911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

There's some pretty out of character, unbalanced and bizarre posting on here.

Can I ask which posting in particular and what part of those posts you see as unbalanced?

So Bush must have known an attack was going to happen in the timeframe he was in Florida ( under martial law) ? And Jeb too? The best I can find is that Jeb made executive orders on sept 7. And what timeframe does something stop being coincidental? 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months before said date? And what is the correlation between these exec orders and the benefit to George Bush? I don't understand it, sorry.

And the FBI had pre-prepared the info on the terrorists ready to disseminate to the media?

I have no answer to why Bush acted so strangely after the event other than to say that he was dumb and incompetent which is no new news.

The conjecture, as I understand it, is that had the plan gone wrong and Bush been found out he would have been arrested and tried by the Florida National Guard instead of policemen, lawyers and judges. As I explained in an earlier post whilst the order was not enacting full martial law it ensured the same protection for Bush had things gotten ugly.

Yes, I think there's some evidence that media releases were pre-prepared and fed to the media at pre-determined times. The 5 (?) channels reporting the collapse of WTC7 up to an hour before it happened is one. The speed with which the media had detailed information on the hijackers is another. I know these are flimsy and prove nothing on their own.

I agree about Bush, but he would have be drilled on the response to such an event many times. What he and the secret service did was unconstitutional and demands an explanation. IMO its an insult to anyone effected by 9/11 to just brush it off by saying "ah well, we knew he was dumb and incompetent".

Hah! This is the whole point, and what Noam Chomsky and others have been telling us for thirty years.

The US government does not need to invent a crackpot conspiracy that involves killing thousands of their own citizens. They'll make sh!t up and invade Iraq anyway. There are plenty of real conspiracies, real dirty politics, real geopolitical double crosses... and yet people choose to focus on one event and analyse the crap out of it based on grainy videos and nutty attention seekers.

Open your eyes people, the truth is out there and it ain't got anything to do with 9/11.

1. Northwoods is absolute evidence the US government is happy to fake events and kill their own citizens as a platform for war. What they need to do and what they are prepared to do are two different things.

2. "Grainy videos and nutty attention seekers"? This clearly shows the irrationality and incredulity that hinders any real discourse in search of 9/11 truth.

Let me try and explain something to all of you who are so scornful of people questioning the OR. An event the magnitude on 9/11 absolutely demands the most thorough, truthful and transparent inqury. The 9/11 commission was so far from that that even its own co-chairmen complained about the process and restrictions placed upon them. Not only that but the report that was tabled has been questioned by thousands of experts in numerous fields. This doesn't mean they're nutty attention seekers. It means that they've read something so plainly wrong in their opinion that they've been compelled to register objection. It also doesn't mean that they believe in or profess to have knowledge of a wider US government conspiracy. What they are saying by raising their concerns is that the 9/11 commission report is erroneous in the specific area they are referring to. The obvious upshot of this is that where error exists it needs to be corrected. This is where the call for a proper inquiry is born, not from baseless conjecture about a broader conspiracy. Yes there are people insisting a conspiracy exists who base that on some far out theories. There are also those who distort the truth to suit their agenda. That doesn't however represent the majority of people who actively support a proper inquiry, which is something I think a few of you need to keep in mind.

Anyone care to answer this?

Are the eye witnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon and the firefighters who thought B7 would collapse on the payroll?

So many questions..

Even if it was unstable it shouldn't have collapsed at free fall speed into its own footprint. The damage was all on the side facing WTC2 so if it was going to fall it should have fallen where the support was gone.

Try here for a good objective look at the evidence surrounding WTC7's collapse.

Excellent post. There was a great deal of confusion initially.

The FAA and NORAD both tracked AA11 into WTC1. You don't think Bush would have been up to date on these events?

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Norad.shtml

 

[Baloo]

I love the way "Larry and the BBC had prior knowledge" has now become fact.

It's all fact until its debunked, which usually takes a couple of mins of googling.

 

[Baloo]

Let me try and explain something to all of you who are so scornful of people questioning the OR.

You keep trumpeting this line likes its fact. No one is scornful of people questioning the OR. There is a demand for proof of those claiming 911 was a conspiracy planned, executed and covered up by the US Government, mysterious forces etc. to date none has been delivered. None.

When every question asking for explanation is framed in such a way that to accept the alternate view is to believe in the conspiracy, its natural for people who believe that there is no way a conspiracy like 911 to be pulled off so perfectly to immediately find the premise difficult to take seriously.

Yet on this thread many have taken the time to research the conspiracy 'facts' and show how there is solid evidence debunking these claims. Then if we answer a question regarding the said fact and we don't agree with it, we're met with labels like apologists or accused of being closed minded.

It's been an eye opening debate for me but one that is now past it's use by date.

 

[tigersnake]

1. Northwoods is absolute evidence the US government is happy to fake events and kill their own citizens as a platform for war. What they need to do and what they are prepared to do are two different things.

How could this be absolute evidence? It did not happen. It is evidence that generals are capable of proposing extreme measures and conspiracies that the executive will tend to reject. Thats what the case is evidence of. If anything the case is evidence AGAINST a 9/11 conspiracy. During times of extreme political pressure (which wasn't the case in 9/11), a conspiracy was apparently proposed, FAR simpler and FAR less damaging than 9/11, and given all that, it was REJECTED by the people who matter.

The fact that you think that its 'absolute evidence' says a lot. The tendency to extrapolate wildly. And also the tendency to completely disregard counter arguments, this has already been discussed, but you still present it as 'absolute evidence'. Its not even close.

 

[tigertim]

It's all fact until its debunked, which usually takes a couple of mins of googling.

Well I've googled and come up with this (which I understand won't appease some).

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0PqzkFxso

So according to the theorists BBC knew tower 7 was going to collapse BUT decided to report it BEFORE it with a reporter still standing in front of it? Silly, Jane, silly Philip, silly BBC "big wigs" who knew.

 

[tigertim]

And Larry Silversteins insurance of his towers was more "proof"? Good lord. Or was it his terminology of "pull it" which seems to excite the theorists so much. Again more research indicates that it was FDNY chief Nigro,s decision to pull it.

Why would Silverstein go on national television and stupidly tell everyone it was his decision to pull down the building? (To which he was part of a conspiracy)

And apparently "pull it" is not a common industry jargon for demolition.

 

[Disco08]

You keep trumpeting this line likes its fact. No one is scornful of people questioning the OR. There is a demand for proof of those claiming 911 was a conspiracy planned, executed and covered up by the US Government, mysterious forces etc. to date none has been delivered. None.......

Yet on this thread many have taken the time to research the conspiracy 'facts' and show how there is solid evidence debunking these claims. Then if we answer a question regarding the said fact and we don't agree with it, we're met with labels like apologists or accused of being closed minded.

If I were to collate all the posts with a mocking tone towards those questioning the OR there'd be pages worth yet you complain about the term apologist despite the fact it isn't a derogatory term and isn't used as such and being called closed minded?

Why do those with problems with the OR need to provide proof of a conspiracy planned, executed and covered up by the US Government, mysterious forces etc.? I agree there's no absolute proof been posted here. I do think there are enough facts to make it a possibilty though. Perhaps the burden should be on you guys to prove beyond doubt that the official narrative is factual or to prove that no one in the US upper management had foreknowledge of the events.

When every question asking for explanation is framed in such a way that to accept the alternate view is to believe in the conspiracy, its natural for people who believe that there is no way a conspiracy like 911 to be pulled off so perfectly to immediately find the premise difficult to take seriously.

That's the classic arguement from incredulity and is widely regarded as one of the better ways to inhibit objectivity. IMO it's far better to try and look at evidence without worrying about the implications.

Yes you've Googled some debunkings to a few claims between you. The upside down book, the recovered FDR's, ...... what else?

How could this be absolute evidence? It did not happen. It is evidence that generals are capable of proposing extreme measures and conspiracies that the executive will tend to reject. Thats what the case is evidence of. If anything the case is evidence AGAINST a 9/11 conspiracy. During times of extreme political pressure (which wasn't the case in 9/11), a conspiracy was apparently proposed, FAR simpler and FAR less damaging than 9/11, and given all that, it was REJECTED by the people who matter.

The fact that you think that its 'absolute evidence' says a lot. The tendency to extrapolate wildly. And also the tendency to completely disregard counter arguments, this has already been discussed, but you still present it as 'absolute evidence'. Its not even close.

Totally disagree. This was a plan approved by all but the President, including the joint chiefs of staff and its chair. Their plan included hijackings, bombings, and many other faked events. How you can say this is simpler and less damaging is beyond me. I guess you used a lot of capitals though so you must be right.

It is, whether you like it or not, absolute proof that the US is at the very least happy to consider killing its own citizens as a platform for war.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Things that have been raised and are not true:

*There is no evidence that the Pentagon was hit with a plane
*The second plane that hit WTC was a plant that had no windows
*Florida was under Marshall Law
*None of the flight recorders were found
*WTC7 came down due to an "office fire"
*The WTC1,2 & 7 couldn't have crumbled the way they did except through controlled demolition

Things that are dubious at best

*George Bush sat dumbfounded because he was the mastermind and it was all an act
*There is a definitive link between Northwoods and 911
*It makes perfect sense to kill thousands of your own citizens in WTC 1 & 2 then evacuate WTC7 before exploding it
*It makes sense to use mostly Saudis and no Afghanis nor Iraqis as your scape goats in order to justify a war in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[Disco08]

And Larry Silversteins insurance of his towers was more "proof"? Good lord. Or was it his terminology of "pull it" which seems to excite the theorists so much. Again more research indicates that it was FDNY chief Nigro,s decision to pull it.

Why would Silverstein go on national television and stupidly tell everyone it was his decision to pull down the building? (To which he was part of a conspiracy)

And apparently "pull it" is not a common industry jargon for demolition.

Proof? Really? Says who?

 

[Baloo]

Human bodies in WTC 7
Plane debris 8 miles away
Apparent human remains found
Double terrorist insurance

 

[Disco08]

Human bodies in WTC 7
Plane debris 8 miles away
Apparent human remains found
Double terrorist insurance

Jennings still says he felt as though he was stepping over bodies and was told not to look down. Not exactly proof there were no dead bodies. Either way I don't think any point was ever made here by the presence of dead bodies inside WTC7.

UAL93 Again? Not even close.

The main point about Silverstein's insurance on WTC7 is that he overinsured it against terrorist attack shortly before 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

 

[tigersnake]

Totally disagree. This was a plan approved by all but the President, including the joint chiefs of staff and its chair. Their plan included hijackings, bombings, and many other faked events. How you can say this is simpler and less damaging is beyond me. I guess you used a lot of capitals though so you must be right.

It is, whether you like it or not, absolute proof that the US is at the very least happy to consider killing its own citizens as a platform for war.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

I've already discussed why this stillborn conspiracy was far less complex and damaging than 9/11. Thinking about bombing some boats with Cuban refugees v actually flying hijacked planes into the biggest and famous buildings full of US citizens? You can't see how those 2 scenarios differ in degree, extent? Like I said, you are disregarding counterarguments. I used capitals to emphasise our opposing logical frameworks, there was nothing smart arse about it. 'The plan was approved by all but the President'...the Pres is the one who matter in order to make this point, for a number of reasons.

Also your use of language is very misleading. In particular the word 'happy'. Again, it goes nowhere to proving 'the US is happy to consider killing its own citizens'. It proves that some generals and advisers would consider a conspiracy, when faced with the prospect of nuclear annihilation, and that the President, who is the embodiment of US power, rejected that proposal. Thats what it PROVES, no extrapolation, no dressing up with misleading language. Thats what it proves.

 

[tigertim]

Proof? Really? Says who?

conspiracy theory websites. On this thread Harry called it evidence.

 

[Rosy]

Jennings still says he felt as though he was stepping over bodies and was told not to look down.

Not dead bodies. Not even bodies. He said "people". You're correct that doesn't in any way indicate there were no dead bodies, considering it doesn't refer to them at all, but even more so it doesn't indicate in any way that there were dead bodies as some would lead us to believe.

 

[Disco08]

If you're steppng over people amongst smoke soot and ruin and told not to look down, I really don't think it's a huge assumption to think those people are either dead or badly injured do you?

I've already discussed why this stillborn conspiracy was far less complex and damaging than 9/11. Thinking about bombing some boats with Cuban refugees v actually flying hijacked planes into the biggest and famous buildings full of US citizens? You can't see how those 2 scenarios differ in degree, extent? Like I said, you are disregarding counterarguments. I used capitals to emphasise our opposing logical frameworks, there was nothing smart arse about it. 'The plan was approved by all but the President'...the Pres is the one who matter in order to make this point, for a number of reasons.

Also your use of language is very misleading. In particular the word 'happy'. Again, it goes nowhere to proving 'the US is happy to consider killing its own citizens'. It proves that some generals and advisers would consider a conspiracy, when faced with the prospect of nuclear annihilation, and that the President, who is the embodiment of US power, rejected that proposal. Thats what it PROVES, no extrapolation, no dressing up with misleading language. Thats what it proves.

I'm not disregarding anything. I've considered your arguemnt and don't believe it has any merit. For a start, if you think the Northwoods plan only involved "Thinking about bombing some boats with Cuban refugees" you obviously don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to be making the type of points you've tried to make, let alone be pumping posts full of capitals for emphasis.

My language is also not at all misleading. The words "happy" and "prepared" are interchangable in that context. It's a common usage with no intent of misleading anyone.

The CMC started and ended October, 1962. Northwoods was planned for February, 1962. Was the US really concerned with the propect of nuclear annihilation or is that a presumptive extrapolation on your part?

Again, Northwoods proves the US armed forces/government were prepared to consider faked terrorist attacks and killing their own citizens as a means of justifying invading another country. The parallels to 9/11 are obvious. Do you think Bush, faced with a similar proposal, would have had the integrity of JFK? Is there any chance that JFK was killed because he stood in the way of the people proposing these operations?

 

[tigersnake]

If you're steppng over people amongst smoke soot and ruin and told not to look down, I really don't think it's a huge assumption to think those people are either dead or badly injured do you?

I'm not disregarding anything. I've considered your arguemnt and don't believe it has any merit. For a start, if you think the Northwoods plan only involved "Thinking about bombing some boats with Cuban refugees" you obviously don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to be making the type of points you've tried to make, let alone be pumping posts full of capitals for emphasis.

My language is also not at all misleading. The words "happy" and "prepared" are interchangable in that context. It's a common usage with no intent of misleading anyone.

The CMC started and ended October, 1962. Northwoods was planned for February, 1962. Was the US really concerned with the propect of nuclear annihilation or is that a presumptive extrapolation on your part?

Again, Northwoods proves the US armed forces/government were prepared to consider faked terrorist attacks and killing their own citizens as a means of justifying invading another country. The parallels to 9/11 are obvious. Do you think Bush, faced with a similar proposal, would have had the integrity of JFK? Is there any chance that JFK was killed because he stood in the way of the people proposing these operations?

OK I made an assumption on the dates, but all the points I've made stand. It was the height of the cold war, people were being jailed for having socialist thoughts in the US Totally different time and context. A political pressure-cooker.
1) Didn't happen. You cannot use a stillborn conspiracy proposal as evidence that a real conspiracy happened. Like I said, it is evidence against the likelihood of conspiracy.
2) It also proves even stillborn p!ssant conspiracies get found out
2) Not a drop in the bucket compared to 9/11 in terms of complexity and potential damage if it had happened.

BTW, who said anything about JFK having integrity? Not this little black duck.

Also, 'happy' and 'prepared' are not interchangeable in this context. It would be similar to a woman being 'prepared' to have an abortion. But would never be 'happy' about it.

 

[Disco08]

1) That's absurd. How is precedent in planning evidence against it possibly reoccuring?

2) 50 years later. How was this proposed operation even remotely "pissant"?

3) Northwoods involved faking attacks. 9/11 potentially only involved aiding a discovered plot to succeed. 9/11 need not have been an overly complex procedure. Far less so at least than faking a hijacking or bombing using US personnel.

 

[tigersnake]

1) That's absurd. How is precedent in planning evidence against it possibly reoccuring?

2) 50 years later. How was this proposed operation even remotely "p!ssant"?

3) Northwoods involved faking attacks. 9/11 potentially only involved aiding a discovered plot to succeed. 9/11 need not have been an overly complex procedure. Far less so at least than faking a hijacking or bombing using US personnel.

1) if you can't see the logic, I can't make you. I can see yours.
2)Compared to 9/11 the proposal was p!ssant. I'll argue that all day long. Again, the Pres of the US couldn't even conspire with a few right-hand men to do a burg.
3) See the previous 50 pages.

Again, I challenge anyone who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy to read 'All the President's Men'. Amazing insight into the inner workings of the Nixon Presidency, and by extension US power, how conspiracies can emerge and evolve, almost by themselves, how even a small apparently simple and small conspiracy was quickly found out due to the inevitable loose lips, jealousies and egos. This is a very important, not to mention gripping, book to place this debate in its wider context. But, too much like hard work maybe, you can google *smile* after all.

 

[evo]

Jennings still says he felt as though he was stepping over bodies and was told not to look down. Not exactly proof there were no dead bodies.

Even if he did step over dead bodies, what is the significance of this? Moreover, what is the significance of suppossed explosions heard hours prior to the building falling?

AFAICT demolition exploisions are timed to all go off within seconds of each other... then the building falls. That's kinda the point of them.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

OK I made an assumption on the dates, but all the points I've made stand. It was the height of the cold war, people were being jailed for having socialist thoughts in the US Totally different time and context. A political pressure-cooker.
1) Didn't happen. You cannot use a stillborn conspiracy proposal as evidence that a real conspiracy happened. Like I said, it is evidence against the likelihood of conspiracy.
2) It also proves even stillborn p!ssant conspiracies get found out
2) Not a drop in the bucket compared to 9/11 in terms of complexity and potential damage if it had happened.

BTW, who said anything about JFK having integrity? Not this little black duck.

Also, 'happy' and 'prepared' are not interchangeable in this context. It would be similar to a woman being 'prepared' to have an abortion. But would never be 'happy' about it.

Agree on JFK. Also agree on the gaping maw of the chasm of difference between Northwoods and 911. The first assumption that I don't think holds any water seems to me to be that there is some kind of amorphous time-invariant general "thing" that is the Joint Chiefs, that allows us to equate the independent thoughts and motivations of two groups of vastly different people. Without this I can't see how anyone can draw a line between the two? Were there any current members of the Joint Chiefs in 2001 that were also members when "Northwoods" was proposed?