9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[detective-boy]

You for a start.

I don't wish to censor anybody, never have done, don't know what you're going on about.

You state:

But there seems an alarming amount of posters who are here these days to effectively give us the state's angle on things.

WHY does that not imply that you would rather they are not there - i.e. their view is censored?

But anyway, never mind that. Please link to any post where I:

effectively give us the state's angle on things.

as opposed to providing a possible alternative explanation for something which appears to make no sense, providing background information on the circumstances surrounding an event / decision or whatever which sheds different light on what appears to make no sense or something similar.

 

[fela fan]

Classic!

You wouldn't know "evidence" if it stood up and slapped you.

Wrong. Everybody with a modicum of intelligence about them would know what constituted evidence.

Interestingly police and judges often accept something less than evidence in declaring guilt.

 

[detective-boy]

Quite often it's because they've been presented with an argument they know is right, but can't admit, or even more often they don't want to prick the self-delusion they've succumbed to.

Another classic! This thread is really bringing them out!

 

[detective-boy]

Wrong. Everybody with a modicum of intelligence about them would know what constituted evidence.

On that basis ... you clearly have an IQ somewhat lower than your shoe size ...

 

[fela fan]

You state:



WHY does that not imply that you would rather they are not there - i.e. their view is censored?

But anyway, never mind that. Please link to any post where I:



as opposed to providing a possible alternative explanation for something which appears to make no sense, providing background information on the circumstances surrounding an event / decision or whatever which sheds different light on what appears to make no sense or something similar.

Imply is down to me, and i did not imply that, never mind even think it. I like reading all points of view.

Infer is down to you, and i have no influence over that. In this case you got it wrong.

When i mentioned about posters presenting the state's angle on things, firstly i qualified it with 'effectively', and secondly it was to highlight that many here say the same things that those spokespeople of the state come out with.

 

[fela fan]

On that basis ... you clearly have an IQ somewhat lower than your shoe size ...

I've just measured it, and it's about 300

I therefore am super intelligent.

[assuming you meant shoe size in mm...]

 

[fela fan]

Another classic! This thread is really bringing them out!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fela fan
Quite often it's because they've been presented with an argument they know is right, but can't admit, or even more often they don't want to prick the self-delusion they've succumbed to.

I've pasted up what you replied to.

Can you let me know what is wrong with what i said, and refute it in any way you can please?

 

[squeegee]

Classic!

You wouldn't know "evidence" if it stood up and slapped you.

Cos you would dibble. Ah yes, five years in the flying squad man and boy seen it all done it all know it all.

you see i work in journalism and know what a scum-ball lot of incompetents and ignoramuses work there. you still view your inherently racist police force as some pillar of wisdom and knowledge. go on, tell me its only a few bad apples. guess what, it's not.

your knowledge extends to your job, that's all. speak freely on that and i'll gladly listen, that but don't try to philosophise about where this is all going. you really don't know so it's best you keep quiet and try to learn something from those whose job it is to piece this together. yes, that would be me and the few others on here with any sense to be honest enough and upfront enough to admit it

like how governments lie and send soldiers out to die for and increase in their bank balance.

and police carry out state oppression and the army carries out state terrorism. you gonna give me some insight into your years in the flying squad to tell me this is not so?

 

[Crispy]

Governments lie? Say it ain't so!
Armies carrying out state terrorism? Who would have thought!

My mind is reeling from the revelations!

 

[squeegee]

Governments lie? Say it ain't so!
Armies carrying out state terrorism? Who would have thought!

My mind is reeling from the revelations!

Yeah but i can't prove it. For every accusation they could answer with a "plausible" excuse and enough people seem to be denying this is the case on these boards and in the wider world.

So if they lie and carry out state terrorism, what can the ordinary person do to stop it? Especially when the mainstream media would never be able to make such a claim.

So if you accept governments lie, why should i believe a single word coming out of the mouths of government ministers? if they say it's sunny outside, i'll be reaching for my umbrella expecting rain.

that's the only reasonable way to be.

 

[Crispy]

But they don't lie all the time. And they don't act as one. There are factions and arguments within governments and it is there that you can tease out the truth of the matter. Also, believe it or not, there are a few honest politicians - heresy I know.

PS: The self-aggrandisement doesn't suit you and makes you more enemies than friends.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

your knowledge extends to your job, that's all. speak freely on that and i'll gladly listen, that but don't try to philosophise about where this is all going. you really don't know so it's best you keep quiet and try to learn something from those whose job it is to piece this together. yes, that would be me and the few others on here with any sense to be honest enough and upfront enough to admit it

So, yet again, you are one of the few "truth seekers" who are soooo much cleverer than us poor peopoe who just can't see the bigger picture

If finding the truth is your job, god help us becuase you are woefully underqualified.

 

[squeegee]

But they don't lie all the time. And they don't act as one. There are factions and arguments within governments and it is there that you can tease out the truth of the matter. Also, believe it or not, there are a few honest politicians - heresy I know.

PS: The self-aggrandisement doesn't suit you and makes you more enemies than friends.

when your abilities are continually called into question, what else can you do than try to suggest why that would be wrong. i could say alot more of what i do and what i know. and it's no super-secret stuff.

it's just that i have followed this since way before 911. years before in fact. and so i do know the pitfalls of all this conspiracy etc. and also the techniques of those who would seek to stifle debate.

and i admit that even through all the abuse, the constant calls for evidence, fact etc, has sharpened my sensibilities in how to present what i know to sceptics and cynics alike.

i'm no expert or font of all knowledge but obviously there are some on here who, other than insults and abuse, cannot muster any kind of intelligent debate. am i supposed to just let them mouth shite about me?

yeah of course. the mob rules

 

[Crispy]

Anyway, let's get off the personal stuff, it's unpleasant and goes nowhere but the bin

 

[tarannau]

I love the way that certain of the conspiracy fans are scrabbling to try and gain the moral high ground by suggesting that 'debate' is curtailed because someone's called them a mildly insulting name. As if the delicate wallflowers can't possibly stand up for themselves unless we're all sub-watershed polite, as if the strength of the evidence and logic of the post is compromised by saying 'bugger'

Which is all the more laughable when you realise that - as on many other threads - Squeegee's way of prompting a 'debate' is to confidently assert a something as fact (no investigation of financial irregularities) and when provided proof that such investigations took place bluster evasively and deny that it wasn't such a fundamentally important point after all. A honest apology would have worked wonders, but instead the lack of grace was compounded by Squeegee lying that they 'knew all along' and that he could 'glean' the real truth by interpreting the report. Which is a bit rich considering that he didn't believe that the investigation dealt with that aspect at all, so Squeegee is in fact retrospectively gleaning 'the truth' from an investigation they didn't know existed.

Which just goes to emphasise that truth isn't important to Squeegee and his ilk; he believes he 'knows' that there's a conspiracy afoot and is more than willing to shape, misreport, lie and twist facts to suit his view. The fact that he can't see the hypocrisy in such an approach in a thread specifically about Pentagon lies is one of those humorous ironies that can't help but make you giggle.

You can't have one of the main protagonists having such a loose and unapologetic way of twisting facts and reality and expect a constructive debate on real terms. Unless some degree of factual and real world rigour is applied you can't hold a genuine debate about the issue - you essentially want to hold a circle jerk of folks putting out their favourite theories without any real questions; a symposium to tell your favourite conspiracy ideas to your friends and fellow enthusiasts. What's debate without a link to reality? Storytelling?

And that's why folks belittle and insult you. Because there's no point 'debating' with someone who has made up their mind and has blind belief - you only want to recite, not properly justify your points and listen with an open mind. You're the conspiracy obsessed Jehovah's Witnesses of the bulletin board world.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It's neither.

Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the release of the conclusive evidence is imminent

Something has been proved by evidence that hasn't yet been released? That's a pretty good trick.

So, yet again, you've posted speculation masquarading as fact.

Do you still think prisonplanet.com is a credible source of information?

 

[tarannau]

Shh Bees, we should believe that, even without any supporting evidence.

It's not from the Govt after all, who we can't trust because they've been shown to lie from time to time, nor the wanky mainstream media. It's from Alex Jones, whose Prison Planet site has been often shown to misrepresent facts and essentially lie for effect.

Whoever needs consistency in their cynicism eh? Fancy a bit of reiki healing and a homeopathic holographic tablet to make you understand more? Haven't you seen the big picture yet?

 

[squeegee]

I love the way that certain of the conspiracy fans are scrabbling to try and gain the moral high ground by suggesting that 'debate' is curtailed because someone's called them a mildly insulting name. As if the delicate wallflowers can't possibly stand up for themselves unless we're all sub-watershed polite, as if the strength of the evidence and logic of the post is compromised by saying 'bugger'

Which is all the more laughable when you realise that - as on many other threads - Squeegee's way of prompting a 'debate' is to confidently assert a something as fact (no investigation of financial irregularities) and when provided proof that such investigations took place bluster evasively and deny that it wasn't such a fundamentally important point after all. A honest apology would have worked wonders, but instead the lack of grace was compounded by Squeegee lying that they 'knew all along' and that the evidence was essentially unimportant anyway, that he could 'glean' the real truth by interpreting the report. Which is a bit rich considering that he didn't believe that the investigation didn't deal with that aspect at all, so Squeegee is in fact retrospectively gleaning 'the truth' from an investigation they didn't know existed.

Which just goes to emphasise that truth isn't important to Squeegee and his ilk; he believes he 'knows' that there's a conspiracy afoot and is more than willing to shape, misreport, lie and twist facts to suit his view. The fact that he can't see the hypocrisy in such an approach in a thread specifically about Pentagon lies is one of those humorous ironies that can't help but make you giggle.

You can't have one of the main protagonists having such a loose and unapologetic way of twisting facts and reality and expect a constructive debate on real terms. Unless some degree of factual and real world rigour is applied you can't hold a genuine debate about the issue - you essentially want to hold a circle jerk of folks putting out their favourite theories without any real questions; a symposium to tell your favourite conspiracy ideas to your friends and fellow enthusiasts. What's debate without a link to reality? Storytelling?

And that's why folks belittle and insult you. Because there's no point 'debating' with someone who has made up their mind and has blind belief - you only want to recite, not properly justify your points and listen with an open mind. You're the conspiracy obsessed Jehovah's Witnesses of the bulletin board world.

you see you've decided to infer what you wanted from my post and then formulate a theory of your own as to why you or others do not want to engage in debate.

my point about the 911 commission issuing that side note about the insider trading was that mainstream journalists did not pursue this further.

i don't need to read every report. as i've said, if you accept that elements high up the UK and US govermnent lie to protect themselves (which is what this thread is about isn't it?) then why would you believe a commission report criticised by the families of the bereaved on 911 as well as prominent US writers?

but you want to get caught in details and want me to look through every sentence of every report. if i had the time i would, but i don't. and thus i am not making specific claims despite your insistence that i have done.

i am just saying that if the commission tells me there is nothing suspicious about the trading, then i am inclined to disbelieve them.

maybe that does not sit well with your philosophy of proof first, suspicion after, but i happen to think that technique works perfectly for the government, judiciary, police etc. since they hold knowledge we are not party to so it is much easier for elements within these bodies to manipulate this information.

and it doesn't take a grand conspiracy, as asrael quite correctly mentioned in the early pages of this thread. it takes a few people with orchestrated intent. most people working in these bodies will comply, or can be counted on to be incompetent through inertia and not expecting wicked intent from within. that's the way it has always worked.

look how difficult it is to find corruption within public bodies like the police and medical authorities. colleagues will defend their workmates out of loyalty and because they might fear for their jobs and reputations.

and once again, just like hutton and dr kelly's death, the suspicions are addressed out of public pressure, and we are told fully investigated when it has quite obviously not been to any sceptic's satisfaction. But it seems to satisfy some here.

ironic that, that some demand extensive proof, but as soon as a judge or somone official says there's nothing to investigate they accept that as gospel.

it's not about a mind being made up. it's a question of trust. you trust the government and these commissions. i don't.

how is that difficult for you to understand?

 

[Crispy]

Ok, so let's see the impartial, independant investigation or proof that these trades were dodgy. If you can't proove it either way then you have to discount it as evidence. Surely there must be some financial analysts who can be trusted to an extent worthy of investigating this? Or are they all covering each other's backs?

I don't trust governemnts, I don't trust journalists, I don't trust agenda-driven website owners. You have to read between all the lines, consider all the views. In the end, primary evidence is the only truly infallible source, and that's gold dust. Everything else has to be built up from shadows and reflections of the real truth. If pieces don't fit, adjust the puzzle. But just be aware that the correct pieces can come from all sources, as can the wrong ones.

 

[squeegee]

Ok, so let's see the impartial, independant investigation or proof that these trades were dodgy. If you can't prove it either way then you have to discount it as evidence.

I wouldn't say discount it as evidence, but definitely there must be substantial proof before any specific claims are made. And I don't say these trades are dodgy, but I would like to see it investigated by financial experts, or journalists who can follow any financial trail, but you know the nature of finance and those working within it, is that it doesn't lend itself well to attacking the global capitalist system that promotes perpetual war.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

you trust the government and these commissions.

I trust the government about as far as I can throw a matress up a spiral staircase.

But this dosen't mean that I then blindly accept any dodgy conspiracy theory going either.

The trick is to look at actual evidence, rather than speculation and theory.


Do we know the full truth about what happened on 9/11? No. Will we ever be told? Almost certainly not. Have various governments used it as an excuse to pursue various agendas? Yes.

Does the above mean that it was an inside job? No.

 

[tarannau]

my point about the 911 commission issuing that side note about the insider trading was that mainstream journalists did not pursue this further.

There you go again with the hyperbolic imagined certainties. How the bleeding hell do you know that 'mainstream journalists did not pursue this further?' Did you hold a phone poll of all mainstream journos, send out a survey and collate the reports? Or just guess?

Just because you haven't found an article that favours your 'it's obviously a financial stitch-up' version of events doesn't mean that researchers or journalists didn't investigate. It may simply mean that they concluded the same as the report - indeed with all those employed in the Stock market it's unlikely deals of such magnitude could be easily anonymised and word wouldn't get out.

it's not about a mind being made up. it's a question of trust. you trust the government and these commissions. i don't.

how is that difficult for you to understand?

I don't trust the govt or commissions particularly, but I'd be fucked if I prefer to take the unsupported 'gleanings' and speculations of some obsessed fact-free duffer like yourself as more trustworthy or credible. I'm may be cynical, but I try to be fair in my cynicism. Is that difficult for you to understand?

 

[WouldBe]

It's neither.

Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries

Samples came from commemorative statues made from WTC Steel!

What a pile of dross.

Firstly the report is due to be released imminently. In other words it hasn't been release yet so you don't know exactly what is in that report.

From link

Jones says that, "using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.

They found iron and manganese in a sample of steel. WTF did they expect to find.


From Wiki

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

Where does the potassium come from they found in their sample?

Certainly not from the thermate.

As thermate consists of aluminium powder and barium nitrate why are ther no traces of these metals in the analysed sample either?

No mention in Wiki of thermate being used as a demolition charge. It's simply used as an incendiary device. In fact a quick search of the first 3 pages of google for thermate shows that the only person who states thermate is a 'controlled demolition charge' is the professer making the claim that thermate was used to bring down the towers.

 

[squeegee]

Reasonable Questions?

Particularly...

"In the weeks before 9/11, the US Stock market showed rather high levels of activity on companies that would subsequently be affected by the attacks. The afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over trading patterns in stock options. A jump in United Air Lines some 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, for example, and 285 times higher than average the Thursday before the attack, have been reported. A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal the day before the attacks has also been reported. No similar trading occurred on any other airlines appear to have occurred.

Between September 6-10, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch were bought between Sept. 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought between Sept. 7-10, whereas the previous days had seen averages of 212 contracts a day. According to Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg News: "This would be the most extraordinary coincidence in the history of mankind, if it was a coincidence. This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life. It’s absolutely unprecedented."

On September 18, 2001, the BBC reported: "American authorities are investigating unusually large numbers of shares in airlines, insurance companies and arms manufacturers that were sold off in the days and weeks before the attacks. They believe that the sales were by people who knew about the impending disaster". According to the London Independent, October 10, 2001: "To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the 'put' options—where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall—on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now executive director of the CIA."

The 9/11 Commission, after looking into the pre-9/11 stock trades, never denied their unusual nature. Instead, the Commission declared that al-Qaeda did not conduct the trades, and asked no further questions.

Who, if not al-Qaeda, performed the incriminating trades? This information exists, it can be easily obtained, and it needs to be made public. Moreover, illegal money transfers may have been processed through computers housed at the World Trade Center shortly before planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. We demand a disclosure of the source of the put options and that this whole sordid affair receive a complete and public investigation. "

Or is this considered a conspiraloonery site? And if it's not, would it be too much that some who have criticised can accept this is a credible source. Yeah, once again just a quick search. Which I suppose must mean it's bullshit or i've misread it.

please, enlighten me, why it's not reasonable to ask the questions that the above asks?

 

[squeegee]

and in addition i think that every point is a reasonable question to ask. who would disagree with this? i hope at least this can be agreed upon.

 

[Crispy]

Indeed. Thermite is an exothermic reaction between Iron Oxide and Aluminium. You need a lot of it to make it useful. It's also tricky to control, seeing as it turns liquid as soon as the process starts.

I suppose you could use thermite to destroy a steel building, but you'd need a hell of lot of it for a building like the WTC. You'd also need to get it directly into contact with the structural steels.

 

[Crispy]

Well the answer is we just don't know, do we?
It could have been traders linked to a-q. The comission may well not have investigated, but couldn't be bothered to check. It could have been an element in USG who knew the attack was about to happen. It could be coincidence. Whatever the reason, it is a perfectly valid question to ask - nobody is stopping you asking, and I'd sure as hell like to know the answers.

However, it is not 'proof' and it does not make any particular interpretation of the events more likely. There is just insufficient evidence available.

 

[kyser_soze]

So if you wanted to place thermite in the building to shear the support beams in that way, you'd need to place it on the exposed beams? And in order to do that you'd need to expose the beams; probably a fairly hefty job.

Incidentally, and staying with the demolition theory, was there a company on the floors that these explosives were supposed to be placed does anyone know?

 

[Crispy]

Well, according to the prisonplanet analysis, the explosives are pretty much everywhere. I don't think there is a consensus on this issue.
EDIT : Ah, there's this image. Could someone with more knowledge of this hypothesis tell me if this is the best estimation at the moment?

from this page: http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/march2005/100305strategicexplosives.htm

It wouldn't be too hard to cut the floor trusses - you could get to those through the suspended ceilings. It would be near impossible to get at the external columns - and even then, it's tricky to make the thermite flow sideways...

I'd have to go and check the wtc drawings for the location of any lateral members in the external skin of the tower. You could probably get at those through the ceiling if they're exposed.

Bear in mind that you'd also have to fly the plane into the right place - get it wrong and your controlled demolition is going to look really sus.

 

[squeegee]

However, it is not 'proof' and it does not make any particular interpretation of the events more likely. There is just insufficient evidence available.

I've never suggested it was proof, but simply that I should be allowed to ask the question without cries of conspiraloon. If I say something genuinely conspiraloon-like then fair enough, but to attack me for making the absolutely valid claim that the commission did not investigate this thoroughly enough and neither did manistream journalism, i am attacked for being a numpty, poor researcher, arrogant etc etc.

Which would put most people off from even asking the questions. But thanks for accepting that asking the question is valid and reasonable to do. Is it too much to ask that Tarranau could do the same?