Transferring the Political Debate to the B&Grill

[Cornuck]

At least ten thousand people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have
worked. And more than five years later, not one of them has talked.

Now where did that number come from?

There's a book called 'The New Pearl Harbor' that raises enough questions to make the 'accepted' theory less solid. There are precedents in history for rewriting history as it happens (Lavon Affair, Gulf of Tonkin Incident and other False Flag operations.

Personally, I think that some organization other than the 'guys with boxcutters' made this happen. Most of the alleged terrorists are known by their passports - most of which were forged/stolen (something Mossad is known for).

Of all the theories, I think that the idea of the planes being remote controlled is most viable. A few mechanics modify the planes and a few people to carry out the operation. Explosives would explain the freefall of 3 steel towers - especially WTC7.

Of course, the question is asked, "Who benefited most?" Those that are in favour of war in the mid-east. There's far too much money to be made in war and with the fall of communism, something needed to fill the void - thus "endless war" where victory cannot be defined and the goals continue to change.

Remember, the 9-11 commission was only about intelligence failures - so a full inquiry (other than the FBI investigation) wasn't done. We'll never know the answers, just like JFK and other points in history.

[Badfish]

Ultimately, I think "each to their own". Some people refuse to believe that the US intelligence services (CIA, NSA and FBI) couldn't put the pieces together in time (or even pick up the phone and talk with one another), and the bits they did know about (possibility of terrorists targeting domestic airlines and using them as weapons) weren't believed or seriously considered by an inept Bush administration.

And it was a total coincidence that they just happened to be doing war-game exercises of a plane hitting the pentagon at the same time as it happened in reality? I agree, to each there own. I do not believe the reasons presented, and there are just too many indescrepancies to go into here. How about the free-fall of all 3 towers? How about the molten steel at the bottom of the wreckage? How about the fact that they're the only 3 skyscrappers in history to collapse due to fire? How about the lack of evidence surrounding the pentagon wreckage? How about all the criticism of the Pop-Sci article? How about the put-options on the target airlines BEFORE the attack took place?

As for punks getting thier ass handed to them, I watched your youtube videos and he sure doesn't get his ass handed to him, he raises a ton of points, none of which are disputed very well, imo.

I'm not sure how many debates you've watched or been a part of. But sneering, laughing, and calling someone a "liar" without adding any shred of evidence, while your opposition takes apart nearly every one of your points with evidence provided by research done by experts in the field, generally means you lose.

I've been a part of a good many, and I realize that perhaps they were overly emotional but it's because they are up against a massive machine of lies, imo. But yes, they were a little testy with the Pop. Mech guys. However, attitude aside they repeatedly brought up very key points of contention that were either brushed aside or side-stepped by the pop-mech guys, who really didn't dis-prove even half of the objections brought up. If you watch parts 1 thru 5 this can be seen. I've no time right now to go back and pick examples at the moment, (tho I will later if need be) but several times the main issues brought up by the two "punks" are just not addressed by the pop-mech guys. Granted, there wasn't always time to continue the debate, but in answering claims they would often skirt the real issue and play the "crazy paranoid conspirators" card, a low blow imo.

**Edit** One that springs to mind is the discussion of the firemen in the tower min before the collapse saying they could put the fire out with 2 hand lines. They believed they could put it out fairly easily, and then boom complete collapse. This issue is totally side-stepped by the Pop-mech guys on 2 occasions. If the temps were hot enough to weaken the structure of the building (far above 1000 degrees) how were firemen there battling the flames min. before collapse? (If we want to continue I'll go through the vids with a tooth and comb but this goes in to my point at the bottom about divisiveness)

Also, these two "young punks" should be freakin heros for having the guts to stand up to the amount of pressure and scrutiny they're put under, for no other reason than to expose what they believe to be the truth. Believe what they argue or not, at least given them credit for having the guts and the will to stand up for what they believe in in the face of great opposition. I wish more "old farts" would do the same, personally.

I love a good Gwynne Dyer piece, it's a highly thoughtful read, he makes too much common sense of things sometimes:

I don't think that Tenet,
Rice, Powell et al. would have deliberately plotted the deaths of thousands
of Americans. I don't believe even Dick Cheney would have done that.

Scary thing is, I do. You know that he's a chairman of Halliburton right? And thats just scratching the surface, dig deeper and you get the real dirt. The guy is scary.

At least
ten thousand people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have
worked. And more than five years later, not one of them has talked.

Nobody has got drunk and spilled their guts. Nobody has told their
spouse, who then blabbed. Not one of these ten thousand accomplices to
mass murder has yielded to the temptation for instant fame and great wealth
if only they blow the whistle on the greatest conspiracy in history. Even
the Mafia code of silence is nothing compared to this.

I also have to point to the Manhatten Project as evidence that yes, this is possible. How about Kennedy, you think it was really Lee Harvey Oswald on his own that picked him off with two or more shots? It can be done, and has happened countless time throughout history. A GREAT read on this is The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. and when you look at what has happened since the war, and start to put the two together, it becomes even more clear. Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan, no invasion of Iraq, no Patriot Act, and the list goes on. Thats only in the states, I'll leave Europe out of it for now.


Again, I'm not saying I know the truth, I'm only saying that we DON't know the truth, and there is something they are hiding. If they wanted to prove once and for all that a plane hit the pentagon, show us the security footage taken from surrounding hotels that had a direct view of the crash. Put it to rest with 100% certainty. But they don't, they run smokescreens and dis-information, blasting it over any and all media they can. Meanwhile regular people with suspicions have no voice other then "young punks" trying to fill the void left by the corporate media.

It makes me think of a quote from those previous articles I linked,

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

The weird thing is I find both the truthers and the media choir boys to be equally annoying. Neither of them seems to address the core issues in this controversy. The fact is the original official story is actually a conspiracy theory if you think about it and wasn't backed up with any evidence. Instead faces & names were flashed all over network television and print media.

[/quote]

I fully agree with this. What I find troubling is how this is so divisive, and people on either side are not willing to grant the other side anything. Maybe it wasn't 100% an inside job involving tens of thousands of people. But maybe they weren't blissfully 100% unaware either. Maybe we both have bits of it right.

As much as it might not seem so after these posts, I'm not 100% sold on the Loose Change story either, but they do bring up a host of interesting points that deserve valid, fair, unbiased consideration of very important issues and discrepancies of one of the most important, world-changing events of our time. What is usually the retort is condescending, "crazy conspiracy theorist" type remarks without taking a hard look at the claims. That hasn't been done, and I'm sorry but an article in a magazine that is a right-wing conservative-owned "cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operations", by the cousin of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security just doesn't cut it. Also as Clam says, a full inquiry has never been done, now almost a decade after the fact. Well why the hell not? I can think of no valid reason as to why it should take 10 years. But hey, convince me otherwise

[Island Nucklehead]

At least ten thousand people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have
worked. And more than five years later, not one of them has talked.

Now where did that number come from?

From the article I quoted. Basically put, if the government did plan for these hijackers to hit these buildings with domestic airliners (as has been proven by flight data/voice recordings), as well as plant explosives in the buildings themselves (as claimed), as well as hide information leading to the attacks (which is proven by intelligence suggesting terrorists using domestic aircraft as weapons), there would have to be intelligence analysts, FAA personel, victims families, pers. within the administration, public bureaucrats, US Air Force personnel and others in on the attack. It's like saying Pearl Harbour was an inside job by the US Military planning with the Japanese to attack their own base to get them into the war against Germany. The lighter side of the 9/11 attacks, the slightly more believable, has the administration knowing about the attacks and allowing them to occur (much more believable, imo). Tiger Woods, billionaire athlete, couldn't hide his mistresses from his own wife. Yet the BUSH administration, in all their diabolical genius, could somehow parlay thousands of Americans into thinking that attacking themselves was the best way to get into Afghanistan (for what?), and after considerable public/universal scrutiny, Iraq? OK.

Like I said, call me a sheep if you want. I just find it somewhat sad that people (especially in the US) can't accept the fact that their government failed them. They couldn't discover this attack before it occurred, and it happened. Some people seem to feel the best way to deal with this is that the government is obviously responsible. And that goes with the USA=#1 mentality, because WHO ELSE could possibly make something like this happen, other than the most powerful country on earth?? This doesn't happen to anyone, unless we're the ones doing it!


Badfish, as far as the firemen go. How many floors we're immersed in fire? The emergency water supply system in the towers was completely compromised by the impact. People reported water rushing down stairwells, because of severed water piping. Nobody disputes what the firefighters are reporting that day. These guys rushed into a burning building and did what they were trained to do. The problem is, when you're fighting multiple stories of intense fires, you're going to need more than 2 lines to put them out. One look at the video before the collapse, and it's pretty apparent those fires aren't going out with 2 hand lines.

Finally, I'll end things on a (somewhat dark) comical note. IF the US government is responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. Why on God's green earth would they allow these "kids" to heroically tell the true story of the motives behind the self-attack? Really. IF Bush's government was that clever (these guys couldn't get a helicopter to the Superdome- Bill Maher) and cunning, wouldn't they have snuffed these guys (much like the folks that warned them of potential attacks via domestic airliners) immediately upon seeing such truthful theories emerge?

You don't really think they're as incompetent as they come off do you?

This is Bush II, and not Roosevelt, we're talking about here, right?

[ClamRussel]

You don't really think they're as incompetent as they come off do you?

This is Bush II, and not Roosevelt, we're talking about here, right?

His administration

[Badfish]

Still not even touching half of the problems with the story. And again, Manhatten Project. The point about the firemen is that they were inside the building, radioing down saying the fire could be controlled, they were confident they could get it under control. Within min both towers collapsed. And again, explain the freefall?

I'm willing to grant that it might not have been an evil plot hatched years in advance. I'm not convinced, but I'll grant that for now. But before I can believe what you're telling me, I need more proof, of which there is amazingly little for such a massive event. Another odd coincidence that pops up is how the wreckage was immediately taken away and melted down for scrap before a full investigation was ever under way, effectively removing the crime scene. Why? Why melt it down right away? wouldn't wreckage from one of the greatest architectural collapses be valuable in understanding how and why? On top of the lack of evidence, there are so many discrepancies that point to the contrary. As has been said, this has not been seriously investigated, and a biased magazine article doesn't cut it. Why are we still in the dark about this? Why not release the camera footage? Put the question to rest? A pancake effect would not create an absolute freefall in 3 separate buildings in a short time frame. Just too many unanswered questions.

Many of the points I've brought up haven't been answered. This is what is so troubling, is there ARE so many discrepancies. Your main reasoning for arguing against the many "conspiracy theories" is that there's no way they'd be able to keep it under wraps. I can see your logic, and agree it would be an amazing feat but IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE throughout history, and no I don't believe Bush and his cronies were that inept. I don't believe they were just completely caught off guard by the attacks, and then just happened to exploit the situation by passing laws and starting wars(2+!). Too much of a coincidence, combined with the gaping holes in the official story and the unfathomable amount of money that has been made by the high-ups on the "War On Terror" for me to buy that at face value. Haliburton made billions upon billions from the war, who's a chairman? Oh right, Cheney. Thats one example, and is not even going into the whole Oil situation...

But to each their own I guess. You haven't convinced me, and apparently I haven't convinced you either. Do you not at least agree though that there should be a serious investigation into what took place, why, and who was involved?

You really believe, after all of this that it's as cut-and-dry as the official story? That this was all hatched by some dudes in a cave who used boxcutters to take over 3 planes and use them as weapons, and all that followed was mere coincidence? I wish I could, I'd sleep better at night but it doesn't add up to me. I think at the very least, the US had knowledge and made plans to exploit the situation. But hey, convince me!

[ClamRussel]

Many of the points I've brought up haven't been answered.

There's a book by Barry Zwicker (Towers of Deception) on the media's role in all this. He does't argue that they are "in on it" in terms of a conspiracy but rather they are guilty of not answering questions and investigating the oddities. The media in our modern era relies heavily on the Associated Press and Reuters for its non-local stories. There's also the group peer pressure angle and no one wants to be turned into a pariah. If you're in the industry, you won't be told what to write but you soon learn what stories could be career suicide. Considering all that, now factor in the influence media has on public opinion.

[Island Nucklehead]

You really believe, after all of this that it's as cut-and-dry as the official story? That this was all hatched by some dudes in a cave who used boxcutters to take over 3 planes and use them as weapons, and all that followed was mere coincidence? I wish I could, I'd sleep better at night but it doesn't add up to me. I think at the very least, the US had knowledge and made plans to exploit the situation. But hey, convince me!

I haven't read the 9/11 Commission report. And from what I understand it's not very good.

I do believe that this was a terrorist attack in response to American policies in the Middle East. And obviously Bin Laden and co. got exactly what they wanted as a response (ie 2 wars).

Again, simplifying the attackers... Mohammed Atta was educated at Cairo University and then a technical school in Germany. Hani Hanjour briefly studied at the University of Arizona in the early 90's. Majed Moqed was a law student. Ziad Jarrah studied Aerospace Engineering in Hamburg... surely a bunch of cave-painting dirt merchants.

I guess the grey are is always the question: "who knew what when?" We know Bush and co. were warned that there was a possibility terrorists were planning to hijack airliners, and there was a possibility that they be used as weapons. For me, this is the only real conspiracy theory worth considering. Again, it's almost unfathomable that in the information age, thousands of people could be convinced that plotting, or allowing, the deaths of nearly 3,000 American people could be a good thing for the country (a big difference from the Manhatten project).

[ClamRussel]

For one thing, thousands wouldn't have to know - thats a red herring. The point of the Manhattan project is that its purpose was to kill far greater numbers than any terrorist attack and yet that was kept secret. Secondly, here's a point worth looking into. The CIA connections to the ISI and Pakistan's (ally to the west) role in this whole mess. To find out who is responsible for funding this event, follow the money as they say.

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official, told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohamed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars—believed to be excess funds from the operation—back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this.

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."
More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed resigned from his position. It was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta.

The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought General Mahmud Ahmed's removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of General Mahmud." Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Mahmud Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the terrorists who flew a hijacked Boeing commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. General Mahmud Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."

U.S. investigators later said that this was a confusion with Mustafa al-Hawsawi, also known as Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, who is currently held in Guantanamo Bay.

The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that there "are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."

Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.

[the toucan kid]

So Badfish is a truther and he believes in a second-shooter for the Kennedy assassination. Good to know where some of these hockey posts are coming from

[nucklehead_88]

So Badfish is a truther and he believes in a second-shooter for the Kennedy assassination. Good to know where some of these hockey posts are coming from

i was the second shooter on the grassy knoll

[Robert]

For one thing, thousands wouldn't have to know - thats a red herring.

That is a fact clam, a red herring. Same as the "did a plane hit the pentagon" and the melting point of steel. I know that Ruppert detailed how they pulled this off without thousands knowing.. the key here was scheduling this during a massive war games... actually no one knows what's going on, and then it's too late.

Island above you mentioned Pearl harbour, well you know that that was known about also. This has been a trick used for centuries to instill the populace with hate and reason for war.

[Robert]

Pretty damming stuff they knew what what coming:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _rice.html

Crazy reading all these old articles again.. no one really seems to care.

[Island Nucklehead]

For one thing, thousands wouldn't have to know - thats a red herring. The point of the Manhattan project is that its purpose was to kill far greater numbers than any terrorist attack and yet that was kept secret. Secondly, here's a point worth looking into. The CIA connections to the ISI and Pakistan's (ally to the west) role in this whole mess. To find out who is responsible for funding this event, follow the money as they say.

Thousands WOULD have to know. You would have to have a host of people keep quiet about planting explosives in the twin towers, the fact that you know/used the hijackers, intelligence folks that planned or knew about your plot (multinational at that), FAA people monitoring your aircraft, NORAD (including Canadians) ignoring your planned hijacking.... it just doesn't make sense. You want to go to Iraq? WMD's are there! It worked post-9/11... You don't really need a reason to go to Afghanistan, there's nothing there. (Pipeline...right... we want to build a pipeline in the NWT..... we should invade Canada's arctic!)

Tough assignment. Relationships between the CIA and the ISI go back generations. We (America) paid Bin Laden to bring down the Russians. We(America) gave the ISI stinger missiles to pass on to Afghan guerillas.

The US walks a tightrope. They ally themselves with a country like Israel (GO NEW YORK JEWS!), yet depend on countries like Saudi Arabia (GO FORD EXPEDITION). And you wonder why a bunch of Saudi's are pissed at this??

[Badfish]

You want to go to Iraq? WMD's are there! It worked post-9/11... You don't really need a reason to go to Afghanistan, there's nothing there. (Pipeline...right... we want to build a pipeline in the NWT..... we should invade Canada's arctic!)

You think the general public would have been in favour of going into either Iraq OR Afghanistan pre-9/11? No, they would need a reason, something to rally around, an enemy to be fought. Even a convenient lie... like WMD, but would that really be enough to justify the occupation and ousting of Saddam on accusations of WMDs alone, pre-9/11? No, it would have to be something that would justify the faceless carpet bombing of a country, dropping 2 tonne "bunker busters" on people. Something catalyzing the entire country, something they could use to get the country whipped into a patriotic frenzy. hmmm....

You can't deny the US had a massive interest in Iraqi oil (well documented) irregardless of 9/11 and WMDs, and at very least used this tragedy to push through with their own agenda and the patriot act. Again, look throughout history, this has happened over and over. The Shock Doctrine is a great resource for this. Even if thats the only thing they're guilty of, it's still damn worth investigating, and we should all "give a damn" regardless. Yet people who want to talk about it are lumped in as "truthers" and crazy conspiracy theorists and brushed aside. It's totally ridiculous really, and I'm comforted at least in knowing that the tide does seem to be turning, if ever so slightly!

Richard - great article from FTW! It does seem amazing to me how easily this is all brushed aside by the general public.

[ClamRussel]

For one thing, thousands wouldn't have to know - thats a red herring. The point of the Manhattan project is that its purpose was to kill far greater numbers than any terrorist attack and yet that was kept secret. Secondly, here's a point worth looking into. The CIA connections to the ISI and Pakistan's (ally to the west) role in this whole mess. To find out who is responsible for funding this event, follow the money as they say.

Thousands WOULD have to know. You would have to have a host of people keep quiet about planting explosives in the twin towers, the fact that you know/used the hijackers, intelligence folks that planned or knew about your plot (multinational at that), FAA people monitoring your aircraft, NORAD (including Canadians) ignoring your planned hijacking.... it just doesn't make sense. You want to go to Iraq? WMD's are there! It worked post-9/11... You don't really need a reason to go to Afghanistan, there's nothing there. (Pipeline...right... we want to build a pipeline in the NWT..... we should invade Canada's arctic!)

Tough assignment. Relationships between the CIA and the ISI go back generations. We (America) paid Bin Laden to bring down the Russians. We(America) gave the ISI stinger missiles to pass on to Afghan guerillas.

The US walks a tightrope. They ally themselves with a country like Israel (GO NEW YORK JEWS!), yet depend on countries like Saudi Arabia (GO FORD EXPEDITION). And you wonder why a bunch of Saudi's are pissed at this??

You're totally correct about everything except for the thousands. Without sounding like a "truther" here just do a little research into what happened at NORAD that day to refer to one point you made. It was complete chaos and no one there seemed to know what was going on (re War Games). Was it just a coincidence that NORAD was conducting identical hijacked airliner simulations that same morning? This most certainly accounts for why NORAD didn't react appropriately and doesn't make the people there "involved" in any way that they'd "have to know." I'm not trying to say it was an "inside job" but the notion that "thousands" would have to be in on it is absurd.