The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[DGM]

Just so everyone can get up to speed.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1775

 

[MortFurd]

I'm only going to address one part of that monster. Note the section I bolded .

(Google Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs)

There are clearly too many to mention, but to give just a random selection (please note that if you click on the above link, you will find all these articles sourced back to the original/details of the edition/date/authors etc):

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11


What is important here, is not just that there were so many specific warnings, but that in response, NOTHING was done. Absolutely nothing, absent 1 cabinet meeting on the 4th September. This is not surprising of course, given that a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil had been stated to be propitious to US policy only months earlier. In fact, the wheels had started to turn pretty early. On 25th January, Dick Clarke, the counter terrorism czar (whose book “Against all Enemies” should be read by all who want to know more on the Bush admin’s apathy to the unprecedented threat of a catastrophic terror attack) sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled “Strategy for eliminating the threat of Al Qaeda”. The response? Demotion. A pretty effective way of turning the volume down on warnings of an AQ threat. Clarke was now dealing with deputy/junior cabinet members- slowing down any anti-terror measures ”by months”. Indeed Bush had been warned in November by both Clinton and Sandy Berger of the urgency of getting AQ. But nothing.

That bolded section is typical Truther. Those warnings are so general as to be useless.
Here's a warning:
Tomorrow, I'm going to go beat a Truther to a pulp with a clue bat.

That's as specific and useful as the warnings you've posted. Find a warning that could have been used to tell exactly what was going to happen on September 11, 2001. Then we can talk about "specific warnings."

 

[stateofgrace]

I´m not a 911 CTist, but look at Iran contra. No one belived that, at first.

Who knows how the minds of these demi gods/psychos work.

Well would you risk the long walk to the gallows for approving such a ridiculous plan?

Would you risk complete and utter destruction of your life, all your political beliefs and the very future of your nation on such a plan? Would you risk seeing the nation you were born in, educated in, live in having its political standing on the world stage being completely destroyed if you approved such a plan and it was discovered?

The reason we know about Iran Contra by the way is because it was exposed, secrets always get exposed they never remain secret, ask Nixon.

 

[DGM]

This too.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1849

 

[MortFurd]

- Surely the anti-Bush press would be all over this if it was credible

As well as falling foul of the problems I listed above, as has been shown compelling by Chomsky and Herman, the mainstream media, certainly in the US, functions as a tool of government propaganda; there is little reason to believe the UK press functions otherwise. I may write another post on this later, I think it’s pretty important, but should you wish to find out more about it, please read “Manufacturing Consent” by the aforementioned authors; it is generally recognised as one of Chomsky’s most important works. 9/11 could not be a stronger instance of the self censoring function of the mass media at work- 2 startling examples have already been listed in the William Rodriguez testimony and the WTC 7 story.

So, the US and UK media are ignoring it. So why hasn't anyone else come forward with facts? Sure as shooting, the German media don't like Bush. you should have seen the reporting against him and in favor of ANYBODY else during hte last two US elections. Surely they'd be happy to report anything negative about Bush.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Germany is under the NWO's thumb as well.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Gore did win the 2000 election

He may have thought "pigshit, I´m not dealing with this. Bush can have it. I´m hungry."

That's not exactly what happened. The Gore campaign pushed very hard for recounts in certain Florida counties which might have tilted the results of the extremely close race in favor of Gore, but the Supreme Court ultimately shot that down. There really wasn't much they could do about it after that.

 

[nicepants]

Mjd also enlightened us at SLC that the opinions of Controlled Demolition (CD) experts of a foreign country are "truly independent" and therefore more valid than opinions of CD experts in the US, including CD experts who were on the scene and witnessed the collapses firsthand.

 

[Liszt]

I'm only going to address one part of that monster. Note the section I bolded .

That bolded section is typical Truther. Those warnings are so general as to be useless.
Here's a warning:
Tomorrow, I'm going to go beat a Truther to a pulp with a clue bat.

That's as specific and useful as the warnings you've posted. Find a warning that could have been used to tell exactly what was going to happen on September 11, 2001. Then we can talk about "specific warnings."

While you are correct here, there is one possibility (not on the OP), which lies in Sibel Edmonds´testimony. she is under a gag order right now. (It was removed from the 911 commision report)
Relevence? When C Rice said that there were no warnings, Edmonds said it was, based on here FBI work, an "outrageous lie"

Source

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=7156

Also note, Sibel is beautiful. This alone is reason to watch this documentary.



Here´s an analogy. Remember the Potters Bar train crash? I lived in Potters Bar at the time. Lots of people were killed. Did the train co. do it on purpose? Did they "let it happen"?
Of course not. But because they were cutting costs, so they could hit financial, governmet imposed targets (and also their bonuses), there could have been some people charged with corporate manslaughter (for example, deciding not to upgrade damaged track because it was expensive). The report on this, as usual, blamed no one. This is similar to 911, in my opinion. Who (if anyone) cut survailence, in order to reach DOD budgets? Why was some testimony (Edmunds, for example) left out?

It is not MIHOP or even LIHOP, it is about weeding out the incompetants

 

[MortFurd]

Some questions for mdj1982:
How many people were involved in the conspiracy? How many learned of it coincidentally? How many realized after the fact that they had worked on some part of the conspiracy without knowing it at the time? How many of those were "silenced?" How many were paid off?

How many people would have had to work together to carry off the conspiracy you envision?


How much would it take for YOU to remain silent if you knew something about the conspiracy?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Mjd also enlightened us at SLC that the opinions of Controlled Demolition (CD) experts of a foreign country are "truly independent" and therefore more valid than opinions of CD experts in the US, including CD experts who were on the scene and witnessed the collapses firsthand.

Yep. But by "foreign experts" they really only mean Danny Jowenko, who happens to disagree with troofers about WTC1 and 2, and who now refuses to talk about WTC7 since making his careless and imprudent claim that it was a CD before he knew all the facts.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

TAM

 

[MortFurd]

While you are correct here, there is one possibility (not on the OP), which lies in Sibel Edmonds´testimony. she is under a gag order right now. (It was removed from the 911 commision report)
Relevence? When C Rice said that there were no warnings, Edmonds said it was, based on here FBI work, an "outrageous lie"

Source

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=7156

Also note, Sibel is beautiful. This alone is reason to watch this documentary.



Here´s an analogy. Remember the Potters Bar train crash? I lived in Potters Bar at the time. Lots of people were killed. Did the train co. do it on purpose? Did they "let it happen"?
Of course not. But because they were cutting costs, so they could hit financial, governmet imposed targets (and also their bonuses), there could have been some people charged with corporate manslaughter (for example, deciding not to upgrade damaged track because it was expensive). The report on this, as usual, blamed no one. This is similar to 911, in my opinion. Who (if anyone) cut survailence, in order to reach DOD budgets? Why was some testimony (Edmunds, for example) left out?

It is not MIHOP or even LIHOP, it is about weeding out the incompetants

Which is all a far and away different thing from a conspiracy to cause the event. I don't think you'll find many people here who will argue that there were clues before hand that something was up. You'll probably find plenty of people who agree that there was some degree of CYA after the fact to hide places where officials could have done better.

That's still not a conspiracy to cause the events. mjd1982 is pushing a US government conspiracy to cause the 9/11 attacks. He's going to get a lot of arguments here, and a lot of demands for facts rather than speculation.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Mjd also enlightened us at SLC that the opinions of Controlled Demolition (CD) experts of a foreign country are "truly independent" and therefore more valid than opinions of CD experts in the US, including CD experts who were on the scene and witnessed the collapses firsthand.

To be fair, if a foreign country CD expert also managed to have a British accent then that would greatly enhance, even magnify, his and/or her importance and credibility. You know how we Yanks make absolute fools of ourselves when we hear the lilting tonal musicality and majesty of a clipped British accent:

A. Men cry.
B. Women curse.
C. Kiddies bark.
D. Dogs giggle.

So let's hope those foreign CD experts were French or something like that.

 

[T.A.M.]

the 9/11 commission report, that dastardly collection of big bad brother lies, makes MULTIPLE References to the warnings given both to on the ground investigators, and the higher ups...

TAM

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now, what a number of people maintain against the TM, is that the scale for government complicity to be feasible is impossible. It is surely too great a task. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. All that is required for the CT to be correct, is that the government brings a few heads of food chains into line, gets a whole load of warnings, ignores them all, and bam! The attacks happen.

Listen, you can't believe LIHOP and MIHOP. Either there were credible warnings of al Qaeda planning 9/11, or al Qaeda didn't plan 9/11. The two are mutually exclusive.

Hello?

 

[nicepants]

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.
TAM

Jowenko is, of course, the only one mentioned who is (or was) "certain" it was a CD. The mere fact that the other experts admit the possibility that it may NOT have been cd, indicates that the type of collapse we saw with WTC7 would have, in the opinion of those CD experts, been possible without the aid of explosives.

 

[DGM]

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

TAM

This would be impossible because Jowenko doesn't speak english.

 

[Belz...]

The fact is that although debunking TT CD theories, and no plane hitting the Pentagon is quite easy, when it comes to addressing the real hard facts, there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement”

<giggle>. That is the one conclusion that a rational mind CANNOT come to.

Just before we get into things, I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest).

Interesting. I'm sure people like Mackey and Gravy can't be called either.

Of course, since the truther side is known for their crazy ideas, denial of scientific process and rational thinking, this is a moot point.

I mean deluded not as some blind pejorative, rather in the strict sense of the word- they will ignore, manipulate and select evidence in order to squeeze it into a story that fits nicely with their preconceived, but ultimately baseless view of how the world might work.

OH, MY GOD!! My irony meter has just exploded.

This has been illustrated time and again on the SLC, but I hope will not be the case here. Let’s be honest, and open minded.

Open minded does not mean that all ideas are given equal footing. Open minded means that when the evidence leads, you follow.

 

[T.A.M.]

Jowenko, IMO, made a statement based on a video he watched, when asked to do so, without knowing the context of the video. He had no background at the time, in terms of the circumstances (ie a 20 storey hole on the opposite side of the building, 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, firemen testifying it was leaning to the side) at the time of his opinion.

Then, also just my opinion, his pride took over, and he has since refused to not only retract his statement, but refuses to discuss the issue.

Funny though, this is the one guy the truthers should be going gangbusters to get for an interview to "prove their case" yet they have not gotten any more out of him...I suspect it is because either (A) he knows he has stepped in it, and figures if he lets it slide it will go away, or (B) none of the truthers actually want to get a full interview with him, because he may take back their little kernal of gold, that little nugget they have been beating to death.

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

Hello all!

Hi.

Let’s be honest, and open minded.

OK with me.

PS- I have just noticed that I cannot post URLs here (?)

Yes, you have to have a minimum of 15 posts under your belt.

The 9/11 Inside Job

False start.

Remember this?:

Let’s be honest, and open minded.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”

- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1935-1972

He was also a cross-dresser.

On evidence that we have to hand, the case begins in September 2000, with the publication of a very important document. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”

snip

It could be seen, therefore, not only as a blueprint for neo-conservative policy, but also of the policy of the administration that was to take office in January 2001.

Sure, didn't quite work out as they planned though.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0613-05.htm

What is so extraordinary about this document, is that what it lays out in black and white, is, to a startling degree, what we now call the “War on Terror”.

Could you quote the passage where they talk about that? I always thought the PNAC was about transforming the military, to introduce more technology and increase spending.

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000.

"Transformation" meant implementing more technologies in the military.

Now, although this doesn’t prove anything, it does do one thing. It gives us a very useful frame of reference for assessing the possibility of government complicity in the “new Pearl Harbour”.

No.

Think. The chances of a new PH happening, absent gov complicity are remote.

False assumption. Pearl Harbor, the real one, happened without government complicity.

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11

All this proves that al Qaeda was indeed intent in carrying out their attack, and that intelligence services were aware of them.

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...

... reading the full NIST report on the collapse, which is due out soon.

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.

There's absolutely no evidence of explosives or bombs in either WTC 1, 2 or 7