911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that implicates the US government or any of its agencies.

Noone has provided any such evidence and so the best - and only coherent - theory on the table is that it was Islamist hijackers.

What exactly is your evidence that it was Islamist hijackers?

* a copy of a koran and a how to fly a plane manual in a hire car
* Mohammad Atta's passport quickly recovered from a disaster site so dreadful that the supposedly indistructable black box flight recorders couldnt be found from
* a video of a rather fat Osama Bin Laden saying "yup, it was us, we hate your freedoms"

Come on...
presumably these are other Islamist hijackers from the ones that the US g'ment says it was seeing as half of them are alive and well and have been interviewed by the Telegraph.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I find it even fishier why people like you keep on ignoring obvious evidence, repeating obvious untruths, refuse to accept all expert analysis and dismiss eye witness testimony in your quest for an exciting conspiracy theory.

I don't think for one second that the US government is in the business of telling the truth, but compared to the fact-free fruitloop shite I've seen endlessly regurgitated here, I'm more inclined to believe that it was a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon and not invisible missiles/fake planes/remote control bombs/UFOs or whatever.

But the level of 'research' you've displayed so far shows that you haven't any real interest in finding the truth: you're just looking to reinforce your predetermined conspiracy-tastic conclusion.

Im not peddling any conspiracy. I have earnestly read as much about this subject, official and skeptical sources, as I can.

frankly I dont know what to believe, though I veer more toward the official story than you seem to think.

But as Ive said, the official story is also a conspiracy theory. Please state any part of this thread or indeed this site where I have claimed anything outlandish about the events of 911. Ive only asked questions and highlighted questionable areas in the official conspiracy theory.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Teejay

"To me the proposition that the crashes were caused deliberately by Islamist hijackers is the most credible theory that is on the table"

I agree, but that preposition fails to answer many questions nonetheless.

 

[Lock&Light]

I agree, but that preposition fails to answer many questions nonetheless.

Unanswerable questions are among the facts of life.

 

[sparticus]

Unanswerable questions are among the facts of life.

But the questions being asked by the 911 family steering committeee are answerable. They were almost completely plain ignored by the Kean Inquiry. So it is not a case of just accepting the unanswered questions as one of those unsolvable mysteries of life but holding to account people within the US administration who have genuine and difficult questions to face

 

[editor]

presumably these are other Islamist hijackers from the ones that the US g'ment says it was seeing as half of them are alive and well and have been interviewed by the Telegraph.

Source, please.

 

[editor]

Please state any part of this thread or indeed this site where I have claimed anything outlandish about the events of 911.

We could start with your demonstrably bollocks claim that there was "No debris on the [Pentagon] lawn."

That's the sort of disinformation conspiraloons trot out to prove that it wasn't a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon.

 

[sparticus]

I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that implicates the US government or any of its agencies. Noone has provided any such evidence and so the best - and only coherent - theory on the table is that it was Islamist hijackers.

Just how hard have you looked Teejay? What 9/11 related books have you read (either supportive of or challenging the official version)? If you want to understand the evidence and case that the Bush administration has to answer it's pretty easy to find. DVD's presenting the evidence are available free of charge or at cost, the DVD material is also available on the web to download or watch online so there is no need to pay for this information.

So to say that no one has presented any such evidence is plain wrong

 

[editor]

So to say that no one has presented any such evidence is plain wrong

Perhaps he should have added, "credible, peer reviewed" evidence written by a suitably qualified author.

 

[TeeJay]

I have seen plenty of utter bullshit, both on u75 and on "truth movement" websites. I haven't seen any evidence that implicates the US government or any of its agencies in the attacks. Whereas a vast amount of evidence points towards a hijacking by Islamist terrorists, the best the "truth movement" can do is quibble about tiny scraps of information which they claim to be inconsistent, and from there launch straight into claims that the US government did it.

If someone wanted to put forward the theory that one or more secret US government agencies "let it happen" there is no point banging on about 'a lack of debris' or 'controlled explosions': what would be needed in this case are details of which agencies were involved, documents, witnesses and an explanation of how anyone could keep literally thousands of people quiet when the US is well know for having whistle-blowers leaking all sorts of misbehaviours, let alone mass murder of US citizens.

Edit: The bulk of the bullshit isn't arguing that the USG "let it happen" or that it "made it happen" - it tries to argue that "it didn't happen" (where "it" is the hijacking and deliberate crashing of airplanes).

Just a question to people who think that no plane hit the Pentagon: what do they think happened to the passengers, crew and airplane that disappeared that day? Is everyone lying about them ever existing? Are they being held in a secret Area51 camp in New Mexico?

It isn't good enough to propose a theory which is "possible" without dealing with all the annoying details that would follow on from any such scenario. The fact that, for example, people are happy to suggest that both WTC towers were rigged with explosives but that *noone* has bothered looking for evidence of activity and work going on in the towers prior to the attack - despite there being literally thousands of people avalaibale who worked in these towers ever day, is a good example of why many of the theories of the "truth movement" are such utter bullshit.

 

[sparticus]

Source, please.

What articles such as the Telegraph show is that there are questions regarding the identities of the 'hijackers' and there is a genuine possibility of identity theft or error in the hasty identification of the 'hijackers'. The Kean Inquiry failed to adequately address this possibility

 

[TeeJay]

It is very common for international criminals - including terrorists - to travel on false documents. The fact that the USG published photographs and names of the alleged hijackers after the attack was to do with the pictures and names on the passports they used when they entered the US. It wouldn't mean anything if these passports were in false names, including names of innocent real-life people in other countries.

Why is it an issue?

 

[editor]

What articles such as the Telegraph show is that there are questions regarding the identities of the 'hijackers' and there is a genuine possibility of identity theft or error in the hasty identification of the 'hijackers'. The Kean Inquiry failed to adequately address this possibility

Err, the claim was very clear and emphatic, and that was that "half" of the hijackers "are alive and well and have been interviewed by the Telegraph."

Can you point me in the direction of these articles please or would you agree that q_w_e_r_t_y was talking out of his arse?

As for identity theft - well, it's hardly unusual, is it?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I've only read the opening post. The term "the truth movement" struck me as particularly impressive.

 

[sparticus]

It is very common for international criminals - including terrorists - to travel on false documents. The fact that the USG published photographs and names of the alleged hijackers after the attack was to do with the pictures and names on the passports they used when they entered the US. It wouldn't mean anything if these passports were in false names, including names of innocent real-life people in other countries.

Why is it an issue?

Are you serious? The USG getting the identity of the 'terrorists' right or wrong is fundamental to the official explanation and the degree to which there is uncertainty about it. How the 'hijackers' were able to routinely enter and leave the US and gain visas from the US embassy in Saudi despite being on watch lists is one of the numerous pertinent unanswered questions (as raised by Sibel Edmonds).

So why if it is such a non issue would Sibel Edmonds be placed under a gagging order and her testimony to the Kean Inquiry kept from us. But then if you were familiar with the evidence cited by the 911 truth movement you would know this

 

[editor]

So why if it is such a non issue would Sibel Edmonds be placed under a gagging order and her testimony to the Kean Inquiry kept from us. But then if you were familiar with the evidence cited by the 911 truth movement you would know this

How does this fit in with any of the wild conspiracy yarns about 9/11, please?

 

[Pickman's model]

I've only read the opening post. The term "the truth movement" struck me as particularly impressive.

yeh!

 

[tobyjug]

This questionaire is a cut and paste from http://www.911truth.org

An interesting place to see where people are at with this issue. Given the amount of unanswered questions I'm staggered there isnt more of a push to get at answers, even if the answers serve to back up the official story.

What should the truth movement be doing in 2006 do achieve their ends?

Are you sat in a Faraday cage wearing a tin-foil helmet?

 

[sparticus]

How does this fit in with any of the wild conspiracy yarns about 9/11, please?

Well if you were as familiar with 9/11 as you profess to be you wouldn't need an explanation, but here goes.

Perhaps this section from Sibel's letter to Thomas Kean (you have heard of him haven't you?) will explain

.......... "Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report." ......

She is just one of many credible public figures and whistleblowers who find the Kean report to be "seriously flawed" and so supports a further investigation.

 

[pk]

Well if you were as familiar with 9/11 as you profess to be you wouldn't need an explanation.

Perhaps that should be "Well if you were as obsessed with finding a conspiracy within 9/11 as I am, you wouldn't need evidence"...

How are your public meetings on this issue going, Sparticus??

What was it last time - 2 people turned up?

 

[sparticus]

It's fine not to be so 'obsessed' with 9/11 as long as those dismissing '9/11 truth' as conspiraloon bullshit don't pretend to be familiar with the evidence if they are not

PS the last meeting I arranged was attend by about 100

 

[editor]

Perhaps this section from Sibel's letter to Thomas Kean (you have heard of him haven't you?) will explain

Not a single word of which supports the kind of barking nonsense proposed by conspiraloons.

But hey - in the absence of a single grain of evidence, why not fill in the gaps with your own exciting conspiracy projections eh?

 

[editor]

PS the last meeting I arranged was attend by about 100

Where was that then and what was the theme of the meeting?

 

[editor]

Err, the claim was very clear and emphatic, and that was that "half" of the hijackers "are alive and well and have been interviewed by the Telegraph."

Can you point me in the direction of these articles please or would you agree that q_w_e_r_t_y was talking out of his arse?

As for identity theft - well, it's hardly unusual, is it?

Still waiting for an answer on this sparticus!

 

[TeeJay]

Are you serious? The USG getting the identity of the 'terrorists' right or wrong is fundamental to the official explanation and the degree to which there is uncertainty about it.

Why does someone's correct name matter? The USG account works just as well if they called them persons X, Y and Z - or "the person looking like photo A and travelling with a passport and other id with the name X, who was in places 1, 2 and 3 at certain times." The lack of 100% certainty about someone's real life name doesn't detract from the USG account. IIRC some of the hijackers (the ones with flying training) were "known" but the majority had no previous record of terrorist connections - ie were "unknowns".

Presumably intelligence services allow people to travel around in the hope that they will lead them to other contacts and give away information about operations etc - in the same way as law enforcement agencies will observe criminal networks until they have built up a picture of the wider network and can press charges against as many people as possible for the most serious charges possible, causing maximum disruption.

 

[TeeJay]

So why if it is such a non issue would Sibel Edmonds be placed under a gagging order and her testimony to the Kean Inquiry kept from us.

"While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating."

Sorry but I fail to see the connection.

 

[Jazzz]

As an aside, it's nice to see wikipedia
reflecting the concerns over the veracity of the official narrative...

"Many individuals were directly responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to nearly all mainstream media sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report, the attack was planned and carried out by al-Qaida operatives. However, many reputable authors such as David Ray Griffin and organizations such as Reopen911.org have pointed out glaring faults with the official story."

 

[pk]

PS the last meeting I arranged was attend by about 100

*cough* bullshit

A 9/11 meeting??

Yeah right.

When all your previous meetings have had less than 5, all of a sudden 100 turn up?

Bollocks.

I don't believe a word of it, any more than I believe your oft-debunked "evidence".

 

[editor]

As an aside, it's nice to see wikipedia
reflecting the concerns over the veracity of the official narrative...

I note you're ignoring the rest of the page as usual....



Could you answer my questions now please?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4013190&postcount=54

 

[goldenecitrone]

What a great way to start the New Year. A 9/11 thread. It's like deja vu all over again.