The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

9/11

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.
WTC7

Another indication of how little the public knows about 9/11 can be gauged from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are not even aware how many buildings fell on 9/11. And those that are will most likely never have seen the 3rd and final building to fall that day, World Trade Centre 7, collapse. It is unprecedented, that in an age where information travels so freely, that so many people are unaware of one of the most rudimentary facts of the most newsworthy day of our lives.

WTC 7 was a 47 storey building, 100m north of the North Tower that housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Mayor’s Emergency Management Office, the IRS, and the SEC, among others. At 5.20 pm on 9/11, it was taken down in a manner that raised eyebrows. In the words of top Dutch implosion expert Danny Jowenko: “This is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a hired job done by a team of experts.” Or to quote emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Hugo Bachmann: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". Also, emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Joerg Schneider: "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of 1st responders both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:
(Google video- WTC7- The smoking gun of 9/11)

I am aware that there is testimony regarding suspicions that the building was at risk, and this is not testimony I deny; I have no doubt that those firefighters thought the building would collapse. Nonetheless, nor do I deny the testimony provided in the above video, and anyone who will accept only one will have to justify why they deny the other.

In line with this notion of foreknowledge as to the collapse of WTC7, is the astonishing recent revelation that the BBC and CNN both reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing, and in the case of the BBC, while the reporter was standing in front of it:

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.

Let’s not forget our aim- is this sufficient evidence to warrant a new independent investigation?

William Rodriguez et al

Another fact that has not seen a speck of daylight in the mainstream media, is the multiple, identical reports, of a bomb going off in the basement of the North Tower seconds before the 1st plane had hit. This bomb injured and hospitalised civilians, yet was completely ignored by the authorities, not investigated anywhere, and whitewashed from the 9/11 Commission Report.

Witnesses to this include William Rodriguez, Felipe David, Jose Sanchez, Salvatore Giambanco, Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli. Rodriguez is the foremost proponent of this in the public eye, having gained a measure of celebrity post 9/11- he was the last man out of the North Tower, being in fact pulled from the rubble. He was the master janitor in the building, having worked there for 20 years, and as such he had the master key. When the attacks happened, he was helping the firefighters, running up and down the stairs, unlocking doors, and helping people get out, until the towers collapsed. After 9/11, he was honour at the WH 5 times, and the Republicans wanted him to be their poster boy for the War on Terror. One problem though- he was urging an investigation into the bombs that went off in the basement, and that he claimed were going of all over the building as he was running around (he assumed at the time that they had been planted by the terrorists). He was soon ditched by the GOP, and every reference he has made to bombs has been edited out by the MSM, as you will all be able to testify.

Now… I am aware of the “debunking” of the above claims that have stemmed from this forum. This is fine. However, bearing in mind our oft-stated aim, I will ask one question-

Please name 1 instance in history, in an advanced society, where there has been multiple, independent testimony, in addition to injury and hospitalisation of civilians, of a bomb in an important and populous location (the North Tower, rather than the basement), that has not been investigated by authorities, and has indeed been actively whitewashed from mainstream public record (e.g. the 9/11 Commission Report) by the government/mainstream media- and which has not involved government conspiracy? Such an occurrence is clearly enough to raise serious suspicions, and as such, deserves a full independent investigation (including into the non-investigation).

Incidentally, anyone acquainted with the Propaganda Model should come to a simple conclusion regarding this evidence, but more on that in a sec.


(snip)

Can we agree to disagree on PNAC and skip to this part?

 

[Belz...]

For the reasons I stated. They are there in the post to which you are replyng. You can address them if you like.

Those are not reasons. They are an interpretation. Where do they STATE that it's a "need" ?

Natural gas, excuse me.

Yeah, lots of demand for that. And look how the gas industry has benefited from the US' attack on Afghanistan.

Errr... no. My point is one that is often stated by OTers- what has nuclear weapon upgrades and global missile defenses got to do with terrorism? nothing. This is an argument from your own camp; but if you would like to debunk it, then go ahead.

That's not what you said. You said that it was obvious to rational people, but that most people were duped. That's YOUR argument, not mine, not my "camp"'s.

War on Terror

Good.

Theyre shorter, and thus quicker to write.

They indicate laziness. Be clear and use the actual words, please.

 

[David Wong]

Especially since, after dozens of posts, he's given up on the idea of PNAC's statement actually implicating them in anything, and has fallen all the way back to the position that:

1. The events of 9/11 caused increased military spending;
2. Increased military spending was mentioned in the PNAC statement.

He has the double whammy of being wrong and, even if right, his point amounting to nothing.

So perhaps WTC 7 is a better area of discussion.

I predict it will look like this:

He will post a pure opinion about WTC 7. When others point out dozens of factual reasons why his opinion is incorrect, he will simply redirect us to his opinion post.

 

[David Wong]

By the way, is there a specific mental disorder wherein the victim believes that his opinions become fact purely by the act of his writing them down?

 

[tacodaemon]

Can we agree to disagree on PNAC and skip to this part?

Has he ever posted any citations backing up his claim that almost nobody remembers that WTC7 collapsed and that those who do remember it mostly never saw the footage of it?

 

[lapman]

I think that, for the sake of clarity, we should do a quick heads up.

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

Actually he said it was retarded. I guess you missed that

Initially, there has been debate as to whether 911 was indeed a new PH. This has been addressed by me in #416. Anyone who wants to address this point, please refer to this post.

The Alamo was the same type of event. So, are we going to call it the NA as well?

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.

We've had that for the past 60 years and even more so since 1991. So what's going to change? So the most powerful nation in the world is supposed to become the mostest powerfullest nation in the world?

b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.

I am just getting into this discussion. So what's a QDR?

c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.

So Iraq and Afghanistan are supposed to be this revolutionary change? How does this compare to the changes that occurred after the fall of the USSR?

 

[Belz...]

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

The use of the word "radical" does not prove that they orchestrated 9/11. Nor does it raise suspicion, in fact. To summarise, your entire position on this thread has been nothing more than an argument from ignorance, as you state something that has NOT been said in the document, and use this absense to support your case. That, of course, is a fallacy.

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail;

Of course they do. You claim they are outlined in the document, but you omit to mention WHERE they are specifically refered to. Basically, you're arguing that it was IMPLIED, but not said. How can this be supported if the text isn't there ?

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan.

Are you denying your use of the affirming the consequent fallacy ?

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

Nice dodge. You said it was analogous BECAUSE it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations. You have now effectively made your analogy void.

The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Good. So your only criteria are those two things ? Well, from that point of view, the first gulf war was also analogous to Pearl Harbor. It was catastrophic (for Kuwait) and catalysing (military). Or is there some other criterion you'd like to add ?

Its understandable that I would lump those 2 sentences together since they are identical.

How can you adress a question and NOT answer it ?

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

 

[Belz...]

By the way, is there a specific mental disorder wherein the victim believes that his opinions become fact purely by the act of his writing them down?

Must be a subset of a form of schizophrenia; wherein the victim believes that his opinions become facts, period.

 

[Gravy]

Er, hello? I'm pretty pissed off with them as well... does this mean that my analysis of them re: 911 is flawed because of it? Or them re: Iraq? WOT? etc

Learn to differentiate between cause and effect please, you'll have fewer problems.

You asked if the poll was taken at a time of bad PR for Bush. I showed you that it was taken at a time of record bad PR. You're welcome to commission another poll to ask if those historic low ratings are due to people's belief that 9/11 was an inside job. I'll wager lots of money on the results if you're game.

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

Serves me right for using twoofer numbers. Yes, the Commission answered 96 of the questions.

Secondly, 95 addressed or answered. only 28 answered.

False. Here are the 3 categories that the Family Steering Committee used:

1) This question has been satisfactorily answered by the 9/11 Commission Report.

2) This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered.

3) This question has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.

96 questions fall into categories 1 and 2, according to the Steering Committee. Note the use of "satisfactorily" in category 1 and "adequately" in category 2. If you want to claim that the Commission had a mandate to answer every question to everyone's satisfaction, you'll be wrong. I suggest that you review the Steering Committee's list of questions and demands again.

 

[DGM]

9/11

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

I really hope that PNAC has nothing to do with this.

 

[tacodaemon]

The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century.

Just to be clear, they wanted it to be the new American century, following the previous American Century.

 

[Belz...]

I'd like to add that "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered." means ANSWERED, but not ADEQUATELY, Mjd.

To Adress: "to deal with or discuss: to address the issues." - Dictionary.com

That's an answer, Mjd!

 

[lapman]

Please name 1 instance in history, in an advanced society, where there has been multiple, independent testimony, in addition to injury and hospitalisation of civilians, of a bomb in an important and populous location (the North Tower, rather than the basement), that has not been investigated by authorities, and has indeed been actively whitewashed from mainstream public record (e.g. the 9/11 Commission Report) by the government/mainstream media- and which has not involved government conspiracy? Such an occurrence is clearly enough to raise serious suspicions, and as such, deserves a full independent investigation (including into the non-investigation).

Since the reported explosion happened in conjunction with the airliner ramming the building there wasn't any need for further investigation since there was no bomb. If you do any research on fuel-air explosions, you would know that the blast wave from it travels at 2mi/sec. More than fast enough for the blast wave to travel down the few top-to-bottom elevator shafts faster than the sound of the impact, hence the illusion that the explosion occurred prior to the impact.

 

[HawksFan]

Sorry I'm late. Did I miss the facts? It's only page 11, so I assume that the facts haven't been served yet?

 

[lapman]

Sorry I'm late. Did I miss the facts? It's only page 11, so I assume that the facts haven't been served yet?

Nope. mj hasn't served them up yet. But I hear that they are crunchy and taste good with catsup!

 

[Myriad]

1stly, I dont think that you've read the doc carefully enough. The changes it calls for are not banal like you make them out to be. I mean even to point to your example of the army, we can see how the doc describes the changes itself.

...

Design and research on a future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design change

...

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

Oh come now. Our evaluation of the political import of a 76-page document is now to be based on the "find" feature? Do you really think using the word "radical" to describe a technological change in weapons design or tactics training equates to a "radical" political agenda that would require a Pearl Harbor event to achieve?

Sure, I can see how the debate would have gone, if not for 9/11...

[voice=AndyRooney]Do you ever wonder why our military is always trying to 'radically redesign' its weapon systems? When I was growing up we were all perfectly satisfied with an ordinary future CVX carrier design. But now, get this, they want a 'new' future CVX carrier design. That's right, they want to give our old familiar future CVX carrier a 'radical design change.' But why? What was so bad about the old future CVX carrier design anyhow? It's not like anyone has recently crashed large passenger jetliners into large skyscrapers or anything. I say, let's tell the military that if a regular old future CVX carrier design was good enough for last year, it's good enough for this year.[/voice]

Further, this does not even touch on the radical elements that are either stated or strongly implied in the doc- the overthrow of Saddam, militarisation of space, use of cyberspace as a defense tool etc, which would never be done normally.

Militarization of space would never have been done without 9/11? Then why did it start in the 50s, and what was all that Star Wars research all about in the 80s? What's so radical about wanting to defend the infrastructure on which you've come to depend, such as information systems and satellites, from possible attack? Or about seeing the other guy's corresponding infrastructure as a potential target? Civil War generals were doing it with railroads. Ancient Greek generals were probably doing it with signal towers.

Also, you miss the notion of quantity/specificity. So troops are going to be repositioned. Where? How many of them? How much to spend on bases? etc etc

Moving forces around isn't radical, no matter where/how many are repositioned. It might seem so if you're accustomed only to the situation during decades of Cold War stalemate, but it's business as usual for U.S. military history. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."

Again, I'm having trouble imagining the debate on this being very contentious had 9/11 not happened. "What? You want to add more bases in southeast Asia? Preposterous! It'll never happen. Since no Saudi terrorists have crashed any hijacked airliners into New York City skyscrapers yet, I can't imagine the House Armed Services Committee or the Joint Chiefs approving such a plan."

The more I look at this notion of RAD pre-justifying 9/11, the sillier it appears. How about we go with HeyLeroy's plan, pretend you've made some sort of point here about PNAC, and move on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[sleahead]

I am just getting into this discussion. So what's a QDR?

Quadrennial Defense Review. A review of America's defense strategy and spending. Rumsfeld organised the 2001 review. mjd1982 seems to think it is odd that the document reflects Rumsfeld/PNAC ideas.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Fixed that one for you.

You sure are doing a lot of fixin' today, RW

 

[lapman]

Quadrennial Defense Review. A review of America's defense strategy and spending. Rumsfeld organised the 2001 review. mjd1982 seems to think it is odd that the document reflects Rumsfeld/PNAC ideas.

Thank you.

 

[Tirdun]

Just popping in to see if this thread moving any faster than the malcolm thread. That one is pushing up daisies...

This one... seems to betwitching and sputtering on the ground, gasping dramatically, but I have hopes.