9/11 in 33 Minutes: Determining the Official Story Cannot Be True

Seven years after 9/11, debate about who was involved in the attacks remains as contentious as ever. Despite Osama Bin Laden being popularly named as the prime suspect, the FBI to this day does not have him listed on their Most Wanted list for 9/11. By the [FBI's own admission][1], there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". So who was responsible? We still don't know, but evidence available does prove one thing: the official story cannot be true.To bring attention to this last year, a few friends and I organized a screening of the documentary "[Oil, Smoke, & Mirrors][2]" at Liberty Hall. The Films For Action screening brought in a crowd of over 250 people, and the response was comparatively enthusiastic. Like the film above, Oil, Smoke & Mirrors presents in factual and credible terms what the mainstream media has failed to deliver - a balanced and serious look into the other side of the story. In general that's the main purpose of the group, and of this blog - to bring attention to information that isn't covered by the [major news media][3].Granted, of all the issues Films For Action has covered over the last two years, 9/11 has certainly been one of the most [controversial][4]. To present information that implies that officials in our own government could be complicit in allowing or aiding the 9/11 attacks can certainly not be taken lightly. But with every issue the mainstream media has failed to adequately cover, we feel that it's important that people have access to the full spectrum of information on a given issue, not just the governments official take. The film above raises many important questions about what really happened on 9/11, presenting [evidence that contradicts the official narrative][5] in many ways. At the same time, in the span of 33 minutes, the film only hints at the vast body of evidence that has been accumulated on the subject. Doing hours of research on the issue ourselves, we've cataloged several of the [best films you can watch][6] on the Films For Action website, and many [articles and websites][7] where you can look into the issue further. Ultimately, we don't know what really happened that day. The 9/11 Commission doesn't give us any clearer answer. Over [one hundred professors][8] and [over fifty senior government officials][9] have been quoted raising serious questions about the integrity of the 9/11 Commission's official report. As compiled by [WantToKnow.info][9] - Senator Max Cleland, a former member of the 9/11 Commission, who resigned in December 2003 and who has been a U.S. Senator from Georgia from 1996 to 2002 is on the record saying: "If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."_Raymond L. McGovern is a former Chairman of the National Intelligence Estimates and was responsible for the President's Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is a 27-year CIA veteran, and former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Here is one of many statements he's made on the Commission: _ "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What's being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence? Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they're unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. This is the bottom line for me; just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me. That's certainly an impeachable offense."_Rep. Curt Weldon is a ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. He is the House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman and Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman. In a speech he gave to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005: "Intelligence officers ... identified [lead 9/11 hijacker] Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI, were denied, and the FBI Director has now said ... the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings. The 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story._I am a strong supporter of our military. I am a strong supporter of President Bush. I say all of that, Mr. Speaker, because ... there is something desperately wrong here. I have met with at least 10 people who fully corroborate what [intelligence officer] Tony Shaffer says. This is not [about] Republicans or Democrats. It is about what is fundamental to this country."

The list goes on. These are not "nut-job" conspiracy theorists. As Alan Miller writes on behalf of WantToKnow.info:"[These dedicated individuals][9] from across the political spectrum are not irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is not only reasonable and responsible, it is in fact a patriotic duty." _To get the truth, we must demand that a truly independent investigation of 9/11 be carried out with the power to subpoena and [bring criminal charges against those involved][10]. Then, we may finally get some real answers.


Postscript: A common argument is made that it would be impossible for a conspiracy of this complexity to be carried out without them messing up in some way and the truth getting out.What this argument ignores is the pivotal role that the mainstream media plays in the virtual blackout of all opposing views, including those from the government officials quoted above.The truth is, a great deal of information
has come out, and many government officials have spoken out. But the media that most Americans use to get informed simply hasn't reported on this.This happens for many reasons, obviously, but it's important to remember that the Mainstream Media's efforts to _pursue their own self-interest does not conflate the media as a "co-conspirator".The media do not report on this news, if not simply for the fact that they would be denounced, attacked, smeared, and ridiculed by people in precisely the same way that attackers commenting on this blog influence others not to "go there".Is this the climate we want to have in our public discourse, when so much is at stake? [1]: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623 [2]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/?Search=mirrors [3]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/?Subject=36 [4]: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html [5]: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg [6]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/?Subject=1 [7]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/links/?Subject=1 [8]: http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911 [9]: http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport [10]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/busharticles

Comments

13 years, 9 months ago

"You simply have to look at the options."That to me is the kicker. People use Abu Ghraib as an example of the kinds of things government does (and it does), but you know what? The truth gets out, in color photos, as soon as some person gets passed over for promotion, romantically rejected, or decides to write a book. As Machiavelli noted: "[T]he difficulties that conspirators have to face are infinite, and we know from experience that while there have been many conspiracies, few of them have succeeded."He who conspires cannot do so alone, nor can he take in as his companions any except those whom he believes to be discontented; but as soon as you impart your design to a discontented man, you also supply him with the means of removing his discontent - by betraying you. He can win for himself every advantage if he does so; so he sees on the one hand a certain gain, and on the other a doubtful and dangerous risk, so he must either be a close friend to you, or the mortal enemy of his Prince, if he keep your secret."

MyName 13 years, 9 months ago

Not to boost the PageRank of those stupid links you posted, but it's ridiculous that you and the articles in your "rebuttal links" are accusing the Popular Mechanics article of putting up "Straw Man" and "Red Herring" arguments. The Popular Mechanics article was addressing as many of the dozen or so conspiracy nut job ideas as it could. Just because the article is not tailor made to respond to the particular twisted vision of the events that you subscribe to, doesn't make your side more credible or the Popular Mechanic article less accurate.And 9/11 is "politically convenient" because it is one of the few clear cut, black and white moments in history. No one out there can say "why don't we look at the terrorists point of view here", just like no one can "let's look at it from the Nazis point of view" with regards to the Holocaust, or "let's just try and see it from Stalin's perspective" with regards to the Gulags. There's no middle ground here, and that's why it's easy to use in a speech.And no one out there, Popular Mechanics included, needs to go point by point to dispute any of these theories. You simply have to look at the options. Either the events happened pretty much exactly as the reporters, the 9/11 commission, and the government says, or there's a large group made up of thousands of civilian, government and military agents who are completely loyal, willing to do any job (no matter how dirty) and have managed to lie and cover their tracks for 7 years without one defector.Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

April Fleming 13 years, 9 months ago

Matt Taibbi has some great stories about Truther meetings he attended in 'The Great Derangement'. The people couldn't even agree when to hold a movie night, but did all agree that we need an entirely new system of media. Joel, you and your "science".

Joel 13 years, 9 months ago

Bullshit.Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.No, I'm not going to try to counter your 9/11 conspiracy-mongering with reasoned discussion -- other people have done a better takedown than I can of this stuff. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html Because reasoned discussion is impossible; the truthers will never be dissuaded, no matter the weight of evidence against them.Yes, the Bush Administration used 9/11 in a way that infringed on the liberties of Americans and to justify a stupid invasion of Iraq. No doubt about it. But just because they seized the opportunity doesn't mean they created it; the reality is bad enough without trying to make it worse than it really is.I love the people at Lawrence.com. But I'm embarrassed this is appearing here. What's next? Holocaust deniers? It's all legitimate debate, right?

Keith Campbell 13 years, 9 months ago

I ditto Joel. I could add more but I know it would be pointless.

13 years, 9 months ago

"working at the level of gov't you describe and the level of gov't associated with managing the response to the worst terrorist attack on the nation are...apples and oranges"No offense taken and you would be exactly correct except for one thing: people are people. The stakes are higher in Washington, but people are people. People in Washington come from places like Topeka, they come from places like Searchlight, Nevada, and Wasila, Alaska, and they do not trade in their personal passions, their thin skin, their love of petty vengeance and one-upsmanship and office politics when they get to Washington. They develop it into a fine art.There are three things they lie about: body counts, economic statistics, and things that are embarrassing to themselves or their bosses. Just as you can be sure the government's stories about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were designed to make the bureau telling them good rather than incompetent, you can believe the same about economic statistics. In fact, you would be closer to the truth to double bad numbers and halve good ones. They are lies, and depressingly predictable and oft-repeated ones. There are always questions, sometimes because the lies don't add up, but mostly because contrary to some people's ideas, governments don't know everything. Thank God they know damned little.But but but it is such a distance from "The government is lying about embarrassing aspects of x" to "the government pulled off x in secret" that I don't even have words for it. Therefore I have nothing else to say about it.

matt 13 years, 9 months ago

Hey, what do you think is going to happen next season on LOST? That island shit is crazy!

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

I am trying to get it. Propagandists use "conspiracy theory" to discredit conspiracy theories or is it conspiracy theorists who use "propaganda" to describe any thought misaligned with their conspiracy theory? Propaganda is the promotion of an idea that is opposed to your own. That's the way I use it, anyway.Take three of the popular wells of financial opportunity for conspiracy theorists, and there is, in fact, a common thread.1) The questions raised about the Kennedy assassination comprise legitimate concerns about procedural anomalies. Hinds sight being 20/20, it's been a gold mine for the whores who have made their living off this poor bastards pink mist.DOTDOT says: Neither the Dallas police department, The Secret Service, the Federal Government, or the good folks at Parkland Hospital were prepared for assassination by sniper. People did the best they could making snap decisions under incredible duress. I remain curious as to the comparison between the supposed financial value of assassinating Kennedy and the monies made through the conspiracy theorists.2) I won't expand too much on 9/11, but suffice it to say that the well has barely been tapped. There are billions to be made in the coming years.DOTDOT says: Hindsight being 20/20, it's easy to see that the FBI had forewarning. Square that idea against the charges leveled involving our civil liberties. We were unprepared to respond to this type of attack. Why did it take so long to scramble the jets? Because it did. Period.3) Katrina offers a lot of lessons.DOTDOT says: Shrugging off the drama of a hurricane destroying an entire city as government or political incompetence is a defense mechanism against the simple reality that we don't know what is going to happen, and we can't be protected from every harm. Embracing mortality and celebrating the spirit of the citizens of New Orleans as they rebuild are where our focus should be as Ike bears down on Galveston and Houston.

13 years, 9 months ago

"You can't really think that there are things that any gov't can keep from its citizens...."I work for the government, in fact I have worked in law enforcement as the information officer of an elected official that many here have accused of conspiring*. So I know there are things government keeps from citizens. I also know what kinds of things they are.But I also know that there is no such thing as "government," except in the abstract. Government is people. People have motives. To keep a secret, there can't be one person who would have any motive to betray it. Not bloody likely in this case, IMO. I don't know with metaphysical certitude who killed Kennedy, but I haven't studied it. I don't know what Cortez did to his ships, either, though I have studied that for hundreds of hours, in dozens of sources. I have an opinion. I have odds. I also know there are questions that can never be answered. That's how history works.But questions are not evidence, they are questions. And they are very poor building blocks from which to build speculative castles.* with the creationalists on the KSBOE, most famously. Despite Captain Ramius' assertion that he burned them. I am certain he did not.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

It's funny, you should at least watch the first 2 minutes of the video I linked to, because it addresses the problem you illustrate in your post. In anycase, I've read the Popular Mechanics article, and in the spirit of good journalism, fairness, accountability, and all that, since both sides of an argument usually cannot be found in one single article these days, here is a fairly definitive rebuke of Popular Mechanic's "Straw Man" argument: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.htmlQuick point on the use of the term "conspiracy theory" to automatically dismiss any issue it's inconvenient to look at (while kindly using red herring statements associating legitimate questions with offensive "holocaust denier" claims:To allow propagandists who use the word "conspiracy" to make a topic taboo and off-limits only stunts our ability to use reason and research to pick apart the truth from the fiction. What if Bush and Cheney said that the 33 articles of impeachment (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/busharticles) that have been charged against them should be 'off-limits' because they represent outrageous conspiracy theories? What if the torture at Abu Grave was just a monstrous myth? Should we tolerate the journalists who seek to report and investigate the truth? Slander and lies! All conspiracy-mongering, as you say. You can see how politically convenient this tool has become. It's a propagandist's best friend. Tack it on to anything you don't want to talk about. Seriously, take a look at this list of senior government officials who have questions about 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission. http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreportYou would be remiss to consciously and deliberately refuse to look at this evidence yourself.

anotherbetterday 13 years, 9 months ago

The Project for a New American Century, a "think tank" formed in Washington D.C. as "a non-profit educational organization," includes amongst the signatories to it's Statement of Principles:Dick CheneyRichard ArmitageI. Lewis "Scooter" LibbyRichard PerleDonald RumsfeldPaul Wolfowitz In 2000, the PNAC released a report titled: "Rebuilding America's Defenses." From a section of the report titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" : " A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed toward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America.27s_Defenses

anotherbetterday 13 years, 9 months ago

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg War Trials

lazz 13 years, 9 months ago

BRAVO, JOEL.And LostBlend, MyName, El Borak, et al.And isn't there already plenty of bandwidth out there in Internetland for this reckless, tasteless 9/11 tribe to do its thing without adding this quiet, dusty little corner to their trough?

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

Devieh has been to the Rosie O'Donnell school of physics.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

A common argument is made that it would be impossible for a conspiracy of this complexity to be carried out without them messing up in some way and the truth getting out.What this argument ignores is the pivotal role that the mainstream media plays in the virtual blackout of all opposing views, including those from the government officials quoted above. The truth is, a great deal of information has come out, and many government officials have spoken out. But the media that you and most Americans go to to be informed simply hasn't reported on this.This happens for many reasons, obviously, but it's important to remember that the Mainstream Media's efforts to pursue their own self-interest does not conflate the media as a "co-conspirator". The media do not report on this news, if not simply for the fact that they would be denounced, attacked, smeared, and ridiculed by people in precisely the same way that attackers on this blog influence others not to "go there".Is this the climate we want to have in our public discourse, when so much is at stake?

anotherbetterday 13 years, 9 months ago

"Devieh has been to the Rosie O'Donnell school of physics."DOTDOT- Your stubborn refusal to do even cursory research on the topic is America's undoing. Devieh's statement is true--a proven fact. Get past your fear--due diligence is required here. 9/11 is a momentous event in our nation's history. It should be examined from every possible angle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movementhttp://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.phphttp://physics911.net/http://911scholars.org/

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

Calm down, people. No need to use bad words.

Bryan Anderson 13 years, 9 months ago

It's not possible that the government is behind 9/11 because, to put it simply, the government is terrible at keeping secrets. There is always somebody patriotic, ambitious, or greedy (especially the last two) who finds out. It is always to somebody's advantage to rat out anything bad going on in the government. They couldn't keep it secret that days after 9/11 the Bush administration was formulating plans to invade Iraq. Which gives us another reason that the government couldn't have been involved, they are just not that subtle. We are not living in some Alan Moore penned graphic novel about a future distopia, we are living in a country where the government was blatant enough to put the VP's former company was given huge no-bid contracts in Iraq. There are sinister things going on, but the people running the show obviously think the masses are oblivious, so why would they need to come up with a ridiculously convoluted plan?And, do you honestly believe that a Republican led government would conspire to blow up of a symbol of American world economic dominance? You would have to be an idiot to believe that Republicans would do anything to hurt big business. If the government was going to conspire to kill its own citizens, they certainly would not be conspiring against businessmen. They love those guys. They are those guys.And since Matt's ridiculously funny Lost comment has been ignored, I'll close with this: I'll believe that a smokey monster can kill the inhabitants of a strange island before I'll believe that the government was responsible for 9/11.

spinsparx 13 years, 9 months ago

I find it interesting that all these opinionated writers have decided to ignore the information. I'm afraid that the emotions have blinded people to the facts regarding this issue. Look at the information, don't be foolish. 9-11 was just one of many false flag operations that have been carried out and one of the most obvious, poorly covered up ones at that. The information is so overwhelmingly strong that one would have to be extremely childish to ignore them. Aside from the mountains of evidence that point to foul play, all anyone really has to do is just watch the towers getting pulled. It's laughable. Don't be retarded.

devieh 13 years, 9 months ago

No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11 besides towers 1, 2, and 7. Buildings have burned hotter and longer.Fact.

CarterFaucheaux 13 years, 9 months ago

Tim, you need to lay off the 'shrooms, bro.

measles 13 years, 9 months ago

"Is this the climate we want to have in our public discourse, when so much is at stake?"This is what's truly frightening to me, really: the fact that so many people can't even consider this a legitimate debate because it threatens the fragile sense of security that they get from our government. The point is: the official story has holes in it. Huge ones. The fact that the government isn't even willing to provide us a better explanation or be open to criticism of the report implies that they have a motive to discontinue the discourse on this subject.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

One more thing I should make clear - I have never said who I believed was involved in the attack. There are multiple possibilities, ranging from pure government incompetence, to individuals within the government knowing of the attacks and doing nothing to stop them, to those individuals in government participating - in some form - to ensure that the attack was successful.If you will look carefully, you will see that I never made the case for any of these possibilities. In fact I stated at least twice that we don't know what happened. The only point I have stressed repeatedly is the fact that the Official Story isn't true, or is not the whole truth. There are many question's left unanswered, and for the sake of all of those who've died, and for the sake of seeking justice against those responsible, and for the sake of knowing the truth about one of the most significant moments in recent history - we need a new independent investigation.I have not made a leap to any conclusions. I don't ask that anyone leap to any conclusions either. In fact, I think it's better if we refrain from coming to any conclusions until a new investigation has been carried out.My intentions have never been to persuade people to believe in one particular possibility or another. If we could simply agree that there is enough evidence to show that a new investigation is necessary to determine what really happened, I would be happy.

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

"Your stubborn refusal to do even cursory research on the topic is America's undoing."Actually I have spent umpteen or so hours on your truther pages in amazement. Thanks for the aging links. To be fair I have been searching searching searching for a nugget of coherent logic from a reliable source.Notice how Brigham Young disclaims the information. Notice how "911Scholars" becomes "Student Scholars for 911 Truth."You people are serious? Give me something besides fuckhead student physics. The undoing of America? Shit. if you wackos consider this half assed sensationalist bullshit "mountains of evidence" then America is already undone."I find it interesting that all these opinionated writers have decided to ignore the information." This has got to be the best sentence. I wished I wrote myself. It carries the some ironic device as my response to "Don't be retarded", which is this: watch your fucking mouth.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

Mr. A: You bring up two main points. Let me address these.First, the idea that it is impossible because someone would have talked and information would have come out - come out where? In the Mass Media, on ABC news? On CNN?The truth is, a great deal of news has come out, and many people in government have spoken up about this issue, or have attempted to but have been court-order gagged, such as was the case with Sibel Edmonds. If you are truly sincere about knowing the truth about the "smokey monster" please google "Able Danger". It is the story that 10 term Republican Congressmen Curt Weldon talks about it in his speech to the House of Representatives (quoted above in the blog). Here is an article excerpt about it:"National security whistle-blowers allege retaliationFebruary 16 , 2006, Sacramento Bee (leading newspaper of California's capital city)http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/3168792p-11877323c.htmlMilitary and intelligence officers told spellbound lawmakers Tuesday that their careers had been ruined by superiors because they refused to lie about Able Danger, Abu Ghraib and other national security controversies. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer...told a House Government Reform subcommittee that he and other intelligence officers and contractors working on the top-secret program code-named "Able Danger" had identified Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, but were prevented from passing their findings to the FBI. "Many of us have a personal commitment to ... going forward to expose the truth and wrongdoing of government officials who, before and after the 9/11 attacks, failed to do their job." Shaffer contradicted recent statements by Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, who denied having met with Shaffer and other Able Danger operatives in Afghanistan in October 2003. "I did meet with him," Shaffer said. "I have the business card he gave me. I find it hard to believe that he could not remember meeting me." The commission's chairman and vice chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, released a statement saying the panel had looked into the work of Able Danger and found it "historically insignificant."This is just the tip of the ice-berg: read more about it here: http://www.wanttoknow.info/abledanger911

13 years, 9 months ago

"So far we have established a very clear motive, but otherwise it could be a rather fortuitous coincidence..."My God, Tim, this is so silly as to beggar description. I realize that a billion dollars in profit seems like a lot of money. Maybe you would kill three thousand people for it. Maybe I would. But you're forgetting something: Larry Silverstein already has a billion dollars. In fact, he has several billion dollars, 2 of which he used to lease WTC. But Silverstein Properties has been involved in $8 billion worth of aquisitions. They built the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC. They own 2 buildings on Wall Street, 5 on Fifth Avenue, and others downtown and in midtown. They own a shopping center in Stamford, they own 30 Park Place and One River Place and the Silver Towers.So I'm Larry Silverstein, I am a multi-billionaire, successful, well-connected, king of the New York Real Estate world. I have the best houses money can buy, the best cars, the best drugs and hookers, anything I want. The world is mine. And you're going to say that my "motive" for killing three thousand people, not to mention taking the chance at being found out and therefore being thrown in jail and probably publicly executed and going down in history as one of the biggest mass murderers ever, is so that maybe a jury might find that the towers were two separate insurance events and therefore I might increase my net worth by 20%?Think about your own life, Tim, what you've built. Think about the Films for Action, think about tribe F, think about Lawrence Peak Oil Action Committee and all the hours, how much of yourself you've poured into them. Then ask yourself, would you risk it all, would you kill 3000 people, to increase your net worth by 20%? If the answer is in the negative, you don't have "a very clear motive," Tim. You don't. I know I said I would not write another word about this, but you asked me a direct question and it's only good form that I give you a direct answer. You asked, "Bill, do you really think that the PNAC - the fact that it existed, the people involved, and its goals - and the fact of what happened are strictly coincidence?"In a word, the answer is Yes.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

Mr. A: Your second point concerns the contradiction of conservatives blowing up an icon of international business.There are two primary motives for blowing up the towers. One is to create a "shock and awe" event that will sufficiently mobilize American anger to want to take military action. The second, which addresses your point, involves a man named Larry Silverstein, who leased the Twin Towers six months before the attacks to the tune of 3.2 Billion. In addition to leasing this property, he also bought insurance for the towers that specifically included protection against acts of terrorism. You also have to understand the economic liabilities of the property itself:"It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon] ""A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]Remember Silverstein leased the buildings for 3.2 billion, resulting in more than a billion dollars in profit.Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.htmlNow, in every criminal case you must establish the Means, Motive, and Opportunity. So far we have established a very clear motive, but otherwise it could be a rather fortuitous coincidence. I'm not going to go into the means and opportunity, but this should give you a jumping off point if you want to look into it more.http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/?Search=silverstein

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

DOTDOT: I believe spinsparx is referring to the links I posted in the blog above, which I'm not sure anyone who has disagreed with the blog to begin with has even looked at.Like you, I'm aware that the quality of '9/11 truth' information can vary drastically in credibility. There are some sites that espouse truly bizarre theories, such as that holographic or space weapons were used to bring down the twin towers. These claims are baseless and the majority of 9/11 skeptics reject these claims definitively. If you are sincere in your efforts to locate accurate, verifiable information, please look at the links I've provided in my blog, and the one below. It is a link to a list of over 50 senior government and military officials who question the official 9/11 story. I have already mentioned this link several times, but here it is once more:http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

Tim,I don't have the will to go point by point, but, relating to the specific web page, would like to raise 2.The link you provide offers opinions from many private citizens. Many have served in former official positions, many are writing essays outside their field, but most are critical of the lack of transparency of the 9/11 commission report - which criticism I hardly think anyone disagrees with. The leap is leapt when the valid and reasonable criticism turns to a CIA conspiracy.Don't get me wrong, here.1) The PNAC manifesto (recently and stupidly thrown at Sarah Palin as "The Bush Doctrine") is proven dangerous and deserves the certain death it will suffer at the hands of either new administration. I was aware of it before 2000, and I'm just a guy that reads Harpers, so I wouldn't call it a coincidence or a secret motive as relates to 9/11. Many elements of it DID, however, guide the administration's response and foreign policy. And the idea of preemptive strike against nations posing an imminent threat is central to, but not exclusive to the PNAC document. It is a broader post cold-war military school of engagement ideology which will suffer from the Iraq debacle, but will have to remain in serious consideration in the future.2) As far as Sibel Edmonds and her ilk, I don't believe we have heard the last from her. She raises valid points about the transparency of the report, and as a whistle blower, is privy to intelligence that I don't have. But her accusations carry weight in the realm of profession ass covering conspiracies that she was a victim of, and I certainly consider likely. But still, while she questions the veracity of the report, she has never leapt the leap. Correct me if that is wrong.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

Bill, I appreciate your response. Actually I can thank you because I realize my last statement was not communicated how I intended. Please forgive a momentary lapse of lazy articulation.It's funny because in any good debate, the other side will find the weakest argument and debate that, rather than all of the persons strong points. It's unfortunate, because it seems this rather insignificant point has distracted the conversation from what is important.Briefly I will say that I wasn't trying to suggest that Larry Silverstein's profiting from 9/11 was proof that he was involved, or that this is somehow proof of the "conspiracy/government" plot, as Bryan infers. If you want me to speculate on Silverstein's relationship to this whole issue, first it's important to remember it is just that, speculation - one of many possibilities. People should not take it for anything more or less than that. With that qualifier aside, at some point I think many financial elites got advance knowledge of the attacks (whether by terrorists or whoever) which is evidenced by the triple and quadrupling of "put options" on the Airlines used in the attacks leading up to the 11th. As connected and well-financed as Silverstein is, as Bill excellently points out, he also likely got a tip and used his vast financial resources to benefit in his own way. This may be extremely fucked up to us, but it's certainly possible. However, it could just be a coincidence, and I leave room for that possibility too.

Terry Bush 13 years, 9 months ago

How much time and money should be devoted to re-tracing (again and again and again) every person's whereabouts and what they knew, and when. How long should we look? And if we finally get sufficient proof of a giant conspiracy that was so well hidden that hundreds and thousands of conspirators kept their mouths shut for decades, what then? Shall we execute them all? Shall we lock them all up forever? If they had/have the money and connections to pull this off, won't they then be long-gone into their secret mountain locations in South America?

Bryan Anderson 13 years, 9 months ago

So the proof of the conspiracy/government plot is the fact that Larry Silverstein bought an insurance policy for more than the buildings were worth which included a clause for terrorism? Hmm, why would you want to make sure that your insurance policy for the Wold Trade center covered terrorism? It's not like terrorists have ever tried to blow them up before...(Since some people posting on this thread believe the rest of us have mental disabilities, let me point out that that last statement was ironic)And, if you charged everyone who insures their stuff for more than its actual value with conspiracy, that is a crapload of conspirators.

Terry Bush 13 years, 9 months ago

So, let's look at this from a pragmatic point of view. Say there was a conspiracy, by someone(s) unnamed who profited from it somehow. Accept that as a fact for a moment. And stretch even further and imagine that the greater percentage of American people, with or without the public support of government leaders, wanted to find out all their names and motives. Then what? Really? What is it worth to 51% of Americans?

Terry Bush 13 years, 9 months ago

PART 3 - finalI think of it is a cost benefit equation. Rather then spend my limited waning energies on chasing wild hares into holes that I cannot follow them into, I prefer to believe that the truth - whatever it is - will indeed one day be known, and that some day the guilty will indeed suffer the consequences of heinous conduct. I may not see it or know what happens, and that's OK. I do not have a need to know or control it all. I leave that for the egomaniacs who think they are capable of that feat. But in the end, I believe, good will conquer evil. It's simply not something that I can obsess over. I have other things that I can know and can control to obsess over. Maybe that makes me lazy, stupid, gullible or some other bad thing. Or maybe it makes me pragmatic and logical. It all depends upon who you are and how you look at life. If you have nothing better to do then chase white rabbits, be my guest. Me? I'm busy earning a living and paying my bills. Oh, and preparing for the economic crash that is just around the corner!

Matt Toplikar 13 years, 9 months ago

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that the discussion of this blog hasn't sunk into too much name calling--pretty amazing given the subject matter. It's definitely interesting to read opinions on a topic like this because it can give you such an insight into a person's world view, and how desperately almost everyone clings to their own. For instance, are you someone that believes there are some really greedy, very evil, extremely sneaky, and immensely powerful bastards in the government, or do you believe that people in the government are mostly well-meaning and/or not very bright, and can't keep secrets?I remember the first time I heard about any of the non-mainstream 9-11 theories. My reaction was complete dismissal. The first words that popped into my head were "stupid" and "crazy", so I don't begrudge anyone who hasn't researched the topic (or even some who have) to have the reaction of "the world doesn't really work that way."Myself, I don't know what to think anymore-- I've read a lot on the subject and have found some convincing arguments on both sides of the aisle. However, many arguments on both sides tend to play off of a particular world view and can be easily dismissed if you don't share that particular vision of how things happen in our little microcosm of space.When it comes down to it-- the official story does not convince me. In reading the Popular Mechanics article and book, I was initially impressed, but upon further reading and re-reading, I noticed that it doesn't really discuss or defend many of the major factual holes in the 9-11 Commission Report-- and definitely doesn't have much of an objective tone to the writing, which made it feel more like an opinion piece Still, I have this gut feeling-- call it the-- conspiracy theories are bullshit feeling-- that "that's not how things really work"-- and that's a hard feeling to shake.For me, the most glaring error in the official theory is that IF the 3 WTC buildings fell as they say (pancake theory-illustrated by PBS), it just doesn't make sense that they would fall as fast as they did (near free-fall speed). Under the Occam's Razor theory, a controlled demolition seems the most scientifically plausible, but that opens a big can of worms leading to theories that might seem less socially and politically plausible given your particular world view.Other strange occurrences, like the Bush administration's initial fight against a 9-11 report, give me a sense that something fishy's going on. Two things I have learned about this administration are that I don't trust them at their word, and that they tend to get away with what appear to be crimes (domestic spying, torture, outing a C.I.A. agent, misleading Americans, etc.)I'm still pretty damned skeptical about conspiracy theories, but I also can't find myself in the "let it go" crowd. What can I say... I want to know what happened, and yes, I think it's important enough to look into.

13 years, 9 months ago

OK, I'm done with this, but I just pissed my pants laughing at something else:"Becoming the first of the presidential nominees to call for a specific response to this weekend's finance crisis, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that he wants a 9/11-Commission-style probe of what happened and how it can be prevented in the future.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13493.htmlThe real trouble hasn't even happened yet, and John McCain already wants to establish a Blue Ribbon government panel to tell us why it's not their fault. Swear to God, dude, whoever wins this election is going to wish he hadn't, starting in about 18 months.

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

devieh,"No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11 besides towers 1, 2, and 7. Buildings have burned hotter and longer.Fact."You are the one touting facts. Which buildings have burned hotter and longer and didn't collapse? The NIST has issued findings on the collapse of 7 (I'm sure you got the google), and the collapse of 1 and 2 is unprecedented whether it was due to fire (and the cumulative weight of descending upper stories), or the most brilliantly executed secret controlled demolition of all time.Now, I am sure the 'coverup' could include the NIST. But when it comes to weighing government reports against blog comments that prove themselves by typing the word 'fact' in the body, it is sometimes difficult (hehe) to decide which pile of bullshit to sit in.Fire does not melt steel. Fact.See? I can do it too!!!It is liberating!!!

devieh 13 years, 9 months ago

dotdot,which steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire? i'd like to know how you go through life bullshitting yourself.

Terry Bush 13 years, 9 months ago

Fire doesn't melt steel? Wow. I bet all those smelter guys could have used that information and saved themselves time and trouble trying to melt it! What is the melting point of steel: http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070329141828AAaJfpshttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meting_point_and_boiling_point_of_steelhttp://www.911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.htmlFact - The USA is run by aliens from another planet. Gee you are right dot dot.. it is fun!

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

All those smelter guys are part of the conspiracy. Fact.And this from a Senior Government Official (Well, my dad, but he IS a senior, and he was an ARMY OFFICER during WWII):Pedestrians have the right of way. Fact.A man is the king of his castle. Fact.

clayhill70 13 years, 9 months ago

My late uncle's brother was killed in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and from that he formed a hatred of the Japanese, even Japanese-Americans that lasted all his life. On the other hand I worked for a man that was a survivor of the Battle of the Bulge and liberated one of the many concentration camps. Yet even after the loss of many friends who were like brothers to him and seeing the evidence of Nazi atrocities he never spoke ill of the German people or their American cousins. I think the difference is the attack on Pearl Harbor was a total surprise, at least to the men and women on the island of Oahu and the American people. Even after the release of information and testimony that contradicts this (as early as 1944) the media still refers to it as a "surprise" attackExcept for an admiral and general no one was held accountable.And to think that the Bush administration and corporate America had become more noble 61 years later is naive. Even if what has been written and linked to above were true the American people lack the will to act on it.

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

Clayhill,Could be the difference is the has to do with the direct attack on American soil thing. Which puts 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in a shared class.What differentiates these two as political conspiracies is the physics. Explaining Pearl Harbor involves the reasoning at the core of strategic military initiatives that were easily justified otherwise. Suppressing the conspiracy (could have) involved jailing a couple of overly competent code breakers. Whether it happened that way or not, I don't know, but it was physically and practically POSSIBLE.9/11 is different. I find the idea that the government conspired to bring the buildings down too far fetched, while the alternate story - a terrorist cell googled some flight times and took flying lessons - more plausible. My boss at the time had been a commercial pilot and says that, with a little familiarity, a 747 drives pretty much like a car.Now, the fact that 9/11 was used as a political tool to manipulate the US into war with Iraq, well that's a matter of public record. The fact that W was reelected means that not only do the American people lack "the will" to act on the "truth" about gubment conspiracies, we are actually partners in those conspiracies by electing these fuckheads on slogans like "family values."Why this truther shit annoys me so much is that it discredits the real issues which are right in front of us.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

DotDot: I don't think the genuine questions asked by respectable high-ranking government and military officials, along with the families of the victims and many others distract from the true issues, but bring greater focus to them.I will easily admit that many 'truthers' have presented this issue horribly, and the presentation of an idea is often just as important as the idea itself. It's also one of the most taboo subjects that even the 'left' alternative media won't often touch.With that said, you mentioned that between the gov conspiring to demolish buildings and a terrorist cell taking flight lessons, the latter seemed more plausible.I don't think the truth lies at either of these two extremes, and it's unfortunate that any discussion of 9/11 immediately puts people in the frame of mind that "the government was completely responsible" or "the terrorists did it!".In fact many who responded to my blog acted as if I had said "the government was entirely responsible" even though I had said nothing of the sort.A highly likely scenario, much like the case with Pearl Harbor, was that people within the gov knew the attacks were imminent and did nothing to stop them. "President Bush was given an intelligence briefing, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States just weeks before the September 11 attacks, it emerged yesterday.Details of the August 6 briefing in 2001, which warned of terrorist preparations being made for hijackings on American soil, surfaced in testimony given by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to a commission of inquiry studying the September 11 attacks.The existence of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been publicly known for some time, but Ms Rice's confirmation of its title and some of its contents pushed it centre stage in the explosive political row over whether the al-Qaida attacks could have been prevented. "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/09/september11.alqaida

DOTDOT 13 years, 9 months ago

Ok, Tim,I won't bother mincing words regarding what defines a "Senior Government Official," and the insult that a page boasting quotes from 50 of them actual doesn't have a quote from a single one, respectable or otherwise.I'd rather ask what you think about another aspect of this whole situation. Let's just say that there is a new inquiry. Who should do it?

13 years, 9 months ago

Dots: "Who should do it?"Snoop.

tribalzendancer 13 years, 9 months ago

As far as who, specifically, I don't have anyone specific in mind, so long as a few critical guidelines are met, including that no member has any conflicting interests or ties to the Bush administration, full transparency and power to subpoena. Every measure to ensure the commission is independent, essentially, and has the power to get the information it needs from testimony and the White House, etc to do a thorough job.Though yes, I would also recommend Davy D... and 50 cent would be great.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.