey beard, which was quite striking because he was still relatively young (maybe early 30's). He told us how he was from another dimension making movies of Earth. He started with this story, but said he needed some peppermint schnapps to continue. So we bought him the schnapps.

He said that whatever he looked at with his eyes was beamed up to the mother ship and recorded in their "film" footage, and he was being directed to visit different places on the planet and look at things. (I'm not sure why you would need a mother ship if you were from another dimension...). Anyway, he actually didn't have too much to add past that, except that he sure did enjoy the schnapps.

A few days later we had just woken up, and this same guy comes running through our campsite -- "Hey guys! Nice to see you. Can't talk now, gotta run..." He never broke stride while greeting us. About 30 yards behind him was this yuppie camper type guy, running too, shouting "stop that man! He's insane! I know, because I'm a lawyer!" We sort of blocked the lawyer's path and made him stop. "He's harmless" I said. "Why are you chasing him?"

The lawyer said "Yesterday we were in Yosemite village buying lunch, and that guy got a big sandwich, and instead of paying, he just took off running with the sandwich, and he shouted 'I'm Jesus, and Jesus doesn't have to pay for his food!' "

"Well" I said "maybe he is ... you never know"... The lawyer guy said "but he's nuts! He might hurt someone!" And I said "no, he's harmless... he's just here taking movies. I know. I talked with him a few days ago."

Well, I was going to make a Uranus joke, but it would probably get deleted...