The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
Happy coincidenting!
Footnotes and links available here:
http://rigorousintuition....
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
That shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA but he was really just a kidding around with the chaps at work.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.
That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.
That whistle blower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger management seminar.
That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of coordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.
That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.
That in the weeks before 9/11, FBI agent Colleen Rowley found her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui so perversely thwarted that her colleagues joked that bin Laden had a mole at the FBI, proves the stress-relieving virtue of humour in the workplace.
That Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001 does appear on the surface odd, but undoubtedly there's a good reason for it, quite possibly classified.
That FBI informant Randy Glass, working an undercover sting, was told by Pakistani intelligence operatives that the World Trade Center towers were coming down, and that his repeated warnings which continued until weeks before the attacks, including the mention of planes used as weapons, were ignored by federal authorities, is simply one of the many "What Ifs" of that tragic day.
That over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent, senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies and governments - including those of Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Afghanistan and others - of impending terror attacks using hijacked aircraft and did nothing, demonstrates the pressing need for a new Intelligence Czar.
That John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in July 2001 on account of security considerations had nothing to do with warnings regarding September 11, because he said so to the 9/11 Commission.
That former lead counsel for the House David Schippers says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened, proves nothing but David Schipper’s pathetic need for attention.
That Garth Nicolson received two warnings from contacts in the intelligence community and one from a North African head of state, which included specific site, date and source of the attacks, and passed the information to the Defense Department and the National Security Council to evidently no effect, clearly amounts to nothing, since virtually nobody has ever heard of him.
That in the months prior to September 11, self-described US intelligence operative Delmart Vreeland sought, from a Toronto jail cell, to get US and Canadian authorities to heed his warning of his accidental discovery of impending catastrophic attacks is worthless, since Vreeland was a dubious character, notwithstanding the fact that many of his claims have since been proven true.
That FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright claims that agents assigned to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism, sounds like yet more sour grapes from a disgruntled employee.
That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11 demonstrates only the value of being prepared.
The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.
That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.
Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan’s ISI, must not have authorized an al Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11, because I didn’t read anything about him in the official report.
That Porter Goss met with Ahmed the morning of September 11 in his capacity as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has no bearing whatsoever upon his recent selection by the White House to head the Central Intelligence Agency.
That Goss's congressional seat encompasses the 9/11 hijackers' Florida base of operation, including their flight schools, is precisely the kind of meaningless factoid a conspiracy theorist would bring up.
It's true that George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of September 10 alone in the Oval Office, but what's wrong with old colleagues catching up? And it's true that George HW Bush and Shafig bin Laden, Osama's brother, spent the morning of September 11 together at a board meeting of the Carlyle Group, but the bin Ladens are a big family.
That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.
Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials canceled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.
That George Bush's telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should surprise no one, given the confusion of the day.
That Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey merely shows it is a small world, after all.
That Lt Col Steve Butler, Vice Chancellor for student affairs of the Defense Language Institute during Alghamdi's terms, was disciplined, removed from his post and threatened with court martial when he wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain," is the least that should have happened for such disrespect shown his Commander in Chief.
That Mohammed Atta dressed like a Mafioso, had a stripper girlfriend, smuggled drugs, was already a licensed pilot when he entered the US, enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine, was closer to Europeans than Arabs in Florida, and included the names of defence contractors on his email list, proves how dangerous the radical fundamentalist Muslim can be.
That 43 lbs of heroin was found on board the Lear Jet owned by Wally Hilliard, the owner of Atta’s flight school, just three weeks after Atta enrolled – the biggest seizure ever in Central Florida – was just bad luck. That Hilliard was not charged shows how specious the claims for conspiracy truly are.
That Hilliard’s plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal’s attorney before Seal’s murder, shows nothing but the lengths to which conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions.
Reports of insider trading on 9/11 are false, because the SEC investigated and found only respectable investors who will remain nameless involved, and no terrorists, so the windfall profit-taking was merely, as ever, coincidental.
That heightened security for the World Trade Centre was lifted immediately prior to the attacks illustrates that it always happens when you least expect it.
That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their minds to it.
That none of the flight data recorders were said to be recoverable even though they were located in the tail sections, and that until 9/11, no solid-state recorder in a catastrophic crash had been unrecoverable, shows how there's a first time for everything.
That Mohammed Atta left a uniform, a will, a Koran, his driver's license and a "how to fly planes" video in his rental car at the airport means he had other things on his mind.
The mention of Israelis with links to military-intelligence having been arrested on Sept 11 videotaping and celebrating the attacks, of an Israeli espionage ring surveiling DEA and defense installations and trailing the hijackers, and of a warning of impending attacks delivered to the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the first plane hit, does not deserve a response. That the stories also appeared in publications such as Ha'aretz and Forward is a sad display of self-hatred among certain elements of the Israeli media.
That multiple military wargames and simulations were underway the morning of 9/11 – one simulating the crash of a plane into a building; another, a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings – and took many interceptors away from the eastern seaboard and confused field commanders as to which was a real hijacked aircraft and which was a hoax, was a bizarre coincidence, but no less a coincidence.
That the National Military Command Center ops director asked a rookie substitute to stand his watch at 8:30 am on Sept. 11 is nothing more than bad timing.
That a recording made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers’ describing what they had witnessed, was destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, is something no doubt that overzealous official wishes he could undo.
That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools to descend upon hours after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their federal agents are on the ball.
That a former flight school executive believes the hijackers were "double agents," and says about Atta and associates, "Early on I gleaned that these guys had government protection. They were let into this country for a specific purpose," and was visited by the FBI just four hours after the attacks to intimidate him into silence, proves he's an unreliable witness, for the simple reason there is no conspiracy.
That Jeb Bush was on board an aircraft that removed flight school records to Washington in the middle of the night on Sept 12th demonstrates how seriously the governor takes the issue of national security.
To insinuate evil motive from the mercy flights of bin Laden family members and Saudi royals after 9/11 shows the sickness of the conspiratorial mindset.
Le Figaro’s report in October 2001, known to have originated with French intelligence, that the CIA met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001, proves again the perfidy of the French.
That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11.
That at the battle of Tora Bora, where bin Laden was surrounded on three sides, Special Forces received no order to advance and capture him and were forced to stand and watch as two Russian-made helicopters flew into the area where bin Laden was believed hiding, loaded up passengers and returned to Pakistan, demonstrates how confusing the modern battlefield can be.
That upon returning to Fort Bragg from Tora Bora, the same Special Operations troops who had stood down from capturing bin Laden, suffered a unusual spree of murder/suicides, is nothing more than a series of senseless tragedies.
Reports that bin Laden is currently receiving periodic dialysis treatment in a Pakistani medical hospital are simply too incredible to be true.
That the White House went on Cipro September 11 shows the foresightedness of America’s emergency response.
That the anthrax was mailed to perceived liberal media and the Democratic leadership demonstrates only the perversity of the terrorist psyche.
That the anthrax attacks appeared to silence opponents of the Patriot Act shows only that appearances can be deceiving.
That the Ames-strain anthrax was found to have originated at Fort Detrick, and was beyond the capability of all but a few labs to refine, underscores the importance of allowing the investigation to continue without the distraction of absurd conspiracy theories.
That Republican guru Grover Norquist has been found to have aided financiers and supporters of Islamic terror to gain access to the Bush White House, and is a founder of the Islamic Institute, which the Treasury Department believes to be a source of funding for al Qaeda, suggests Norquist is at worst, naive, and at best, needs a wider circle of friends.
That the Department of Justice consistently chooses to see accused 9/11 plotters go free rather than permit the courtroom testimony of al Qaeda leaders in American custody looks bad, but only because we don't have all the facts.
That the White House balked at any inquiry into the events of 9/11, then starved it of funds and stonewalled it, was unfortunate, but since the commission didn't find for conspiracy it's all a non issue anyway.
That the 9/11 commission's executive director and "gatekeeper," Philip Zelikow, was so closely involved in the events under investigation that he testified before the the commission as part of the inquiry, shows only an apparent conflict of interest.
That commission chair Thomas Kean is, like George Bush, a Texas oil executive who had business dealings with reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mafouz, suggests Texas is smaller than they say it is.
That co-chair Lee Hamilton has a history as a Bush family "fixer," including clearing Bush Sr of the claims arising from the 1980 "October Surprise", is of no concern, since only conspiracists believe there was such a thing as an October Surprise.
That FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds accuses the agency of intentionally fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage ring in its translation department, and claims she witnessed evidence of the semi-official infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics trade behind the attacks, is of no account, since John Ashcroft has gagged her with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and retroactively classified her public testimony. For the sake of national security, let us speak no more of her.
That, when commenting on Edmond's case, Daniel Ellsberg remarked that Ashcroft could go to prison for his part in a cover-up, suggests Ellsberg is giving comfort to the terrorists, and could, if he doesn't wise up, find himself declared an enemy combatant.
I could go on. And on and on. But I trust you get the point. Which is simply this: there are no secrets, an American government would never accept civilian casualties for geostrategic gain, and conspiracies are for the weak-minded and gullible.
Footnotes and Links Available:
http://rigorousintuition....
If the government owns the truth, then isn't the official story
true? They define the truth and those who have an interest in maintaining stability must accept the official story as the one and only truth or else risk being marginalized and defamed.
Regular folks who believe the official story have either not been exposed to the facts or are immune to truth because they have been conditioned to disregard it.
the sad part is, the real truth will never be known to but a small handful of people. At this point, even if the 100% pure truth was told, it would be attacked on all sides and once again, people would return happily to their fantasy lands, on either side.
I disagree with one aspect
of your comment. I believe that one day people will look back and understand 911 for what it really was. It may take a little while for that to happen. It's inconceivable for most people that something like this could occur under their noses, but they are more willing to entertain alternative explanations as they become more separated by space and time. It breaks down the mental blockade that they set up for themselves.
---
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - should be a convenience store, not a government agency!
Couldn't I post the exact same comment and have it mean the
exact opposite?
No, I think the difference is in the word "alternative"
I see your point but you have to consider that many people (myself included) once believed the official government story - maybe not all the little details but at least the basic premise of how it happened. When you begin to look at it in more detail and see the lies, inconsistencies, cover-ups, coincidences, incompatibility with physics, etc, etc, then you realize that the official government theory does not hold water. Unfortunately too many people, even in the face of an obvious cover-up, will not consider that maybe the event happened in a way very different from what the perpetrators of the cover up are claiming. Eventually the truth will come out and people will be ready to accept it.
---
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - should be a convenience store, not a government agency!
But what happens when you look at the *hundreds* of different
truther stories and see all the holes and lies and outright fabrications?
What gives you more faith in them?
Joesmoe---have you seen "Zero"?
..I have no theory on the matter.
"ZERO: An Investigation into 9/11, has one central thesis - that
the official version of the events surrounding the attacks on 9/11 can not be true."
I don't think I need to.
Joesmoe's homework assignment :)
Don't give me any lip, either...lol
Part 1: 10:25 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 2: 10:57 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 3:10:23 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 4: 10:55 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 5: 10:26 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 6: 10:11 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 7: 10:30 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 8: 10:58 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 9: 10:54 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 10: 7:59 min.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
I'm telling you, it's worth it
You'll never find me getting too mixed up in 9-11 discussions because I really don't think anyone will ever really know all the details. But I can tell you, this is a well-made and enlightening film.
I cannot take seriously any source of information which draws
a conclusion and then seeks to find the evidence to support it.
Huh...
You mean like that crazy assed bullet in Dallas? Or is it also ludicrous to believe that the government may have lied there as well?
**“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.” ~ Mark Twain **
Concerning the Magic Bullet Theory
http://mcadams.posc.mu.ed...
I am not at all familiar with the JFK shooting and
cannot see how it relates to this.
"I cannot take seriously any
"I cannot take seriously any source of information which draws a conclusion and then seeks to find the evidence to support it."
You do realize that this was precisely how the official story was formed right? "Zero Investigation" is worth the time and your feedback would be appreciated.
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
I don't care if you watch it or not.
The reson I recommended it was because no real conclusions are drawn. But you have a steel trap mind and that's a shame.
"steel trap mind"
rusty, and illegal in seven states...
wait WAT? shame?
http://idioms.thefreedict...
Joe...don't be a dolt
The "truth" is...we have no idea exactly what happened nor who done it. The least plausible "theory" is that put forth by the 911 commission. If nothing else, you'd think you could agree on that. If not, you've done zip as far as research is concerned, and your opinion is worth about as much.
**“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.” ~ Mark Twain **
Oh no, there are definitely more outlandish theories than the
one put forth by the 9/11 commission. Want to know what makes the commission report so believeable? It is simple. Theres no secrets that have to be kept for it to be true. Theres no paid hit men. No explosives. It works.
LOL
.
question
Fortune Favors the Bold
hypothetically, is there anything that could convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job?
No
Too many coincidences...
* AWOL command-chain reaction suggesting coordinated facilitation or desire for self protection. Everyone should know the names: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, Winfield, Mies, Eberhardt.
* Air defense response anomaly, false timelines, cover-up and wargames disclosure. Epic "failures" -- followed by promotions and budget increases!
* Foreknowledge - who knew what, and more importantly: where did it come from? Foreign agencies, financial trail, variety of possible insider deals.
* Surveillance and obstruction prior - who suppressed information and shut down investigations into the alleged hijackers (patsies or otherwise, it barely matters: another distraction!) and why? Hamburg cell surveillance, Malaysia surveillance, Able Danger, agency recruitment attempts and connections, FBI informants linked to alleged hijackers, Wilshire, Frasca-Bowman-Maltbie, etc. etc.
* Obstruction after (evidence withholding and destruction, FAA tapes, black boxes, much more), commission cover-ups and omissions. Fraudulence of reports -- as now allowed by the former Commissioners themselves. Use of "confessions" under torture from possible imposters to construct the entire main plot of the 9/11 Com Report.
* Shanksville crash anomalies (meaning: time of crash change, evidence of shootdown).
* History of US and other allied-agency links to "al-Qaeda." Use of "al Qaeda" in effecting policy. All that Ali Mohamed / Emad Saleem / Saeed Sheikh stuff.
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
NO CHANCE!!!
One simple photograph was enough for me, thank you very much...and should be for any rational person: the picture of the basement center support columns cut-off at a 45* angle with streams of molten metal running down. With Bush's brother as the Security Chief of the Port Authority, how is this NOT a conspiracy? A conspiracy involves 2 or more people....
------------------
BC
'No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.'
-- Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)
Concerning the pic of support columns cut off at a 45* angle
with streams of molten metal running down.
Go here for an explanation
http://www.debunking911.c...
Brilliant
Still waiting for the truthers to acknowledge this video.
Oh dear...
Those were cut off by torches so that they could be removed after the collapse...
Wrong and Wrong
Bush's brother was not the security chief of the port authority:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
There were not "streams of molten metal" running down a column.
“There were explosions.
“There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I’ve never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings – anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions – the rapid, symmetrical sequential explosions – they happened.”
http://firefightersfor911...
NIST denies the existence of molten metal even though we have video and photographic evidence suggesting otherwise. We also have witness testimony from FDNY firemen themselves. Jet fuel and content fires do not produce the temperatures necessary to produce molten steel - that is why NIST has to deny the very presence of molten metal. This is not small stuff. This is a “smoking gun.” NFPA very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
Now, remember, the investigation is just that…an investigation. We do not need overwhelming undisputable evidence to test for accelerants. It is very routine to test a house fire for accelerants. So, why at the first and only high rise building collapse sites due to fire, was this not done? How do we get safer buildings and solve crimes if we don’t test for the very things that could have led to the collapse?
This is not something to walk away from. We have to stand up together and demand a thorough investigation following the National Standards, and justice.
http://firefightersfor911...
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Nice "evidence"
So this "evidence" of yours was an anonymous email from someone claiming to be a medic. Nice. Sorry, but random anonymous emails from bullshitters doesn't quite cut it in a court of law.
"Nice. Sorry, but random
"Nice. Sorry, but random anonymous emails from bullshitters doesn't quite cut it in a court of law."
I don't abide loose change and but I do support these sites:
http://www.911review.com/...
http://firefightersfor911...
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
In regards to your above post, 86
This is from a post on screwloosechange.
http://screwloosechange.b...
"Some of This Might Be True....
But some of it is definitely false. Dylan posts this over at his blog:
I don't know what to say, I'm not sure where I stand, and I don't know what to think anymore... not about 9/11, but society in general.
I was a NJ EMT for 6 years. I was in NY at the WTC before, during, and after the collapse. I ran from the falling towers. I hid behind a plexi-glass bus stop panel, as if that would have helped me if anything large came hurtling in that direction. My lungs are full of dust and I can barely breathe without holding back a cough and the ever-present faint taste of blood in the back of my throat. I wake up gasping for air. Those towers fell, and I was there. I don't know why the "official story" of what happened isn't questioned more than it is. Nobody listens to the people who KNOW. The 9/11 commission was made up of puppeteers, and the tesimony was given by the puppets. It's so obvious. It was a failure. If the things I, and hundreds of other people saw, felt, and heard didn't make it into that attrocious failure called the 9/11 Commission Report, then there is no other con clusion than accepting the fact that the whole thing was a whitewash.
Mark... listen to me. There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings- anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions- the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions- they happened. We were in the basement, helping a man who had been struck by pieces of flying concrete and rebar, and there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it. We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same. We spoke about it right then and there... we were discussing as we were carrying this man, saying "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?". That sort of thing does not happen from an airplane hitting the building 70, 80 stories up. We stood outside listening to the explosions. One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exlploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes. THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used). There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, there were bright flashes up and down the sides of building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us! There was no question about it until a day or so later when the news was reporting that it had collapsed due to fire. We kept wondering when they were going to correct the news reports. Eventually, it became "official story".
I tried to explain that wasn't what happened. I kept telling people there were explosions. I kept explaining what I saw, and wrote to the newspapers, the networks, and the government about what I saw. I called to speak to the FDNY, and NYPD. I told them what I knew and wanted know why the news reports were wrong. I wasn't told I was wrong. I wasn't even given a different explaination. I was just told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good". I told my EMT Coordinator In Charge what we saw. The four of us from my squad who went were first congratulated for responding and doing such a good job, and later, two of us (the two that refused to "let it go") were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for the uniforms and equipment we used on 9/11 because they were ruined. The other two (who are women, one a mother of two, the other a mother of 3) now refuse to admit they were even there, even to us! They just won't speak about it. The four of us were heroes. Two of us were harrassed and fired, and the other two have to deny ever being there.
There is no doubt in my mind what happened in New York on 9/11. Yes, some of the conspiracy theories are far fetched. A few are even rediculous. But MOST of them, hold much more validity than the "official story". The government has one theory, and it is very weak, at best. Loose Change may be questionable, but that's what it is doing... providing theories and asking questions. Some of those questions get answered, others come up. THAT is why there is a 2nd Edition and a future final cut. Yes, the truth must be updated, of course it does. To say it doesn't is silly. What do you think an investigation is? You formulate a theory, ask questions, and get answers. When you come across new information or rule out false information, you update your theory. Why do you ridicule that concept? Why do you take so much pride in claiming "I didn't know the truth needed a 2nd Edition"? That's like your main motto and it's the weakest thing I've ever heard. Would it make more sense to you to write a story, or make a documentary, and NOT update it if you found new information? Would you want today's school children learning out of a 1977 1st Edition History textbook? Would you criticize an updated edition for them to learn out of? What about following editions? Of course not. My point is this: Loose Change may not be 100% accurate or complete, but it offers more plausible explanations, no matter how diabolical, than the 9/11 commission report fiasco.
In case you are wondering, no. I'm not going to give you my full name or what city I worked for. I had enough trouble having it dragged through local newspapers for two years. I don't want to lose another job. I don't want you unfoundedly slandering my name all over the net like you do with Dylan, Jason, and whoever else offers a point of view other than yours. I'm not giving you my name, so do as you wish with what I've told you. Just remember something. It's very easy to deny something, and even easier to "debunk" it with a simpler story, and simpler still to present that information to millions of people who not only have heard it as truth before, but WANT to believe it. It is much harder to piece together a series of events that makes much more sense, provides a motive, a means, and more capable suspects, and harder yet to present that information to millions of people who not only DON'T want it to be true, but have already heard a much happier story that they would rather believe.
Trust me, I'd much rather believe the official story. I'd also rather believe that Columbus discovered America and DIDN'T torture and murder the natives he encountered on the way here. But history had a 2nd Edition to that story. I can't wait for the Final Cut.
The part that is clearly BS? This is pretty apparent:
THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used). There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, there were bright flashes up and down the sides of building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed.
He could be telling the truth about being an EMT who was at the WTC that day, could be telling the truth (as he believes it to be) about the CT. But I am sorry, the idea that there was a 20-second countdown?
That's "rediculous".
Dylan appends an update:
Dylan-
I don't mind if you put the Mike, 30, NJ... I think it's anonymous enough. Whatever you like, you are welcome to post the letter on your site. The SLC d**chebag will probably post it anyway and rip me up. Whatever. I don't know if I can make NYC, and as far as telling my story in the final cut, I'd really love to, but my life is pretty much in shambles just from pushing the issue back then. I honestly can't afford any more repercussions. I realize that's a cop-out, and I'm almost ashamed that I can't just say to hell with it, but I'm almost broke as it is and living close to poverty level. Anyway, enough of my crybaby bullsh*t. It would be an honor to be in the final cut, but I just can't risk it. I apologize. All the best to you guys, though, and if there's anything I can do to help distribute copies of Loose Change, I'd be more than willing if you wanted to send me a bunch, it's up to you, let me know. Excelle nt work, gentlemen, and thank you.
-Mike
+=+=+
Thanks alot, Mike. It means the world to us. We'll try and work something out for yourself and people like you as soon as humanly possible.
SLC...Are you ready to apologize to this man?
Why should we (or Mark Iradian) apologize? Dylan receives an anonymous email from somebody he's never met who claims to have the Holy Grail of evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, but, so sorry, he can't come forward now because everybody already thinks he's a kook. That about summarizes it. It's a slightly more convincing, but anonymous Samuel Danner."
If that came from Loose Change then it very well could be
dis-information... Thanks for posting.
Have you checked out this site:
http://www.911review.com/...
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
From the
perspective of reality? No nothing at all.
Outside of reality, sure If i could go back in time and observe everything from the perspective of a fly on the wall and see that nothing conspired.
But even that would need further explination in the end because I know the physics is impossible so there would have to be some reasoning as to why reality ceased during those hours.
Isn't that the definition of bias?
...?
{deleted}
{deleted}
A few excerpts from Dr. Paul in regard to the subject...
Caller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
http://patriotsquestion91...
Congressman Paul: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."
In response to a caller's question about the 9/11 investigation.
Congressman Paul: Well, I think he was asking about, you know, who ultimately is to blame and whether or not it deserves more investigation. There was one investigation. They spent a lot of money and very extensive and I think he indicated that they didn't even mention the third building that went down (WTC Building 7).
Government investigations, as a general rule, aren't very good because when the government does it, they generally protect the government. And whether it's investigating 9/11, or, you know, Ruby Ridge, or Waco, they tend more to be coverups than anything else.
The truth is I don't know exactly all that transpired. I don't know if anybody knows the absolute truth, but there's reason to be very suspect of what's happened. And I am convinced that the 9/11 Commission Report did ignore some very, very important things like the third building, as well as why did those numerous Arabs from Saudi Arabia with the name of bin Laden get to go home when none of us were allowed on airplanes. That always amazed me, as well, especially since the 15 out of 19 came from Saudi Arabia. And then they turn around and they use this as an excuse to go into Iraq. So, you know the whole thing, whether it's strictly 9/11 but it's the repercussions from 9/11 that led to the useless and needless war, that all needs looked into just for the sake of the future of our country. ...
Pat Gorman: It seems that we've got this propaganda machine that has just started to really blow up and being out of control. Like, you know, tell them whatever we want them to hear. Don't tell them the truth. ...
Congressman Paul: Yeah and I think that's true. The only way that can work is you have to terrorize the people, our people, in a different way than, you know, what terrorism is really is all about, but we terrorize them by building up tremendous fear. You know, "If you don't do something, if you don't give up your liberties and if you don't invade this country, we're all going to be blown up." You know, so they have to terrorize us and build great fear that something terrible is going to happen to our country unless we sacrifice our liberties and go to war." http://media.putfile.com
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Misinterpreting his words
When he says: "And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."
When Ron uses the word cover-up, he is not talking about a cover-up of the government planting explosives and demolishing US buildings! He has explicitly stated this elsewhere. What he is talking about are politicians covering up who is truly to blame for their incompetence of letting this disaster happen.
When he says the investigations didn't tell us anything, he means they didn't find out why the CIA information about the attacks was not acted upon. And he has clearly stated the reason is government incompetence.
Don't try to use these words to imply (Michael Moore style) that he supports your zany 9/11 demolition theories.
Stop putting words in peoples mouths especially Dr. Paul
I am simply saying he doesn't believe the official story and supports a new investigation. I guess all these below are zany, kooky, crack pot, and insane according to you
http://patriotsquestion91...
150+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
640+ Engineers and Architects
150+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
340+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
180+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Architects and Engineers
"I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.
Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?"
http://911-engineers.blog...
You do realize that everyone
who publicly stands up against the official theory is humiliated and some lose their jobs or worse. Just look at the attacks on this Blog. No wonder there are so many that are told sign this or you are one of those Dingbats, Kooks or Crack Pots and you're FIRED.
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies"
Ron Paul
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Your post speaks volumes about the way you see your fellow
humans and the world. You actually believe that hundreds of thousands of your fellow countrymen would keep their mouths shut, if they knew with 100% certainty that 3,000 of their fellow countrymen were murdered by their government, to keep their job???
Actually, I believe that most (if not all) of the derogatory
comments made concerning the 9/11 discussion are directed at people who mainly disagree with you and your like-minded buddies.
Like, Jefferson for example.
Or Sentinel.
Or Oruval.
Give me a break...
I am talking about in the real world... taking the stand against the official conspiracy theory can get you fired or worse.
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Maybe because it leads people to doubt your knowledge of
science?
And also, you made a direct statement concerning "attacks on this blog". That lead me to believe that you were talking about this board in particular.
Several excerpts from Dr. Paul in regard to the subject....
"The following is proof that Dr. Paul does not believe that the U.S. government was involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attack, as well as proves that he does not believe that the U.S. government knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen:
****Paul expresses his wish that 9/11 Truthers shut their stupid mouths, at Presidential Debate
Carl Cameron: "...Many of your supporters are call themselves 9/11 Truthers...Sir, would you ask them to cease their [9/11 inside job] rhetoric on your behalf?
Paul: "Well, it doesn't do me any good, so if they care about me they should [cease it]."
****Dr. Paul disavows 9/11 Truthers and expresses disapproval of Alex Jones, in Interview John Gibson Show on Fox News Radio September 14, 2007
John Gibson: "You have associated yourself in some ways with these people that they call 9/11 Truthers, who think that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attacks. Do you also believe that's true?"
Paul: "No. And I wouldn't say I associate with them; they associate with me. But there's no way a candidate can control every thought process of everybody who supports him..."
Gibson: "But you go on Alex Jones' show...Will you say right here and now that you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that the U.S. government was on in the 9/11 attack?"
Paul: "Yes I do..."
Gibson: "I really think you're making a big mistake going on [the Alex Jones Show] and associating yourself with those views and making all these people that listen to Alex Jones believe that you agree with them."
Paul:"...I think you make a giant mistake to try to accuse me that I'm defending everything Alex Jones says. I think that's very unfair...Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth. You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does."
****Dr. Paul explains that just because he allows Alex Jones to interview him it doesn't mean he agrees with him, in Interview with Julie Banderas on Fox News August 5, 2007
Julie Banderas: "Do you believe that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an inside job?"
Paul: "Well, the answer is no if they mean by 'inside job' that our government made it happen. No, I don't believe that."
Banderas: "Ok, but you did say on Alex Jones' radio that you believed that U.S. was in great danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin-style provocation. So, do you think the Bush administration would do something like this to get us into a war, say, with Iran?"
Paul: "No, I don't. But, I talk about that because, you know, the Gulf of Tonkin was an episode that was used to get us into war. If an accident happens over there, and it's blamed - let's say Osama Bin Laden stages something and he blames it on Iran. This will be an excuse to for us to expand the war in Iran. So, I think this is very very dangerous because a lot of people, even, you know, in the Republican Party are quite willing to use a nuclear first strike on Iran. So, I think this is a very very dangerous situation that we're in. So, no I don't think President Bush is planning this. But, I think 9/11 was certainly used as a reason to go into Iraq. And, Iraq did not have weapons. They had nothing to do with 9/11. So they use events. They don't stage events, but they use it to do the things they had already planned. And, the Iraqi war has been planned for a long time."
Banderas: "...So back to the Alex Jones thing...Regarding the conspiracy theory behind 9/11, I know that you do not believe that there was a conspiracy theory however you know this guy [Alex Jones] sort of supports that idea. Then, why would you associate yourself with this kind of guy considering your reputation as a presidential hopeful?"
Paul:"Well, just think about what it would be like if I could only go on the t.v. stations, the major t.v. networks, when I knew they agreed with me on all [issues]. All the major networks agreed with the war. [If I had to agree with them] that mean't I could never be on any major t.v. network. Of course I don't support everything [Alex Jones] says, but people I associate with, I don't endorse their views - they come and associate with me to endorse me views or I'm just expressing my views. But there'd be no way I could be on television, if I had, if that was the litmus test that I had to agree with everything they stood for and what they promoted. It just wouldn't work."
****Interview with Mike Gallagher July 19, 2007
Mike Gallagher: "Is it fair to say that you believe that there was some kind of either government conpiracy or coverup involving September 11th, 2001?"
Ron Paul: "No, not really. I never bring that up. Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that. And I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's not my position. I do think government's basically inept. I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence, and a lot of information was out there. We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them. And, nobody would pay any attention, so I don't think that's a conspiracy; I think that's a lot of bureaucracy that doesn't work very well. And then when we have government investigations, whether it's 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness. And that is a lot different than saying 'Oh they conspired to do this because they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.' I don't see it that way, but I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."
****Dr. Paul makes it absolutely clear that he does not think the government orchestrated 9/11 attacks, in Interview with Shawn Wasson LiveLeak.com July 24,2007
Shawn Wasson: "Why do you entertain all the nonsense and all the questions from this 9/11 conspiracy crowd?"
Paul: "Well, I think your question is very biased, because I don't."
Wasson: "Do you believe that there was some kind of coverup in the September 11th investigation?"
Paul: "I think that's a perfectly logical answer ..[the coverup being that] they sort of protect themselves to show where they might have goofed up. So, I think this is very natural; that's the natural instinct of all goverments. So, that is a far cry from what you've insinuated by saying that I endorse the idea that the government had something to do with 9/11."
Wasson: "I'm saying that there is an overall perception among these people. They at least think you have some kind of inkling that 9/11 was covered up somehow -- that there was some kind of inside job as they say. Let me ask you flat out. Do you think, or do you have any evidence at all, to suggest that 9/11 was anything other than the official storyline?"
Paul: "No, I have no reason to think that. But, that doesn't mean you shouldn't find out where we fell short. So, once again, I think it's your same innuendos that you're using."
Wasson: "Your position then would be that as far as you're concerned, the official story from 9/11 - and this is not about the government covering up their mistakes. This is about the suggestions from these people...that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, you do not support that theory?"
Paul: "Absolutely not!"
****Dr. Paul explains how 9/11 Truthers get confused into thinking he saying something that he's not, in Interview with Adam Curry on Daily Source Code October 24, 2007
Adam Curry: "9/11 Conspiracy theories. Do you buy any of it Dr. Ron?"
Paul: "Not, not really. Not the kind that say well it was all conspired by our government and they did it for this purpose of us ushering in this War on Terrorism. No I don't believe any of that. But, I believe, because it's very very clear evidence, that the neoconservatives in a way sort of welcomed the event because they even wrote about a Pearl Harbor type event that they might be able to use to promote their cause and they certainly have. But, I think where some of this stuff gets overlapped and confused [by 9/11 Truthers who annoyingly latch on to me] is that I don't think the 9/11 commision investigation was worth a whole lot because I think it was mainly designed to cover up mistakes and ineptness of government, not so much to cover up or hide a conspiracy or a plan to do this whole thing by the government. But I think the evidence was there that if we'd have had, you know, some really sharp people watching - what they- the information they accumulated they would have known that there was something very big coming on, and yet they - we haven't really arrested or fired or blamed anybody for the total ineptness of allowing 9/11 to attack us, so I think those are two different issues."
Curry: "So you're saying [it's] possible but definitely not enough information on the table?"
Paul: "Well no, I don't think there's any information to say that the government planned the event. What I'm saying is that they had information buried in the accumulation of all these files but they didn't pay enough attention to. For instance, there was one FBI agent that on dozens and dozens of times reported to his superiors that someone was training to fly airplanes but not land them and he was totally ignored...I think that was ineptness rather than a conspiracy to allow it to happen."
****Paul calls 9/11 Truth theories "preposterous" and "bizarre," in Interview with Glenn Beck, December 18, 2007
Glenn Beck: "I have watched the interviews with you. You don't leave any room for any doubt on a 9/11 conspiracy, but I'd just like to make it clear and ask you - and I don't believe these need explanation unless I've read your answers wrong elsewhere - but, may I just run through these 9/11 conspiracies?: No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11th; instead, it was a missile fired by elements from inside the American state apparatus. Yes or no?"
Paul: "No. It's preposterous."
Beck: "The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled."
Paul: "[Shaking his head no and shugging his shoulders] I mean this is just bizarre. I've not even heard these challenges before."
Beck: "O.K. I understand that. I don't mean to - sir, these are the people that - some of these people speak in your name and they actually say that you will be on this program tonight and you will answer the way you are answering now because you can't let on. They believe that you are part..of another kind of conspiracy to expose the conspiracy of 9/11 and the World Trade Center. Can you - I mean you you'd - I don't know how you address people who are so deeply into conspiracy but can you?
Paul: "I, I don't know what I would be - supposed to be doing. Uh, no. I mean I don't think there's any evidence.."
Beck: "Is there any evidence or is there any doubt in your mind that the United States government was not involved in the September 11th attacks - that we did not bring down World Trade Center number seven?"
Paul: "...I absolutely believe that is true - they did not. But, the connection may be -and where some people get carried away - is if you dig through those $40 billion dollars worth of intelligence gathering apparatus that we had before 9/11, you know we dig up information and there was some ineptness, and sometimes when you find ineptness in government it's easy to make this giant leap over into conspiracy and [that] they do it on purpose, But, you know, we had an FBI agent like on seventy different occasions reported that these individuals were flying airplanes and not learning how to land them and then he was totally ignored. I consider this ineptness on government, not a conspiracy that 'Oh yeah! We know about it. We can't wait until the towers come down!' No, I don't believe that at all. I think it - I don't think I should even have to answer questions like that [laugh]."
Beck: "Yes sir. I do not believe that this is your point of view, and I don't believe that this is the point of view of most of your supporters - the vast, vast majority [of your supporters]."
****Paul explains that him saying he does not accept everything in the 9/11 investigation is simply him saying that the investigation didn't reveal where the ineptness was. Glenn Beck Show 06/19/2008 .
Interviewer: "So, many of your supporters I meet are also part of the 9/11 Truth movement. You've appeared in the movie Endgame that talks about the Bilderbergers, etcetera. Why do you think there is such an attraction from that part of the political discourse to your movement?"
Ron Paul: "Well, I'm not sure. And, one of the reasons is that, though I don't endorse those concerns, I probably have, you know, [wincing] encouraged it ironically, because I haven't accepted the 9/11 investigation."
Interviewer: "You haven't?"
Paul: "No, because I think they hid things from us, and they didn't want to blame anybody. Nobody was discovered to be inept, and we spent 40 billion dollars on security. And, and, the information was there. What about the CIA agent that reported thirty-five or forty times that these individuals were flying airplanes, learning how to fly airplanes but not land them. And we didn't do anything about it. But, nobody was punished. So, there was a lot of ineptness there. And, nobody talks about the incentives for people to commit suicide terrorism, and it's very very clear that suicide terrorists are not motivated because people are rich or because they're free. They're motivated mainly, and almost wholeheartedly, because they're occupied by foreign nations. And, if we don't understand that, we are going to be forever threatened by terrorists."
Interviewer: "Well I, once again I disagree with you, but are you saying there's something about the 9/11 attack that we should know but don't? I thought we know. Nineteen guys, airplanes slam into the buildings. What don't we know?"
"Paul: "Well, what we don't know is who was inept. We had that information, buried in all those records that some of these people were stirring around. We didn't do anything to prevent it. I mean we had all this money spent to protect us. On that day, on 9/11, Seoul Korea was better protected than Washington, D.C. and New York City. So, there's something wrong. We're looking outward, not inward. We close down bases in America, and we build them in Saudi Arabia, which was the number one motivating factor of Osama Bin Laden. He says 'You have a miltary base by foreigners on our holy land!' So, we have to understand that. If not, there's no way we can solve this problem."
****Dr. Paul say finding the ineptness that allowed 9/11 to happen needs more looking into but that a new government investigation won't help. The Rogers Report, June 22, 2007
Lee Rogers: "How do you feel about a new independent investigation, and do you think that there is some question that the government may have been involved in those attacks."
Ron Paul: ""I have never seen any evidence to show that our government deliberately partipated and contributed to that. I think their ineptness contributed to it, because I think the information was all available. You know, there was one FBI [agent] that sent in like seventy reports, and saying 'You know, this seems strange. There's some Arab muslims here taking flying lessons, but they don't want to land the plane." And, nobody would respond to him. So, I think this total ineptness is where the problem really is. They had all the information they needed, but the bureaucracy acted like a typical bureaucracy. Then investigations, government investigations are designed for a coverup, so nobody gets blamed for messing up! So, I see that. So, I don't think we've gotten to the bottom of it, but I don't trust investigations generally speaking. I mean, whether it's looking into Ruby Ridge or Waco, or assassinations. I mean there, seems like they raise more questions than they answer. So, a new investigation if you don't have any of the right people won't do any good either. It's a government investigation. That won't automatically get to the bottom of it. But, I would say we have still a lot of questions. And, just like I think we should be asking a lot more questions on how so many people were misled into believing the conditions warranted going to in Iraq, so the same way about 9/11, I think it warrants more checking into.
****Dr. Paul ridicules 9/11 Truth theories in Interview with Michael Medved on the Michaeld Medved Show. August 28, 2007
Michael Medved: "Do you have any doubt, Congressman Ron Paul, that the horrors of 9/11 were perpetrated by 19 Arab young men working as agents of international terror in the form of Al-Qaida?"
Paul: "No. I don't know of anybody that really questions that in a serious manner...To say that it was something somebody other than the Al-Qaida - and I don't hear too many people saying that - but I'm sure there are people saying things like that and that there's some type of conspiracy - but I think it's pretty hard to refute airplanes plowing into a building. [chuckle]"
http://www.paulitesagains...
Deductive Reasoning
"When you remove all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely it may seem, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes
---------
"Better to be flexible like bamboo than rigid like oak, for when the storm comes bamboo will bend and survive, where as oak will crack and die."
Just have a NEW INDEPENDENT
Just have a NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGTION and let the chips fall where they may.
Check these links to see some independent thoughts on 911.
Personally I'm convinced it was an inside job.
http://www.ae911truth.org...
http://pilotsfor911truth....
http://stj911.org/
http://www.911truth.org/a...
"You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." --Andrew Jackson,
1828
Brent, please join bbagnall.
BrentR, please join your fellow ostrich bbagnall. The two of you will have lots to discuss and be fearful of together. Hey, I hear the CIA just thwarted a similar 9/11 plot planned by a group of minotaurs armed with butter knives. Don't believe it? Well the president said so therefore it must be true.
How does not believing in some giant conspiracy
(and yes, it would have to be giant) make someone fearful?
I would think the ones who believe that someone planted explosives and killed 3000 people are the fearful ones...
Or is that just your stock response?
I'm being sarcastic and
I'm being sarcastic and suggesting if you believe the official story,....that 19 cave-dwellers executed such a plan and the nation's defense were so slow to react resulting in the deaths of 3,000 American then yes a reasonable person may be fearful because now you a have not only a boogeyman to fear but also his legions of fellow boogeymen.
So you are racist as well as
ignorant?