911 Truth Movement

[KnightersRevenge]

Who would know if that was done? So much crucial evidene was removed before it could be examined it's not a huge leap to think evidence in this case could have suffered a similar fate. It certainly seems unlikely numerous people would all mistake human remains amongst other crash debris.

Not the first time you've made this claim about evidence being removed, do you have sources for this cover-up? So far I haven't seen any. Is it more likely that there is a conspiracy across the FBI, CIA, NIST other acronyms I can't think of, and both major parties and preceding and subsequent governments.....or that the investigators investigated, collected evidence in the course of that investigation (and removed it to examine it) and produced their report?

Those news reports are the only ones in existence relating to the secondary and tertiary debris fields of flight 93. No subsequent articles ever appeared to either correct or confirm the original reports. That fact alone is extremely strange. The reports were also the first to appear after the crash and were published two days later. They were therefore most likely written on the day of the crash and the day after. Sufficient time to check facts as any good reporter does and also completely consistent with regards to the use of the "what appeared to be" phrase when reporting breaking news.

If they simply disagree with the OR, why would they necessarily publish that disagreement in a peer reviewed journal?

The news reports don't actually say anything of substance in relation to some apparent cover-up. They report that a plane crashed in a field and there was a lot of debris and some of it was far away. And some locals saw some stuff that may or may not have been debris. That is it. It is drawing a very long bow, without any evidence, that this suggests let alone corroborates a cover-up.

If you want to think that nearly 2000 engineers, architects and demolishon experts are not relevant experts that's fine. I disagree though. How more relevant can you get?

If we're talking about the erection of buildings then the engineers and architects are experts. If we were talking about the routine demolition of buildings then the demo guys are experts. But we are talking about a series of unparalleled events about which each of these groups can be relied upon to have some unique insights, but they are not experts on the subject as a whole, because no one is.

The undisputed facts I posted are not conjecture. Ground zero evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be examined. ATC interviews were destroyed. Bush did refuse to fully cooperate with the commision, as did Cheney. Bush did severely limit the funding and subpoena power of the commision. Hijacked airliner laws were changed to require authorisation from Bush or Cheney for any shoot down order one month prior to the attacks. Laws were changed to stop pilots carrying handguns one month prior to the attacks. The Bin Laden Task Force was stood down two months before the attacks. Many other countries did warn the US about possible impending Al Qaeda attacks using hijacked aircraft. Much of the interior defense against these attacks were running exercises focusing on this type of attack on 9/11. Bush did sit on his hands for way too long when notified of the attacks. Operation Northwoods was a US government plan to fake terrorist attacks against its own citizens for the purpose of justifying war against Cuba. Barry Jennings' lawsuit was thrown out of court by Bush's relative on the grounds it was simply implausible without any evidence being heard. The black boxes from flights 11, 175 and 77 have all not been found. No footage outside the 5 frames showing the impact have been released of flight 77 despite the massive number of cameras operating around the Pentagon. No data from either black box has been released from flight 93 aside from a small snippet from the CVR.

Yes it's conjecture to say this proves conspiracy. I'm not doing that. I'm saying it is sufficient grounds to finally have the type of thorough independent investigation that should have been conducted straight after the attacks. Many people, including the exalted Noam Chomsky, say the government/armed forces reaction was bungled. Why haven't they ever had to face proper scrutiny over their actions?

Actually another factoid failure here, one of the black boxes from flight 77 was found, the cockpit voice recorder. You'll accuse me of nit-picking again, but as the cards (facts) tumble the house of cards, it's really more of shack, crumbles. If you want to argue that Bush and Cheney and the joint chiefs etc made poor choices, then argue that. But using "evidence" that is only seen as credible by conspiracy nuts doesn't bolster your argument IMO, and failing to produce any of that "evidence" doesn't help either.

 

[tigertim]

Who would know if that was done? So much crucial evidene was removed before it could be examined it's not a huge leap to think evidence in this case could have suffered a similar fate. It certainly seems unlikely numerous people would all mistake human remains amongst other crash debris.

Those news reports are the only ones in existence relating to the secondary and tertiary debris fields of flight 93. No subsequent articles ever appeared to either correct or confirm the original reports. That fact alone is extremely strange. The reports were also the first to appear after the crash and were published two days later. They were therefore most likely written on the day of the crash and the day after. Sufficient time to check facts as any good reporter does and also completely consistent with regards to the use of the "what appeared to be" phrase when reporting breaking news.

If they simply disagree with the OR, why would they necessarily publish that disagreement in a peer reviewed journal?

If you want to think that nearly 2000 engineers, architects and demolishon experts are not relevant experts that's fine. I disagree though. How more relevant can you get?

The undisputed facts I posted are not conjecture. Ground zero evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be examined. ATC interviews were destroyed. Bush did refuse to fully cooperate with the commision, as did Cheney. Bush did severely limit the funding and subpoena power of the commision. Hijacked airliner laws were changed to require authorisation from Bush or Cheney for any shoot down order one month prior to the attacks. Laws were changed to stop pilots carrying handguns one month prior to the attacks. The Bin Laden Task Force was stood down two months before the attacks. Many other countries did warn the US about possible impending Al Qaeda attacks using hijacked aircraft. Much of the interior defense against these attacks were running exercises focusing on this type of attack on 9/11. Bush did sit on his hands for way too long when notified of the attacks. Operation Northwoods was a US government plan to fake terrorist attacks against its own citizens for the purpose of justifying war against Cuba. Barry Jennings' lawsuit was thrown out of court by Bush's relative on the grounds it was simply implausible without any evidence being heard. The black boxes from flights 11, 175 and 77 have all not been found. No footage outside the 5 frames showing the impact have been released of flight 77 despite the massive number of cameras operating around the Pentagon. No data from either black box has been released from flight 93 aside from a small snippet from the CVR.

Yes it's conjecture to say this proves conspiracy. I'm not doing that. I'm saying it is sufficient grounds to finally have the type of thorough independent investigation that should have been conducted straight after the attacks. Many people, including the exalted Noam Chomsky, say the government/armed forces reaction was bungled. Why haven't they ever had to face proper scrutiny over their actions?

re the last paragraph, yes there's not too many people who would say the Bush government didn't make mistakes and if a thorough inquest was to happen then that'd great. There was mistakes made due to confusion, inexperience, naivety, incompetence etc and that will happen every time in a major catastrophe (eg the same accusations can be levelled re the governments handling of Katrina or the Vic govt handling of Black Saturday). So I'm glad to read that your conjecture doesn't prove any conspiracy.

 

[Disco08]

The conspiracy theories border on paranoia. A lot of faith being seems to be put in unsubstantiated and inaccurate reports and circumstantial evidence on this thread.

What other explanation fits better given no follow up reports were ever published? It's not paranoia at all to suggest that were there's evidence of destroyed evidence, more may exist. Especially if it's the best explanation of the surrounding facts.

I'd find it more unlikely that someone amongst those numerous people wouldn't be quoted referring to head or foot or hand or state of dress or whatever rather than just a generic appearing to be human description if the remains were clearly identifiable.

"Human remains" suggests more than one foot or hand. Did you expect them to list every body part specifically?

 

[Disco08]

re the last paragraph, yes there's not too many people who would say the Bush government didn't make mistakes and if a thorough inquest was to happen then that'd great. There was mistakes made due to confusion, inexperience, naivety, incompetence etc and that will happen every time in a major catastrophe (eg the same accusations can be levelled re the governments handling of Katrina or the Vic govt handling of Black Saturday). So I'm glad to read that your conjecture doesn't prove any conspiracy.

Of course it doesn't. I've been saying that all along. Most of the 9/11 TM revolves around the call for a proper investigation. If you think that'd be nice what are we even arguing about?

 

[evo]

Nor is your list of people expert in the specific fields relevant to the events of 9-11. Any expert worth their salt would have published their questions and the evidence underpinning them in a renowned peer-reviewed scientific or engineering journal. The professional prestige for such a thing would be enormous....that is if it could be substantiated.

well said.

 

[Rosy]

What other explanation fits better given no follow up reports were ever published? It's not paranoia at all to suggest that were there's evidence of destroyed evidence, more may exist. Especially if it's the best explanation of the surrounding facts.

"Human remains" suggests more than one foot or hand. Did you expect them to list every body part specifically?

I disagree that "appeared to be human" remains suggests hands or feet at all let alone quantities. I just wouldn't use such a loose claim to try and support a point of view. Personally I couldn't care less what they list and no I wouldn't expect them to list every part specifically. Silly question. Nothing whatsoever suggests any evidence that there were any body parts let alone more than one foot or hand. That's speculation rather than substance based on what you've posted. Why do you assume hands and feet rather than a not readily identifiable shin bones
with a bit of flesh? They could as easily qualify as appeared to be human.

More evidence might indeed exist. I wouldn't have a clue. It seems some are grasping at straws to support their arguments just the same.

 

[Disco08]

I said "hand" or "foot" because that was what you suggested should have been expected. If more than one piece of human remains was found then they wouldn't list each piece individually. They'd just refer to it collectively as "human remains".

More evidence does indeed exist. The people mentioned in the newpaper reports would mostly still be alive you'd imagine. Why weren't they interviewed as part of the commission?

Clutching at straws is trying to discredit obviously valid eyewitness testimony because a journalist used a common phrase in their report.

Not the first time you've made this claim about evidence being removed, do you have sources for this cover-up? So far I haven't seen any. Is it more likely that there is a conspiracy across the FBI, CIA, NIST other acronyms I can't think of, and both major parties and preceding and subsequent governments.....or that the investigators investigated, collected evidence in the course of that investigation (and removed it to examine it) and produced their report?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/destroyed.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/missing.html

Before you attack me for posting links to a conspiracy site, there are links to the source material at the bottom of each page. It really doesn't require much skill at Googling to find this info.

The news reports don't actually say anything of substance in relation to some apparent cover-up. They report that a plane crashed in a field and there was a lot of debris and some of it was far away. And some locals saw some stuff that may or may not have been debris. That is it. It is drawing a very long bow, without any evidence, that this suggests let alone corroborates a cover-up.

Both reports say locals and police reported seeing stuff that was debris miles away. This alone proves nothing but it does warrant investigation and joins a long list of facts which contradict the OR.

If we're talking about the erection of buildings then the engineers and architects are experts. If we were talking about the routine demolition of buildings then the demo guys are experts. But we are talking about a series of unparalleled events about which each of these groups can be relied upon to have some unique insights, but they are not experts on the subject as a whole, because no one is.

The events are impact, fire and the way steel framed structures react to them. These people are all experts with extensive knowledge of these areas.

Actually another factoid failure here, one of the black boxes from flight 77 was found, the cockpit voice recorder. You'll accuse me of nit-picking again, but as the cards (facts) tumble the house of cards, it's really more of shack, crumbles. If you want to argue that Bush and Cheney and the joint chiefs etc made poor choices, then argue that. But using "evidence" that is only seen as credible by conspiracy nuts doesn't bolster your argument IMO, and failing to produce any of that "evidence" doesn't help either.

I'll happily change that to statement to no data ever released from any of the black boxes of the flights 11, 175 and 77. In the context of other airline disasters this is completely anomalous.

 

[tigertim]

Of course it doesn't. I've been saying that all along. Most of the 9/11 TM revolves around the call for a proper investigation. If you think that'd be nice what are we even arguing about?

well I think most us have the impression Disco that you really think that the Bush government were involved in the 911 and any imagined cover up. Your responses have been very vehement towards that but if you are simply saying that you don't think there is a conspiracy but that there a questions that remain unanswered I would think is a very different matter.

 

[tigersnake]

The last one is a bit of the odd one out. I think most people suspect there is something fishy about the Kennedy Assasination. Or at least more to it than meets the eye.

True

 

[Disco08]

well I think most us have the impression Disco that you really think that the Bush government were involved in the 911 and any imagined cover up. Your responses have been very vehement towards that but if you are simply saying that you don't think there is a conspiracy but that there a questions that remain unanswered I would think is a very different matter.

I'm vehement in my posting because you guys keep insisting that questioning the OR at all is crackpot bevaviour.

 

[tigersnake]

I'm vehement in my posting because you guys keep insisting that questioning the OR at all is crackpot bevaviour.

I think that relentlessly and emphatically pushing a piece of evidence as if its proven or accepted, such as the plane windows, when a quick google search disproves it is a little crackpottish.

I also think that producing evidence such as people hearing explosions as compelling, when it is perfectly conceivable that with all he chaos, falling debris, failing buildings, twisting metal etc, that people would have heard very loud noises that may well have sounded like explosives, is also a little crackpottish.

 

[Azza]

Whatever the truth of 911, are consipracy theorists really so crack-pot since the likes of Operation Northwoods actually existed? Plans approved at the all but highest level of the US governement to fake attacks on the US by Cuba - including possible sinking of refugee boats and wounding of refugee Cubans living in the US?

Who can blame people for having their sense of normality and trust in government so eroded when there's a record of US intent to dupe it's own citizenry to such an elaborate extent - only pulled by the President himself? The US creates a massively funded, amoral, secret dirty tricks organisation in the CIA that goes to any extent to achieve it's end. At what point does the trust of the population in it's government become critically undermined?

On Operation Northwoods -

“ Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

"Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[18]"

"The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

[Rosy]

I said "hand" or "foot" because that was what you suggested should have been expected.

This is the second time you've made false claims about my posts. I didn't suggest that's what should have been expected at all. "If" the remains appeared to be human in a away obvious enough to claim them as such they'd need to be more than bone and flesh. I expect nothing though. It's a very big stretch to cling to such a tenuous claim as though it was fact when there was nothing to support the claim.

 

[tigersnake]

Whatever the truth of 911, are consipracy theorists really so crack-pot since the likes of Operation Northwoods existed? Plans approved at the all but highest level of the US governement to fake attacks on the US by Cuba - including possible sinking of refugee boats and wounding of refugee Cubans living in the US?

Who can blame people for having their sense of normality and trust in government so eroded when there's a record of US intent to dupe it's own citizenry to such an elaborate extent - only pulled by the President himself? It's classic boy who cried wolf stuff. At what point does the trust of the population in it's government become critically undermined?

On Operation Mongoose -

“ Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

"Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[18]"

"The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

2 key reasons why I view a 911 conspiracy as impausable in consideration of the above:

1. and most importantly: It never happened. This is a sinister crackpot idea that was rejected by the President. There would be sh!toads of sinister crackpot ideas proposed and rejected by presidents.

2. The measures proposed are not in the same league, in terms of organisation or impact, as Sept 11.

A key argument against for me, which nobody has responded to, is Watergate. A bona-fide proven conspiracy that brought down a President. It involved a burglary of democrat files, amongst other things, by a small circle of operatives very close to the President. Very Quickly and effectively exposed. People talk, people get slack, people feel guilty, over time people change and want to come clean.

 

[tigertim]

Whatever the truth of 911, are consipracy theorists really so crack-pot since the likes of Operation Northwoods existed? Plans approved at the all but highest level of the US governement to fake attacks on the US by Cuba - including possible sinking of refugee boats and wounding of refugee Cubans living in the US?

Who can blame people for having their sense of normality and trust in government so eroded when there's a record of US intent to dupe it's own citizenry to such an elaborate extent - only pulled by the President himself? It's classic boy who cried wolf stuff. At what point does the trust of the population in it's government become critically undermined?

On Operation Mongoose -

“ Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

"Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[18]"

"The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

northwood seems to be the "blueprint" for the theorist. Northwood was an abminination of a plan but was proposed 40 years before 911. It has no bearing on what happened on 911. I wonder why people don't also focus on the the previous terror attacks that were carried out by al queda?

 

[Azza]

2 key reasons why I view a 911 conspiracy as impausable in consideration of the above:

1. and most importantly: It never happened. This is a sinister crackpot idea that was rejected by the President. There would be sh!toads of sinister crackpot ideas proposed and rejected by presidents.

It came down to one man's decision. Different president (Republican perhaps?), potenitally different decision. It came VERY close to being reality.

2. The measures proposed are not in the same league, in terms of organisation or impact, as Sept 11.

Agree.

The point is, there were (are?) very senior people in the US military system who see nothing wrong with faking terrorism on US soil to meet it's ends, including causing 'collateral damage'. I'm not saying this makes a 911 fake attack more likely. It does help explain and justify to some extent the conspiracy theories.

It certainly leaves me more mistrustful of the US, and wondering exactly what it's capable of.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm vehement in my posting because you guys keep insisting that questioning the OR at all is crackpot bevaviour.

I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the discussion. Most of the objections, including mine, are of the use of "crackpot websites" as sources for material to bolster the argument that the US government was either knowingly complicit or intrinsically involved in the planning and/or execution of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks. IMO this is a discussion of evidence not a dogmatic Team OR versus Team CT. I have asked only that trusted sources be provided to back up some of what I consider to be outlandish claims, or exaggerations. In my case I have found stories that back up some of the background I have posted on Bellone at the "New York Post" Online. I don't consider NYP credible, so even though it backs my position I haven't used it, instead I kept digging until I found the press release from NYFD. You don't have to follow my lead on this but IMO failure to do so diminishes your argument.

I don't disagree that Bush and Co. probably did cover their tracks. Not because they were involved, but because they were incompetent and maybe even scared. While it would be nice to get to the bottom of what they did and didn't know I don't see that as productive or imperative. There are a million things that governments do in our name that we will never know, this is just one of them IMO. It is noble to seek the "truth", but it is a never ending endeavour. And this one is so messy I don't think we will ever know and I don't think any investigation will come to any satisfying conclusions either.

 

[evo]

Who can blame people for having their sense of normality and trust in government so eroded when there's a record of US intent to dupe

Not me. I can't blame people for questioning the event in the least.

In fact let the record show that I don't trust governments in the slightest, particularly the U.S government. But from that view it doesn't necessarily follow that they are behind every major event.


I reckon it is highly plausible that there were more people than just Lee Harvey Oswald involved in the Kennedy assasination, but it doesn't have to mean that we ought to believe that WTC1,2 and 7 were pre-wired for detonation.


Clear thinking dictates that you have to treat each of these theories on their merit.

 

[Azza]

I don't disagree that Bush and Co. probably did cover their tracks. Not because they were involved, but because they were incompetent and maybe even scared.

This rings true for me. I can't help but think that if Bush was in the know, he'd have had a planned reaction. Hustling off to look like he was taking action. Instead he looked like a stunned mullet.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

It came down to one man's decision. Different president (Republican perhaps?), potenitally different decision. It came VERY close to being reality.

Agree.

The point is, there were (are?) very senior people in the US military system who see nothing wrong with faking terrorism on US soil to meet it's ends, including causing 'collateral damage'. I'm not saying this makes a 911 fake attack more likely. It does help explain and justify to some extent the conspiracy theories.

It certainly leaves me more mistrustful of the US, and wondering exactly what it's capable of.

Ever read anything about General Macarthur?