MrFliop
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2012
- Messages
- 212
7. Osama bin Laden was not the mastermind behind 9/11. In 2007 Khalid Sheik Mohammad and several other al-Qaeda operatives who helped plan 9/11 were officially charged. Osama bin Laden wasn't charged but he was listed as a co-conspirator in a 92 page FBI document. The FBI also never said there is no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. That comment was made by Rex Tomb, who did (at the time) work for the FBI but was neither an agent nor a counter-terrorism expert. The FBI itself has since said that Rex Tomb's comments don't accurately explain the situation and the FBI Chief, Robert Mueller, has said "The evidence linking al-Qaeda [headed by bin Laden] to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable".
8. LIES. They were probably either talking about 1.) seeing the aftermath of the explosions from the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shafts when the planes hit, 2.) were talking about hearing noises which sounded like explosions and bombs going off while they were in the lobby which they later found out were bodies hitting the ground outside or 3.) they were talking about what happened in the North Tower lobby when the South Tower collapsed. Also, you should know that almost every second of the events in the North Tower lobby were captured on video by Jules Naudet, who was WITH the firefighters AT the command post, and nowhere in the video is there any explosion that gets their attention (EXCEPT when bodies hit the ground and EXCEPT when the South Tower collapses).
9. 9/11 Commission was not tasked with invesitaging the WTC collapse or the conditions in the pile. John Gross clearly says that he didn't know of anyone who saw molten steel or anyone who produced it. Not exactly a surprise there. The purpose of the NIST investigation was to investigate and explain why the buildings collapsed, not to investigate conditions in the pile afterwards. This is what the report did. Because of interest in the molten metal, NIST did a brief section about it in their FAQ section. So, they do give an explanation.
10. This actually one of the few areas of 9/11 CTs that I haven't looked into.
11. Yes on Sept. 10 Rumsfeld said that there was $2.3 trillion spent in the year 1999 (during Clinton) which the accounting records had not yet fully accounted for how it was spent, but the Pentagon also announced the poorly accounted for $2.3 trillion on January 7, 2001, again on January 11, 2001, again in February, twice in June, and twice in July. So it wasn't like the Bush Administration first admitted to in the day before 9/11 in order to keep it out of the media (they had talked about it many times far prior to 9/11), and eventually they did account for how the vast majority of the $2.3 billion in 1999 was spent.
12. Misleading. Their own website, front page, clearly says (in bold lettering): "This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website." In other words, none of the highly ranked CIA and FBI people who are listed on the website even know that they're on the website. For example, they list General Wesley Clark as a member, even though that's only because he made a statement that, "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time." To 9/11 truthers, that means that he believes 9/11 was an inside job. To rational people, it means that he thinks we need to finish investigating whether the administration poorly handled the intelligence it had.
8. LIES. They were probably either talking about 1.) seeing the aftermath of the explosions from the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shafts when the planes hit, 2.) were talking about hearing noises which sounded like explosions and bombs going off while they were in the lobby which they later found out were bodies hitting the ground outside or 3.) they were talking about what happened in the North Tower lobby when the South Tower collapsed. Also, you should know that almost every second of the events in the North Tower lobby were captured on video by Jules Naudet, who was WITH the firefighters AT the command post, and nowhere in the video is there any explosion that gets their attention (EXCEPT when bodies hit the ground and EXCEPT when the South Tower collapses).
9. 9/11 Commission was not tasked with invesitaging the WTC collapse or the conditions in the pile. John Gross clearly says that he didn't know of anyone who saw molten steel or anyone who produced it. Not exactly a surprise there. The purpose of the NIST investigation was to investigate and explain why the buildings collapsed, not to investigate conditions in the pile afterwards. This is what the report did. Because of interest in the molten metal, NIST did a brief section about it in their FAQ section. So, they do give an explanation.
10. This actually one of the few areas of 9/11 CTs that I haven't looked into.
11. Yes on Sept. 10 Rumsfeld said that there was $2.3 trillion spent in the year 1999 (during Clinton) which the accounting records had not yet fully accounted for how it was spent, but the Pentagon also announced the poorly accounted for $2.3 trillion on January 7, 2001, again on January 11, 2001, again in February, twice in June, and twice in July. So it wasn't like the Bush Administration first admitted to in the day before 9/11 in order to keep it out of the media (they had talked about it many times far prior to 9/11), and eventually they did account for how the vast majority of the $2.3 billion in 1999 was spent.
12. Misleading. Their own website, front page, clearly says (in bold lettering): "This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website." In other words, none of the highly ranked CIA and FBI people who are listed on the website even know that they're on the website. For example, they list General Wesley Clark as a member, even though that's only because he made a statement that, "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time." To 9/11 truthers, that means that he believes 9/11 was an inside job. To rational people, it means that he thinks we need to finish investigating whether the administration poorly handled the intelligence it had.
The wildest one I have witnessed (today anyway) is a seemingly educated man or woman with brain cells and a fine command of the English language who cannot spell the word 'extremely' properly.