Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Jango]

Assuming you are correct, what does any of that prove exactly?

It is damning, first of all. Once their denials were bypassed by facts, the floodgates should have opened and the scourge from within should have been scrapped out. But who was fired or prosecuted? The 9/11 Commission was racked and corrupted by political pressures. The record of events that transpired, before, during and after 9/11, are for anyone to see. I was young when 9/11 happened and I did not have an interest in politics or government or history, so I've been playing catch up but it is all there, out in the open just waitin' to be found.

I started with the belief that OBL and al Qaeda pulled a fast one on us just as our leaders had told us, but it didn't take long for that belief to be taken down as though it had nothing under it supporting it -- free fall.

 

[Jango]

Bumping in case you missed this question, Jango.

Sorry, I don't get quote alerts.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It is damning, first of all. Once their denials were bypassed by facts, the floodgates should have opened and the scourge from within should have been scrapped out. But who was fired or prosecuted? The 9/11 Commission was racked and corrupted by political pressures. The record of events that transpired, before, during and after 9/11, are for anyone to see. I was young when 9/11 happened and I did not have an interest in politics or government or history, so I've been playing catch up but it is all there, out in the open just waitin' to be found.

I started with the belief that OBL and al Qaeda pulled a fast one on us just as our leaders had told us, but it didn't take long for that belief to be taken down as though it had nothing under it supporting it -- free fall.

It has been observed that the Truth movement is only recruiting from the endless stream of college freshmen coming into adulthood with half-formed logic and a desire to be edgy and confrontational. Your personal account appears to bolster the notion.

 

[Jango]

It has been observed that the Truth movement is only recruiting from the endless stream of college freshmen coming into adulthood with half-formed logic and a desire to be edgy and confrontational. Your personal account appears to bolster the notion.

If you want to say that I was recruited, at least you could get it right -- it happened on September 11th, 2011 and it was by the documentaries being played that day on T.V. -- network, History, Discovery channels IIRC. One of the documentaries, 102 Minutes That Changed America, had a whole bunch of footage I had never seen before and some of it looked odd to me. Curiosity lead to The Google. Never bought books from Gage, Griffin, Icke or Jones DVDs. So here I am.

 

[jaydeehess]

Got the DNA for 77 and 93 terrorists, and they did it... who it was?
Who it was is known, are you joking?

I can't think of anything we do which UBL would not want to kill us for;
Bacon... death of
Honey Baked Ham... death
Shooters... death
Hooters... double death
Beer... death
Sitting down with women outside to eat, women you are not related to... jail
Letting women drive... death
Margarita... death
Make fun of the prophet... death
Having USA troops in SA... death

You can add the political stuff, the way UBL does to rationalize the hate, make excuses for UBL and his dumbed down suicide failed humans; who are thugs who murder, and are so bad at their job, they failed when USA citizens figured out the plot in minutes; Flight 93 Passengers stood up and attacked the failed nuts, UBLs best troops; how long does it take UBL to find 19 more failed humans. How did Hitler rationalize murder, was it political too.

You might want to change the tense of that statement Beach.
Present tense is no longer applicable.

 

[beachnut]

You might want to change the tense of that statement Beach.
Present tense is no longer applicable.

I doubt I would get the tense right - UBL is gone, I did not forget. yet

UBL, ISIS, and 911 truth depend/ed on the ignornace of their followers.

Will Jango list the questions...

 

[Meed]

It is damning, first of all. Once their denials were bypassed by facts, the floodgates should have opened and the scourge from within should have been scrapped out. But who was fired or prosecuted?

The US government has been getting away with war crimes and (to a lesser extent) domestic crimes for a long time. Rarely does it lead to the perpetrators being fired or prosecuted. Unfortunate, but nothing new. It's also not unusual for government officials to lie to or mislead the public. Them saying they couldn't have forseen planes being used as weapons is basically an excuse to make them look less to blame for being unable to prevent 9/11. Quite possibly a lie. They weren't exactly honest in making the case for Iraq either. And this proves... that they are prone to dishonesty. I'm still lost as to what else it's supposed to prove. It certainly doesn't prove anything about the actual events of 9/11.

If you want to denounce the US government for its crimes, I will be right there with you. However, I suggest you pick some of the numerous crimes that are actually well supported by evidence. Like, for example, torturing people at Gitmo and imprisoning innocent people there without a trial. There is also the NSA, COINTELPRO, supporting Suharto's massacring of East Timor, bombing Cambodia, the entire Vietnam war... The list goes on. The US gov. carrying out 9/11, on the other hand? No evidence to support it. Plenty of evidence that Middle Eastern hijackers carried it out. Not only that but I've yet to hear a remotely coherent narrative of how the US government could have been responsible. How do you think it went down? The hijackers were working for the Bush administration?

 

[beachnut]

It is damning, first of all. Once their denials were bypassed by facts, the floodgates should have opened and the scourge from within should have been scrapped out. But who was fired or prosecuted? The 9/11 Commission was racked and corrupted by political pressures. The record of events that transpired, before, during and after 9/11, are for anyone to see. I was young when 9/11 happened and I did not have an interest in politics or government or history, so I've been playing catch up but it is all there, out in the open just waitin' to be found.

I started with the belief that OBL and al Qaeda pulled a fast one on us just as our leaders had told us, but it didn't take long for that belief to be taken down as though it had nothing under it supporting it -- free fall.

LOL, and you have zero evidence to support your BS.

You woke up 10 years after 911, and can't name list your questions.

 

[threadworm]

If you want to say that I was recruited, at least you could get it right -- it happened on September 11th, 2011 and it was by the documentaries being played that day on T.V. -- network, History, Discovery channels IIRC. One of the documentaries, 102 Minutes That Changed America, had a whole bunch of footage I had never seen before and some of it looked odd to me. Curiosity lead to The Google. Never bought books from Gage, Griffin, Icke or Jones DVDs. So here I am.

Irony alert:

Eh, I don't know about that -- we're physical beings living in a very physical world. We learn the outline of physics by growing older and by living through our experiences, such as: Hey, I can't fly.

Entertainment mediums have varying effects on people and I'd like to see the study that has determined that some people are so enamored by T.V. that "its values" (I.e. what it shows) have replaced the ones forged in the real world. This would be an effective tool to argue against T.V. in general if there is a legit study laying out what you've said.

 

[Oystein]

Just for completeness for other bloggers:

I am the one that put this information together and reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen. This effort started at the April 14, 2004, 9/11 Commission Public hearings in the Hart Senate office building after I sat just behind George Tenet and heard him lie directly not only to the 9/11 Commission but to all of the American people, and continued for 3-4 years but as new inforamtion comes out, is still continuing today.

A summary is available in on JREF 9/11 in post #609 in the blog "deliberate obstruction by the CIA of pre-9/11 investigations"?

Here is a short summary:


The CIA moved Tom Wilshire, a high level CIA manage, over to the FBI HQ to be Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit in mid-May, 2001 just after the CIA had received a request from FBI Agent Ali Soufan, asking if the CIA had any information on Walid bin Attash or any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. It is now clear that Wilshire was moved over to spy of the FBI Cole bombing investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. Did they know that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing? We know this because as soon as Wilshire got to the FBI ITOS unit, he obtained three photos from the CIA of Khalid al-Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur, and then enlisted FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting with Soufan’s own people in the New York FBI field office, to show them these photos to see what they knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi sets up this meeting for June 11, 2001, and passed out the three Kuala Lumpur photos of Mihdhar that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA. At that point Clarke Shannon who was Wilshire’s protégée, when Wilshire was at the CIA bin Laden unit asked FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, and his team, did they recognize anyone in these photos?

Apparently Wilshire did not trust Corsi enough at this time to have her ask this question. Bongardt and his team said they did not know who the people in the photos were. Bongardt then followed up with a question; who are these people and what did they have to do with the Cole bombing? Shannon and Corsi said they could give Bongardt this information due to the wall, which we now know was nothing but a complete fiction. The wall never applied if there was any evidence of a crime and the CIA already knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had take part in the crime of planning the Cole bombing at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, and even knew that everyone at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting were al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings. ......................

I hope you were called off the computer befire cutting to the chase and writing down the part where you "reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen", because I could not find that here.
I see a story of CIA and FBI working against and not with each other - which I kind of rememeber as one of the principal findings of the 9/11 Commission. Saudi Arabia isn't even mentioned.

 

[Jango]

The US government has been getting away with war crimes and (to a lesser extent) domestic crimes for a long time. Rarely does it lead to the perpetrators being fired or prosecuted. Unfortunate, but nothing new. It's also not unusual for government officials to lie to or mislead the public. Them saying they couldn't have forseen planes being used as weapons is basically an excuse to make them look less to blame for being unable to prevent 9/11. Quite possibly a lie. They weren't exactly honest in making the case for Iraq either. And this proves... that they are prone to dishonesty. I'm still lost as to what else it's supposed to prove. It certainly doesn't prove anything about the actual events of 9/11.

If you want to denounce the US government for its crimes, I will be right there with you. However, I suggest you pick some of the numerous crimes that are actually well supported by evidence. Like, for example, torturing people at Gitmo and imprisoning innocent people there without a trial. There is also the NSA, COINTELPRO, supporting Suharto's massacring of East Timor, bombing Cambodia, the entire Vietnam war... The list goes on. The US gov. carrying out 9/11, on the other hand? No evidence to support it. Plenty of evidence that Middle Eastern hijackers carried it out. Not only that but I've yet to hear a remotely coherent narrative of how the US government could have been responsible. How do you think it went down? The hijackers were working for the Bush administration?

It is not the government as a whole. There are lots of good people in the government. But in the instance of 9/11, the reason why those lies are so bad is because they were informed about al Qaeda and OBL and Islamic terrorism well before 9/11, during the transition actually. During those transition intelligence briefings, Bush was warned by the C.I.A. briefers and President Clinton, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was warned by the C.I.A. briefers and Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor about OBL and al Qaeda. The C.I.A. briefed President Bush 40+ different times with his Presidential Daily Briefs that dealt with OBL and al Qaeda. ---------- I could keep going, but the point is simple: they knew about planes being hijacked and then kamikazed into buildings. Okay, so they knew, now what? The next question therefore being: What Did They Do To Prevent It?

What did the Commander in Chief order to be done? VPOTUS was head of an anti-terror task force, he was getting the intelligence too, what was he doin' about it? Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense gets a lethal amount of new information thrown at him on a daily basis, he knew of the threats cause he gets the same intel, what was his orders? And it goes on down the line as it should. Who in any position of authority gave any type of orders to Move Mountains because as C.I.A. Director George Tenet has said, The System Was Blinking Red -- we're about to hit a f'n iceberg and NoBody Did A Damn Thing To Stop It.

That conclusion is easily reached with so many other unfortunate things people have learned post-9/11. Like take the hijackers passports. I'll quote one of the Jersey Girls here:

Prior to 9/11, our US intelligence agencies should have stopped the 19 terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons, alone. However, their failure to do so in 19 instances does not negate the luck involved for the terrorists when it comes to their visa applications and our Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS.

With regard to the INS, the terrorists got lucky 15 individual times, because 15 of the 19 hijackers' visas should have been unquestionably denied.

Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in National Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."

Yet these 19 young single, unemployed, "classic overstay candidates still received their visas." I am holding in my hand the applications of the terrorists who killed my husband. All of these forms are incomplete and incorrect.

Some of the terrorists listed their means of support as simply "student" failing to then list the name and address of any school or institution. Others, when asked about their means of support for their stay in the US wrote "myself" and provided no further documentation. Some of the terrorists listed their destination in the US as simply "hotel" or "California" or "New York". One even listed his destination as "no".

Had the INS or State Department followed the law, at least 15 of the hijackers would have been denied visas and would not have been in the United States on September 11th, 2001.

Help us to understand how something as simple as reviewing forms for completeness could have been missed at least 15 times. How many more lucky terrorists gained unfettered access into this country? With no one being held accountable, how do know this still isn't happening?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

"Hello. Where are you going?" the agent stamping passports asked.
"No," said the young Arab man in barely intelligible English.
"Ah, you said No. I love that place this time of year," the agent said as he stamped the young Arab man's passport and allowed him entry into the United States.

I mean really. He listed his destination as 'No'.

Want to read something ironic about terrorists getting into the U.S. via passports:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/nyregion/islamic-leader-on-us-terrorist-list-is-in-brooklyn.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/14/nyregion/cia-officer-signed-visa-for-sheik-us-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/22/nyregion/cia-officers-played-role-in-sheik-visas.html



The narrative most Americans have heard about 9/11 is like a flooded basement -- it doesn't take much to push through the rotted foundation. But, most Americans are not curious about **** like this. But if 100,000,000 American adults knew about this stuff there would be a call to action. Why keep givin' 'em the benefit of the doubt, man? As you've said, they've done terrible illegal and unconstitutional and immoral things for so long to so many different people, so what'd stop 'em from doing something like this? What, the Rational Actor nonsense? POTUS was telling the French President before the Iraq invasion about Gog and Magog in the Middle East for Christ's sake. All of his upper echelon people had drank a whole bunch of the religious kool aid. And then of course Bush let's it slip that he's putting the U.S. on a crusade to rid the world of evil doers. The dude was a nut and he was surrounded by a whole bunch of wolves.

 

[Jango]

Irony alert:

Perhaps for those who do not know what irony is.

 

[Oystein]

It is not the government as a whole. There are lots of good people in the government. But in the instance of 9/11, the reason why those lies are so bad is because they were informed about al Qaeda and OBL and Islamic terrorism well before 9/11, during the transition actually. During those transition intelligence briefings, Bush was warned by the C.I.A. briefers and President Clinton, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was warned by the C.I.A. briefers and Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor about OBL and al Qaeda. The C.I.A. briefed President Bush 40+ different times with his Presidential Daily Briefs that dealt with OBL and al Qaeda. ---------- I could keep going, but the point is simple: they knew about planes being hijacked and then kamikazed into buildings. Okay, so they knew, now what? The next question therefore being: What Did They Do To Prevent It?

What did the Commander in Chief order to be done? VPOTUS was head of an anti-terror task force, he was getting the intelligence too, what was he doin' about it? Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense gets a lethal amount of new information thrown at him on a daily basis, he knew of the threats cause he gets the same intel, what was his orders? And it goes on down the line as it should. Who in any position of authority gave any type of orders to Move Mountains because as C.I.A. Director George Tenet has said, The System Was Blinking Red -- we're about to hit a f'n iceberg and NoBody Did A Damn Thing To Stop It.

That conclusion is easily reached with so many other unfortunate things people have learned post-9/11. Like take the hijackers passports. I'll quote one of the Jersey Girls here:


http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

"Hello. Where are you going?" the agent stamping passports asked.
"No," said the young Arab man in barely intelligible English.
"Ah, you said No. I love that place this time of year," the agent said as he stamped the young Arab man's passport and allowed him entry into the United States.

I mean really. He listed his destination as 'No'.

Want to read something ironic about terrorists getting into the U.S. via passports:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/nyregion/islamic-leader-on-us-terrorist-list-is-in-brooklyn.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/14/nyregion/cia-officer-signed-visa-for-sheik-us-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/22/nyregion/cia-officers-played-role-in-sheik-visas.html



The narrative most Americans have heard about 9/11 is like a flooded basement -- it doesn't take much to push through the rotted foundation. But, most Americans are not curious about **** like this. But if 100,000,000 American adults knew about this stuff there would be a call to action. Why keep givin' 'em the benefit of the doubt, man? As you've said, they've done terrible illegal and unconstitutional and immoral things for so long to so many different people, so what'd stop 'em from doing something like this? What, the Rational Actor nonsense? POTUS was telling the French President before the Iraq invasion about Gog and Magog in the Middle East for Christ's sake. All of his upper echelon people had drank a whole bunch of the religious kool aid. And then of course Bush let's it slip that he's putting the U.S. on a crusade to rid the world of evil doers. The dude was a nut and he was surrounded by a whole bunch of wolves.

Yes. You prove convincingly that the Bush presidency had ideological blinders on, and that procedures were handled laxly and often imcompetently.

Now what?

This calls for taking of political responsibility, right?
Or do you additionally allege criminal negligence, or even criminal intent? If so, spell out clearly what you allege!
And beware The word "criminal" has a specific meaning! And proving "criminal" is a well-defined process, with well defined premises and procedures, and well-defined outcomes.

Yes, the system was "blinking red", and we have seen the writing on the wall for 13 years and counting, but as far as I can see, no coherent "alternative" narrative has emerged that converged on a finite, well supported set of definite claims. It's mostly claptrap, still.
You may attribute this sad state of affairs to lack of information - pages redacted and officers covering their arses.
But a lot IS known, and lots of investigations HAVE been done, by officials, by the press, by private individuals and groups; and still the image they paint os more than blurry.

One plausible explanation for this state is that there really isn't much more behind the curtain than incompetent officers, inefficient organizations, insufficient flow if information, lax attitudes and an overwhelming stream of fuzzy bits of info that can be arranged to actionable intelligence only with the benefit of hindsight.

And maybe you know the old wisdom: Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[JSanderO]

he entire national security state needs threats, enemies and so it essentially will not get its hair on fire if there is trouble out there. Their mission is to deal with it... sort of reaction to their cause... So there was no will nor will there ever be a will to get rid of the root causes of anti West, anti US .. anti any established institution... Just call out the FBI, the military and the police.

 

[turingtest]

...
Like take the hijackers passports. I'll quote one of the Jersey Girls here:

...
Some of the terrorists listed their means of support as simply "student" failing to then list the name and address of any school or institution. Others, when asked about their means of support for their stay in the US wrote "myself" and provided no further documentation. Some of the terrorists listed their destination in the US as simply "hotel" or "California" or "New York". One even listed his destination as "no".
...

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

"Hello. Where are you going?" the agent stamping passports asked.
"No," said the young Arab man in barely intelligible English.
"Ah, you said No. I love that place this time of year," the agent said as he stamped the young Arab man's passport and allowed him entry into the United States.

I mean really. He listed his destination as 'No'.
...

Skipping all the rhetoric...this is interesting. Which terrorist listed "No" as his destination?

 

[Meed]

It is not the government as a whole. There are lots of good people in the government. But in the instance of 9/11, the reason why those lies are so bad is because they were informed about al Qaeda and OBL and Islamic terrorism well before 9/11, during the transition actually. During those transition intelligence briefings, Bush was warned by the C.I.A. briefers and President Clinton, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was warned by the C.I.A. briefers and Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor about OBL and al Qaeda. The C.I.A. briefed President Bush 40+ different times with his Presidential Daily Briefs that dealt with OBL and al Qaeda.

You aren't making your point very clear. Did the CIA warn them 40+ times about OBL and Al Qaeda in general or did they warn them 40+ times about planes being flown into buildings? Only the latter is relevant. Also, what's your source?

---------- I could keep going, but the point is simple: they knew about planes being hijacked and then kamikazed into buildings. Okay, so they knew, now what? The next question therefore being: What Did They Do To Prevent It?

What did the Commander in Chief order to be done? VPOTUS was head of an anti-terror task force, he was getting the intelligence too, what was he doin' about it? Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense gets a lethal amount of new information thrown at him on a daily basis, he knew of the threats cause he gets the same intel, what was his orders? And it goes on down the line as it should. Who in any position of authority gave any type of orders to Move Mountains because as C.I.A. Director George Tenet has said, The System Was Blinking Red -- we're about to hit a f'n iceberg and NoBody Did A Damn Thing To Stop It.

I don't think it is clear that they considered it a likely possibility. How many threats have they been briefed on that haven't materialized? You make it sound as if they knew with certainty that planes were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings. The fact that they didn't go all out and "move mountains" to stop one particular threat out of many potential ones doesn't strike me as suspicious. Now, it's possible some in the administration had it in the back of their mind that 'if a terrorist attack happens it would open up some exciting opportunities for overseas adventures, so maybe I won't bust my balls quite so hard to try to stop one'. But this can only be speculated on. It's not in evidence.

Why keep givin' 'em the benefit of the doubt, man? As you've said, they've done terrible illegal and unconstitutional and immoral things for so long to so many different people, so what'd stop 'em from doing something like this?

I thought I'd made it clear that I don't give them the benefit of the doubt and that my conclusions are based on the evidence.

What, the Rational Actor nonsense? POTUS was telling the French President before the Iraq invasion about Gog and Magog in the Middle East for Christ's sake. All of his upper echelon people had drank a whole bunch of the religious kool aid. And then of course Bush let's it slip that he's putting the U.S. on a crusade to rid the world of evil doers. The dude was a nut and he was surrounded by a whole bunch of wolves.

I don't believe the religious or evil doer talk for a second. I think you're mistaking the crap he fed to the public with his actual beliefs. He was a rational, intelligent, immoral man in my view.

 

[beachnut]

...
I mean really. He listed his destination as 'No'. ...

You have never taught school? No is a good answer; better than reading sources, making some quick false conclusion due to shallow research, make up BS, when reading the sources for comprehension would result in no BS.

"No" is on par with BS that comes from not taking the time to read sources and do background research. Where is the list of the questions which are legitimate; so far the performance is kind of like answering, No.

What does it mean? The failure of someone to put down a rational destination; or was he traveling constantly, and has "no" destination. What is your destination in this thread? "No"

Can you make the "no" bigger? More red. "No" real meaning BS question - what does it mean. How many times do travelers make mistakes... oops, Is there a control group for the meaningless, "no".

Did he go to New Orleans?
North Oregon...
Why is listing where you are going significant when you are going to kill Americans? Are all people who mess up this "No" thing bad guys?

The "No" breaks the 911 CT wide open. You did it

Gee, now when idiots put down "No" we have a box of rocks we stick them in until they put something logical; the box of rocks has the sign with the big red letters, "No" on the side. That takes care of your question... oops, we could waterboard them, until they explain what "no" means.

Did the terrorist put the No in read like you did? Is that cool, or what

 

[DGM]

That conclusion is easily reached with so many other unfortunate things people have learned post-9/11. Like take the hijackers passports. I'll quote one of the Jersey Girls here:

I know you're going to accuse me of sounding like a lawyer here (I'm not BTW) but, exactly what part of them possibly being connected to al Qaeda would exclude them from entering this country? Remember this is before 9/11/01, no hind-sight allowed.

This is very much like the people that look at pictures of the hijackers and can't believe people let them pass, after all, they look like terrorists. Did these guys actually break any of our laws before the obvious, of course?

 

[abaddon]

Jango cannot fathom how TSA operatives happen upon those who do not speak english despit the fact that the majority do no speak english at all. It seems beyond his ken. There are vast numbers of migrants who have not a word of english. Why exactly jango thinks all immigrants must be fluent in english, I leave for jango to resolve.

 

[George 152]

Will Jango list the questions...

Jango doesn't do lists, questions or answers.
They may affect his presumptions