Top Ten 9/11 Smoking Guns

1) After hearing confirmation of the attack on America, George W. Bush's first instinct and priority was to sit tight at his photo op.

2) Why weren't fighter jets scrambled immediately to rendezvous with hijacked planes?

3) Ashcroft's eschewal of public air transportation in July 2001

4) The shelving of the final Hart-Rudman Commission Report on Terrorism

5) Bush family ties to the oil industry and Saudi Arabia

6) Bush Administration resistance to 9/11 independent commission

7) Bush Administration co-opting of "independent" commission when he got to choose the tie vote

8) Appointment of a war criminal (Kissinger) to be the tie vote in the "independent" commission

9) The theft of the 2000 presidential election by the son of Desert Storm commander-in-chief

10) Appointment of Desert Storm officials to high posts in Cabinet (Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney (well, Cheney wasn't appointed by Bush, but you know what I mean).

The entire thread can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030223211654/http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5326.html#27

It's very illuminating with many excellent posts.

cooked up by the same individuals who now get to execute those plans, thanks to the "new Pearl Harbor" they said they'd need in order to execute those plans.

I think Bush's lack of response when he first heard about the attacks is not one of the more significant smoking guns.

Never thought this was a 'smoking gun' (btw, that phrase is clumsy to us in non-gun-toting societies) as it could be construed in many ways.

IMO the real killer giveaway is the rapid and dedicated removal of the debris. Fait accompli, job done, evidence destroyed. No matter what we surmise, we can never, ever refer to any physical evidence from the towers. I have yet to hear a believable reason for the desperate disposal of the wreckage. It's not as if you have a tiny country and could not find a few acres to store it. This more than anything, suggests to me that something needed to be hidden.

This is not my personal list.

that not a single middle or low level conspirator has ever been named? With so many smoking guns and after five years of research, how do you explain such a glaring failure of the 911 truth movement? Don't you think that this failure is a reflection on their research skills? There had to be hundreds if not thousands involved or aware, especially with the cover-up, yet not a single name.

Face it, this lack of detail is what kills the truth movement.

Just off the top of my head, Paul Bremer, Jerome Hauer, Rudy Giuliani, Bernie Kerik, anyone in Dr DeBugs threads....

1. the demo expert who engineered the WTC. There can only be a handful of people with that kind of skill.

2. the FBI agent that sabotaged the initial investigation. There can only be a handful of candidates.

3. the New York firefighters that were in WTC7 and oversaw its demo.

Where are the names?


I am thinking of folks lower on the food chain - the guys who actually did the dirty work. For every one person like the people you name there should be many more worker bees. Why don't we have any of their names?
I know that details have no place in the truth movement but if you can't answer the question "tell me exactly how they did it" you will never get anywhere.

demoted, fired or otherwise penalized for the worst attack ever on American soil? Not one.

I don't think the 9/11 truth movement has the answers but at least it has questions and many of those questions remain unanswered.

you would know that I have consistently stated my belief that Bush committed impeachable offenses concerning pre-911 intelligence and subsequent cover up. I have no doubt that Bush is covering up something - I guess you can call me LIHTI (let it happen through incompetence.) This common notion that opposition to any CT automatically means I accept every aspect of the official story is a false dichotomy used by the "truth" community to attack any one that adheres to a less conspiratorial view of 911.

As to the questions, don't you think that after five years there would be more answers? They can't even agree among themselves what happened. At what point with no answers do you simply admit you had the wrong questions? Are you going to be asking questions 40 years from now ala the JFK assassination?

and I do not automatically assume you accept the official story or even that you are wrong. Your version of events may even be right. From my experience and observation, I think I have a pretty
good idea of how and why this went down, though many of the specifics remain a mystery. I think both CTs and you are wrong, though I will admit I am not sure enough to go further.

What I find strange about some of your posts is that you seem to put the burden of proof on CT proponents when they have no real means of reviewing or obtaining the evidence. They don't have subpeona power and even if they did the evidence would hardly be forthcoming. For example, even the National Archives have been cleansed since 2001. Don't you think that's why there aren't more answers?

So if the CT questions are wrong, what are the right questions?

the absolute certainty in which many in this forum state their theories. To my way of thinking, if you "know" something happened or if something "is impossible" you should be able to produce some evidence. Is this an unreasonable expectation?

Any comments on the OP?

I'm not sure I'm always objective either. But my instincts, training and experience tell me this stinks to high hell.

What do you think are the right questions?

prior to 911. I think that it could have been prevented. However, I also believe that some of the blame falls on Clinton - whether it was Ben Laden or the neo-cons, the plot was not conceived, planned and executed in the short time Bush was in office. That is why I believe there will never be another investigation - the Democrats (especially Hillary) don't want to face some embarrassing questions.

"A failure of imagination" is basically manure. I was once a farmer so I think I know it when I smell it. The FBI and CIA independently had plenty to go on and - unlike the sundry millenium plots when Bill was President - they simply didn't do it. Why not and why cover it all up?

I will wait until you prove it.

It's not a theorem. If only it were that simple.

The "proof" of your position is quite flawed; it's revealing that you appear to ignore that.

I am comfortable with that as long as you are - speculation can be fun and entertaining. Anyone that says they "know what happened" will have to provide proof - I think my position is reasonable.

Bureaucratic infighting has always been a problem, especially between the CIA and FBI - they have a history of turf wars. The lack of a modern IT systems to collect and share information was also a huge problem - it still is. Both are fundamentally dysfunctional organizations with long histories of fuck ups. As to why a cover, what about to save careers or avoid jail? That is a traditional government motivation for coverups.

Do you think that US government agencies were actively plotting to murder US citizens (ie 911) during the Clinton administration? If so, what responsibility does he bear for letting it happen? If not, outline a plausible theory as to how 911 was conceived, planned and executed in such a short time.

I said each independently had the ability and information to stop 9/11. That means the FBI had sufficient information without the CIA and vice versa. The bureaucratic infighting argument is largely a red herring. Re-read the facts of the 9/11 Commission Report and you will see how this is true. And

Both agencies have a long history of successes as well as failures -but those successes are rarely documented. Yet no failure in the history of the nation comes close to 9/11. The political appointees could easily have taken people out - let's start with Dave Frasca at the FBI, who instead received a promotion - who screwed up on or before 9/11. Wouldn't that have been a good and obvious idea?

I don't think "US government agencies" were actively plotting to murder US citizens during the Clinton administration or the Bush Administration. Let's just say that's not how international politics works - not at this level - it's a little more complicated than that.

I have my theory and I'm not sharing, though this post has a clue. I think my view is pretty close to the truth, but I could easily be 100% wrong.

Perhaps one day you will have sufficient confidence in your theory to share with us.

Official Conspiracy Theory?

I sure haven't seen it. All I see is that you claim you don't believe it all. Well what exactly do you believe and don't you believe?

Did you believe the NIST pancake theory? Or did you post about why you were suspicious about it?

Thanks, I await your clarifications

this is one of those areas where the "truth" community has failed - I have never seen a research paper that proves that it was theoretically impossible for the towers to fail without explosives. There is a lot of video analysis but a serious lack of real science and experimentation. Show me, for example, a CT paper that calculates the PE of the towers, translates that energy into an equivalent amount of explosives and then goes on to explain how much more energy (explosives) is required to produce the damage seen.

The harping on alleged inconsistencies with the NIST report is also a truth community weakness for two reasons. One, it displays a lack of understanding of the scientific process. Multiple theories are proposed, experiments are conducted, the results are analyzed, conclusions are made and new theories formulated, and more experiments are conducted. The WTC analysis has stretched the envelope as far as analyzing such a complex event. The science and technology are evolving as we speak.

Secondly, while major fire safety engineering organizations such as ARUP may disagree with NIST as to a specific failure mode, none disagree with the notion that it is theoretically possible for the towers to collapse due to the damage suffered on 911. ARUP actually thinks that the fires alone may have been sufficient. The truth community, by focusing on nit picking the NIST report, completely ignores the issue that there is near unanimity among the academic and engineering communities that explosives were not required to bring down the towers.

So to sum up, while I am not certain if NIST has the precise answer yet, they are on a course to get there. I accept without question that it was theoretically possible for the towers to fail without explosives, based on my understanding of physics and the lack of any compelling science from the truth community.

NIST is

1. Thay started from the unscientific position of attempting to determane how a plane and it's fuel could initiated a rapid sequencial global collapse. They didn't even consider any other possibilities, which given the eyewitness testimony, the audio and video evidence, and the available physical eveidence would have been to rule out other possibilites before starting on the plane/fire theory alone.

2.they didn't start investigating for a full 8 or 9 months until after the event, so much of the physical evidence was already gone. They have no physical evidence which proves their assumptions in terms of heat/time.

3. They embraced a "coincidence theory" that is ridiculas on the face of it. They are trying to prepose that 3 random events, with three different buildings all resulted in 3 simular rapid sequential global collapses. This is highly unlikely.

So before you start calling names in the name of science, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

they are not the only ones studying 911.

If it is "coincidence theory" then why is it so hard for the truth community to produce a technical paper with reproducible experiments that refute the NIST studies? Where is the hard science on your side?

squabbling among themselves, unable to decide on everything. It's all the result of a big bungling, right. Hmmm, except if they are so "bungling" how have they managed to not be held accountable for any of this? How have they managed to pull off a war in Iraq which appears to be illegal and was based on lies? how did they get away with that huh? How come their "incompetence" seems to come to an end when it comes time to pay the piper? How have they managed to subvert the American constitution, pretty hard thing to do for people who are so "incompetent". They also appear to have employed some election fraud techniques on several occasions and got away with that...incompetence?..no, it's more like organized crime
The incompetence propaganda is the most transparent nonsense to cover up the crimes of the bush administration. Remember what his predecessor was impeached for?

Yeah, great way how they managed to hold onto Congress this last election.

:sarcasm:

and no one has been held accountable, not for the war and not for the Downing Street Memos. As for the recent elections, there still was plenty of evidence of malfeasance that has not been addressed and nothing is being done about the electronic voting despite proof that it is not reliable or trustworthy.
It's time like this that I realize your posts are just propaganda, how can anyone say what you have with a straight face?

no matter how many times you proclaim the 911 truth movement is dead it is not! It's just getting started! Deal with it!

I am under no illusions that it will go away. However, since much of it is driven by hatred for Bush, come 2008 it will lose much of its momentum.

How dare you imply that some of the 9/11 "truth movement" is politically motivated.

Wolfgang Bohringer have been named long ago.

We know they were part of the local support system for the accused hijackers. There are others named also, but you aren't apparently interested in them either. So as far as you are concerned, they don't really exist.

If you keep your head in the sand, that's your problem.

Bush covering his ass from intelligence failures.

Where are the Americans? The FBI and DOD plotters? Where are the direct links to the US government?

Where are names associated with demolition and remote control aircraft/missiles/global hawks?

that the accused hijackers were a "lone cadre" of independent muslim extremists.

That story just doesn't mesh with the facts.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you about it. The facts are available if you want to know. Which it appears you don't.

Of course, there were 4 "lone cadres", weren't there?

And right up front here, let's just add that the "lone cadre" idiocy is one more example of the reliance of 9/11 CTs on the groundwork laid by JFK CTs. Again and again, the terminologies are borrowed and reworked - it's a freeflowing propaganda channel.

And let's not even get into the similarities of thought between 9/11 CTs and Holocaust denial.

What I'm trying to say is that the conspiracy-colored eyeglasses become real apparent when you borrow terminology and methodology from other CTs. "Lone cadre" doesn't even make sense. There were 19 of them! How could they be described in any way as "alone"?

mine.

And also read the Warren Report. They say that Oswald was the "lone gunman" not me.

If you don't believe the accused hijackers were a "lone cadre" then fine, we both agree on that, even if our belief contradicts the 9/11 Commission report.

And if you don't believe that Oswald was a "lone" assassin, fine, then we are on the same page there too, in contradiction of the Warren report.

Don't blame me that these commissions came to these unfounded conclusions.

the accused hijackers help and support in this country. It must have that in there, otherwise they are saying that the hijackers acted independent of any inside the country help, ie as a lone cadre.

If you don't like the term, lone cadre, that's fine but what would you use instead to describe 19 accused hijackers who did it all by themselves? With no local support?

And don't forget the Warren Commission (you forgot the Commission!!!)

They say Oswald acted alone, ie the "lone nut" theory." Yeah it's a nutty theory believed by nuts, but what you gonna do? There are some nuts out there, but if this board is any indication, they don't act alone. They find other nuts to bond with.

is so telling.

for what the 9/11 Commission report describes. If you don't agree with what the 9CR describes than don't be afraid to say so. But please don't try to have it both ways.

The Warren Commission said that Oswald acted alone, ie a "lone nut." Or do you prefer some other term, like "lone assassin?"

I can't tell what your problem is, except that it is apparently very important that everybody view the world exactly like yourself. You spend vast amounts of time, effort, and bile to attempt to make it so.

I have news for you. Ain't going to happen. And that's a good thing.

So until you come up with some terms that better describe what the 9/11 Commission said, I'll use the terms I want, and if you don't like it you can lump it.

It's amazing to me that I am ever the issue here, ever. Ever.

I'm talking about CT propaganda, and the constant recycling of memes to make it all seem connected. Lone Cadre, Magic Passport - it's just fascinating to watch it work. Look at what you are saying - it's an oxymoron! And not in the "jumbo shrimp" accident-of-word way, or the snarky "military intelligence" have-you-ever-been-in-the-military way, but the terms "lone cadre" actually cancel each other out!

It's amazing.

You are lucky. Many people get cynical as they get older. They lose the abilty to be amazed.

Lone cadre as opposed to integrated cadre.

I think they were an integrated cadre. They were obviously integrated into US intel/LEO sanctioned operations. As Hopsicker has proved many times and in many ways.

So I'm afraid you will just have to hate the term and protest it vigorously every chance you get. Sorry for you.

And where are those American names I asked for? Don't you have anyone actually working for the US government.

I get tired of having to try to educate people who should be capable of educating themselves. The links to the free online reading library are out there. Look them up if you don't want to spring for the book.

Rudi had an American partner. Wolfgang owned a flight school even though it's illegal for foreign nationals to own flight schools in the US. So Wolfgang had US intel protection as well. This was shown again when the FBI cut him loose after he informed them he was CIA.

Your "connections" remind me so much of the Clinton Chronicles - Hopsicker is the 911 Matrisciana.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Please be precise in your accusations. The moderators would be happy to hear your evidence as well.

Since you want to butt into this conversation, since your post below so obviously agrees with the sentiment, why don't you answer the question of how exactly hack89, a member of DU, is a low-level conspirator.

Get your facts straight, I'm sure the moderators are anxious to investigate them.

You don't mind butting in frequently, so why should I?

Or is it different when you do it?

I would like to know, and I'm sure the moderators would like to know, just exactly what conspiracy hack89 is a low level member of.

Produce your evidence or retract the claim.

reality is a conspiracy. So are traffic lights. We the drivers have conspired together in a preformed plan to allow some cars to go at some time and other cars to go at another time, so I would also have to say that I'm a conspirator.

I also conspired with my sibling to keep information from my Parents when we were kids, and as a parent, I've conspired with my kids mom to keep information from the kids.

I would be very difficult to go through life without ever having been a conspirator, IMHO.

But that's just me. i'm sure you know better.

...to which you most certainly assented?

conspirator in any way, shape, or form as regards the 9/11 attacks?

Not as a planner, not as an assistant, not as covering up the conspiracy afterwards.

I think that should be easy to say.



Can you make that same statement, John?

None of these fit the definition of "smoking gun".

Smoking, or stone cold.

--THIS-- is -really- the best you have?

After 5 years "investigation"?

Jeez-o-Pete! The "Vince Foster was murdered" crowd had much better Bullshit than this. And after only a few weeks.

You fellas better get busy.

It is the "best" boloboffin could come up with in this great overall 2002 thread:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030223211654/http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5326.html#27

If you have any problems with these "smoking guns," perhaps you should direct your criticisms to their original author.

You were laying a trap for me!

How unlike civil conversation...I suppose I shall be flattered by all the attention.

My, you do spend a lot of effort thinking about me. Maybe you should get a puppy.

Sorry, no. Just bringing an interesting former thread to light.

I thought your contributions to this thread were interesting given your current 9/11 ideology, and I thought the entire thread was excellent in presenting the "smoking guns" of 9/11 in the era before CD dominated 9/11 discussions.

False modesty does not become you.

that the post was your own and comment on it.

Thank God you didn't fall for this devious trap. Right?

If you honestly wanted my comments on a former post of mine, it's my opinion that you would have shown me that post, clearly labeled it as mine, and asked for my comments.

What you were hoping for, in my opinion, is that I would forget I had posted that and come out against it. Whereupon, you could spring my authorship of it on me and dance like a Republican at Bohemian Grove. In my opinion.

The adjective I would select for your trap, based on my opinion, is "lame".

My comments about my previous post are now posted on this thread. I'm glad I was able to provide them for you.

commenting on many subthreads.

The adjective I would select for your behavior, based on my opinion, is "lame."

I didn't get caught in your trap, did I?

Perhaps you should give me some indication how each "Smoking Gun" is evidence of something.

This current 10 is rather a baffling collection. All of the 10 prove nothing at all.

"I hate this kind of nonsense. This is obviously some sort of a game for you. Great. You just scored a point. Hooray for you."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=108029&mesg_id=131319#131319

Did I personally attack any specific poster or make any subjective generalized claims against him or her?

I was just interested to see reaction to a very compelling 2002 non-CD thread, including the specific list of one of the original participants.

I imagine the timing of giving proper credit to the original author was just some interesting coincidence.

- Make7

personal attack.

I didn't say it was a personal attack.

- Make7

I'm not concerned with scoring points in a OCT believer vs. OCT disputer grudge match.

What I'd like to see is more openminded pursuit of truth and less "gotcha" on both sides of the fence. My interest is posting this thread was that boloboffin appears to have been more openminded and less "gotcha" oriented in late 2002 than he is now. In fact, this whole board appears to have been far more engaged in pursuing the truth back then if the thread in the OP is any indication.

Yes, I posted this thread in what I must admit was a "gotcha" manner myself, but it was because I was truly interested in whether or not the boloboffin of early 2007 would even recognize the boloboffin of late 2002. Unfortunately, since bolo didn't comment on the OP until I mentioned that he was its original author, I'm still not certain whether or not he did.

That means this entire thread can legitimately be seen as an attack on me.

I really don't understand this obsession that CTers at DU have with me personally. Why am I even a part of the discussion ever? Why do you think I am a legitimate topic of discussion?

Start talking about the issues! It doesn't matter who I am, it doesn't matter how I have "changed" over the years, the facts are the facts!

If you had any real position, and had any real facts on your side, you wouldn't have to make the conversation about me. I am not the topic and from this point on, any, any, ANY post that talks about me whatsoever is going to get an alert. Period.

Talk about the facts.

Not everything is about you. I liked your 2002 arguments, and especially the complete original 2002 thread:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030223211654/http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5326.html#27

I hate all the CD tit for tat around here every day, as if that was where suspicions of the 9/11 OCT begin and end. This thread was an attempt to highlight the original thread was to hopefully bring about similar discussion and show how far this forum has, IMHO, degenerated since then.

..and start talking facts.

let's try to be clear here - by "facts" I don't think you mean Wild-Ass Speculation (often mistaken for fact but actually isn't).

Is this correct?

People have the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Correctly labelling them is an important part of the discussion. If we cannot separate fact from opinion we are unable to have a productive dialogue.

...that I should comment on them.

Numbers 2 and 3 have not panned out. John Ashcroft used commercial flights right up until 9/11 - on official business, he used government travel, but he's shown that he did not "eschew" commercial flight. Also, with the release of the NORAD tapes, the fighter jet problems have been shown to be nill. So those are no longer concerns of mine.

I don't understand my fixation on Desert Storm anymore, but I would transfer it to Iran-Contra these days. I wouldn't list 9 quite the same way - I'd just mention the theft of the first election. Oh, wait. It was about the picture being displayed, foreign policy-wise. Bush takes office and uncloaks all the Desert Storm officials. What else was somebody in the Middle East going to think - a military commander in charge of the State Department? Extremely provocative. So I guess 9 stands.

That's eight out of ten facts. I guess the old list holds up pretty well. The picture being painted here is one of provocation, and subsequent resistance to investigation (all in line with the unitary executive policy and a keen desire not to have outright failures of policy be exposed to political damage an upcoming election). No space rays, no reliance on Flight 77 denial or conspiracy theory twaddle - just the facts.

have only increased the questions about our complete lack of effective air response during the crisis on 9/11.

Mine are all squared away.

If one believes that the FAA had "better things to do" between 9:36 and 10:10 EDT on 9/11 than inform the US military of the completely confirmed hijack of Flight 93, then what other questions could one possibly have?

and an incompetent investigation.