"What would YOU need to believe Truthers?"

JREF thread

9-11 is a Rorschach test for the paranoid. They see in it what they want to see.

"They see in it what they want to see".

The followers of the FBI theory see nothing but what the FBI has offered, and even fail to see that the FBI is withholding something from us.

In this matter, it is incumbent for the government to be forthcoming with all the evidence, and the fact that the evidence has not been forthcoming is what fuels this citizen's investigation.

If we could just get all of us working together to further the investigation, we would all be much better off, and America could heal.

A little evidence wouldn't hurt, either.

Then, we might all get to working together. But, it's rather hard to jump behind transparent nonsense.

I think not.... many, many people jumped quite quickly behind the rather transparent conspiracy theory that the FBI has produced. Or are you saying that the FBI theory is rock solid?

There are many different theories that don't completely follow the FBI's conspiracy theory. Until there is a complete exposition of the evidence that backs that theory, those other theories have grounds for acceptance.

Again, it is the government's obligation to prove their conspiracy theory, and who thinks they have?

That your post is meant merely to disrupt, as it is incoherent and without substance.

If there are "many different theories that don't comletely follow", what are they? Which one do you support?

By "don't completely follow", do you mean some connection between CIA/FBI back in Pakistan, or do you mean "Controlled Demolition" and Remote Controlled Planes? I understand some vagueness, but this is a stark difference.

What's with "FBI theory"? You think the CIA, military, NY police, Russian KGB, CNN and the 911 Commission didn't contribute to the product?

The FBI was the lead agency. And pre 9/11 commission, was the sole OCT face. Funny tho that you would include the KGB in your theory. Them and CNN. Funny. Odd, really.

The point of it is that you don't seem to want a real investigation. You are quite content with the crap of the OCT, (CNN & KGB included) it seems. Well, I'm not content, they didn't fool me, and they didn't fool a bunch of us and by gawd, we want a real investigation, not another whitewash like your 9/11 bushco commission.

Well, I thought we had the possibility of a discussion here, but apparently not.

You are totally missing the point: Many, many independent organizations and many, many human individual people were involved in developing the "Official Story"--FBI, CNN, KGB, BBC, NBC, CIA, M9, NYPD, NYFD, NSA, Secret Service....
The FBI ---COULD NOT---- just make some shit up and have all these organizations (and the people in them) jump on the page. Not possible.

Before the Iraq invasion, the admin could lie about WMDs and get more than half the American public to believe them. But Joe Wilson published his Op-ed in the NYT and various newspapers and there numerous contradictory reports buried in the papers. Most importantly, they
---COULD NOT--- plant fake WMDs in Iraq once they controlled the place. Not possible.

There -might- have been two rifles aimed at JFK in Dallas. That's possible. But it is ---NOT POSSIBLE--- that JFK was strangled and his body buried in New Jersey.

See the difference?

But I still have more than you. I promise I will not let you drag me down to your level.

You've heard the theory.

War Games disrupt the air defense. Explosives/thermate in the towers ensure
they collapse. Flight 93 shot down because the passengers took over the cockpit.

What's incoherent about that?

this James Randi guy isnt in it for his own personal gain. James Randi who is not a psychical researcher or indeed a sceptic but one who sets his sights as a debunker of anything loosely called paranormal.
Nice website (NOT) but this guy tries to sell you a friggin VOODOO DOLL among about another 1000 trinkets of crap. I couldnt take this site seriously and his few posters are actually extremely boring and mundane.

Yes there is Rense on one end of this and the AMAZING Randi on the other.
http://www.randi.org/shopping/index.html#merch
Critical Thinker" Wristband
JREF Tote Bag
Flying Pig Emblem
Randi Emblem
JREF Polo Shirt *ON SALE*
Logo JREF T-shirt
Official JREF Baseball Cap
Official JREF Ceramic Coffee Mug
Official JREF Pen
much much more
If you would like some insight into his shady dealings check out this web site. His 1000000 dollar offer is shot to hell.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm
Rush Limbaugh doesnt have an online store this big.
I guess some people need to say or do "whatever" it take to get that almighty dollar.

as do many progressive and other political sites, as do even 9/11 Truthiness sites. I suppose they're all not to be trusted too?

An interesting note is that people don't normally use a website that believes people can talk to the dead to back up their arguments. Or maybe this is where the Truth movement is heading. 9/11 Truth séances and such.

The Amazing Randi wasn't a participant in the quoted thread, unless he was there as a pseudonym.

What has -his- credibility to do with the opinions posted?

> If you would like some insight into his shady dealings check out this web site. His 1000000 dollar offer is shot to hell.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

As they say on JREF:

Linking to that page sure didn't do anything for your credibility, Twisty. But FYI, all anyone has to do to win the million is do what they claim to be able to do under controlled conditions, and part of the protocol agreed to in advance by both sides are the specific measurable criteria that will be accepted as success. Those criteria must be stated in a way that is completely unambiguous, so there is no doubt whatsoever about success or failure. And, Randi himself doesn't even participate in the testing, much less exercises any judgment about the success or failure. The site you linked to has the typical huckster spinning, trying to find any excuse at all for not taking the simple challenge to do what they claim to be able to do -- same crap as Sylvia Brown and John Edward -- and for the same reason: failure would destroy their lucrative huckster business.

(ETA: Well, it looks like Montague Keen has a really good excuse for not taking the challenge now: http://www.randi.org/jr/071604an.html#2 )

fucking rediculous post! :eyes:
I need a real investigation!

I don't know how much time you need to heal your logic.

nearly as much as you!
:hi:

You are probably one of the top critical thinkers in the world today. I think JREF should give you an award to acknowledge your huge contributions to critical thinking and correct spelling.

If they need contributions for that, here's my 2 cents....

Or just smart-aleck remarks?

award for being smarter, harder working, and just over-all more above average than any other web community in the world.

And for having the good sense to know it and the courage to say it over and over and over.

Or are you opposed to that?

That probably has something to do with their being "smarter, harder working, and just over-all more above average" than, at least, your average Truther.

But that is not very hard.

They have no rules about disembowelling Truthers.

I'll watch.

loved across the net for, Merv.

Heck of a job!

Thanks for the offer, but i'm not sure if I could hold my own on a forum where everyone is a genuis, and dying to prove it. I'm just a regular peace loving guy.

in the basement and he seems to be associated with the JREF. Whodathunkit?

William Rodríguez is a former janitor who was at the North Tower of the World Trade Center who pulled several people to safety during the September 11, 2001 attacks.<1> He was honored at the White House five times.<2> He has since become involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement, and alleges governmental involvement and coverup during the attacks.

Magicians assistant
When Rodriguez was young, the person known as a "debunker of pseudoscience", The Amazing Randi hired him as an assistant. Rodriguez used the stage name "Roudy" while exposing faith healers and psychics. Rodriguez, as Benjamin Smith explained in a New York Sun article, "proved adroit at insinuating himself into the good graces of Randi's targets and eliciting incriminating information."<3>
-----
9/11 Attacks

According to his biographer, Rodriguez usually clocked in at eight a.m. and rode an elevator to the 106th floor, where Hispanic employees of Windows on the World fed him a free breakfast. On 9/11, however, he was a half hour late. While checking in at an office on sub-level one, he heard and felt, along with 20 others, a massive explosion — from below. Seconds later, he heard another--from above (Flight 11).<3> In his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Rodriguez also claimed to have seen a hijacker scoping out the building some months before the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez



Would the JREFers trash someone that was once Randi's 'righthand man'?

1. The Amazing Randi was not quoted in the OP. He's just the owner of the board--like the owner of DU.
2. The activities of his former assistant are of no relevance, even if he had been a poster.
3. WTF does an explosion in the -basement- have to do with a collapse that began on the 80th floor?


<<"Would the JREFers trash someone that was once Randi's 'righthand man'?">>
Yes.
(Simple answers to simple questions.)

1. I was NOT responding to the original post, I was responding to your post which included a reference to the JREF.
2. The activities of his former assistant are of relevance, as he obviously has provided information that is not congruent to the 'OCT'.
3. Explosions in the basement may have nothing to do with events that happened on the 80th floor, but the fact that there were explosions in the basement before the impact of Flight 11 would be of interest to 'real' investigators even if it was shown that they had nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings.

I read posts just fine.

1. The question was not JREF, but The Amazing Randi, who is NOT relevant to the posts on the JREF thread. Any more than the opinions of "Skinner" are relevant to the current thread.

2. The "activities of the former assistant" may be relevant; that he is a former assistant is not. You are betraying a seriously conspiratorial mindset.

3. It is NOT a "fact" that there were explosions in the basement. The janitor says he heard explosions before the crash, but this is not supported by other evidence. The FACT that this claim makes no sense in any available 'theory of the crime' will lead 'real investigators' to question its accuracy.

1. The post was about the JREF in general, NOT the Amazing Randi specifically. He was only mentioned to highlight the level of credibility that Mr. Rodriguez must have in the JREF community. I doubt Mr. Randi is in the habit of working with irrational or delusional people.

2. The activities of the former assisstant may be relevant, but not in the 'conspiratorial mindset' that you are implying. (see #1.) It was to point out that one of the JREF's own leading proponents is a 'conspiracy theorist' according to your logic.

3.(a) The fact that the 'janitor' says he heard explosions before the crash can't easily be supported by other evidence. You may recall that the buildings were destroyed, effectively making physical investigations of his claims impossible. Though there is mention of someone, coming out of one of the elevators in the basement, that was severely burned. If that wasn't the express elevator that goes to the top of the building, well that would be a piece of evidence to support Mr. Rodriguez's statements. (I am currently trying to verify exactly which elevator this burn victim emerged from.)

(b)The fact that his claim makes no sense in any available 'theory of the crime' will lead 'real investigators' to question its accuracy, is complete bunkum. Real investigators don't start with a preestablished 'theory', they collect ALL available evidence; physical evidence, witness statements, security footage, etc. and then by the process of DEDUCTION explain what happened.

Which brings me to ask, why is that all the other eyewitness reports are so credible, provided that they are congruent to the OCT, yet a real, true-to-life, dyed-in-the-wool JREFer, who is most obviously capable of critical and rational thought, his eyewitness reports are merely 'claims'?

misunderstanding basic reality testing.

1. By what reasoning do you assume that because Mr. Rodriguez was -once- an assistant to Mr. Randi, he -now- enjoys -any- level of credibility in the JREF community?

2. It wouldn't matter anyway. (Another -10 points for irrelevancy).

3. Evidence is -always- evaluated for its consistency with -other- evidence and on its own credibility. This early explosion makes no sense on --ANY-- theory that I can think of ----including the Truther CD theories. Given these facts, the 'True Investigator' will look for alternative explanations for Mr. Rodriguez's testimony: Perhaps he misinterpreted the sounds from 80 floors above him? Perhaps the 'explosion' was the plane impact? And he interpreted some later sound as the plane?

We're trying to help.

to the score board.

and the first two don't count.

edit: btw, thanks for admitting that you lost sight of the OP.

There are courses that can help with that. I can get you addresses. Phone numbers. Web sites.

Just let me know.

in a moderately-bright fifth grader.

A major point in the famous Hofstadter "Paranoid style" essay is that Conspiracy literature is directed at reassuring the True Believers, not, as in ordinary political discourse, in convincing the uncommitted. One sees examples of this constantly. The "PCTers" repeatedly produce "smoking guns" that are actually cap-pistols, but cannot produce a coherent story that would cause the uncommitted to take a second look.


Good post, btw.

Seems like there should be Truthers springing forward to answer these posts.

And perhaps they could:
Provide a coherent theory.

Or perhaps someone could--
Provide a coherent theory.

So I assume there's no coherent theory forthcoming from the truthers.

No one, not even the FBI has provided a coherent theory, and if you really think the OTC is coherent......

All this name calling really is something to behold. If the believers of the FBI were so sure of themselves they wouldn't be stooping so low, at least not being rational. Why, in being rational they'd admit, would they not, that there is no rational basis for saying the case is closed?

"The OCT" is, you see, internally consistent and plausible. It -could- possibly be false; some aspects are certainly erroneous; there is certainly more to the story. But, thorougly rational, reasonable and honest people are fully aware of "The OCT" and find it quite reasonable.

If -you- Mr. Free think otherwise, you have -two- alternative strategies:

1. Show me -specifically- what aspects of "The OCT" are internally inconsistent or are inconsistent with publicly known facts.

or,

2. provide me with an alternate theory that is equally consistent and plausible.

This should be easy---if Truther Truth is not a web of fantasica fantasy and delusion.

Its almost as if you haven't been reading much about the subject, because anyone who has, has been bombarded with alternate theories, so one could certainly, had they been reading, piece together an alternate theory to the one you say: "It -could- possibly be false; some aspects are certainly erroneous; there is certainly more to the story."

from all the theories with which I am bombarded.

If you have any interest in convincing the unconvinced, perhaps you could piece together just a single one.

A coherent one, please.

Besides, if you can't come up with an alternative on your own, what makes me think you'd ever really read mine? I'd be wasting my time.

I really don't have an interest in convincing those who are convinced that bushco's theory is to be believed, my interest is in getting a new investigation started. An investigation that is thorough and, as much as possible, complete. An investigation that is not obstructed, made in secrecy or becomes another whitewash.

Of course, we agree on that, eh?

It is my belief that any people who possess the necessary experience and knowledge will also have connections to groups or individuals that will "taint" them with the 9/11 truth movement. Do you agree?

Again, I am rusty. But if you are saying that some people should not be heard, well, that goes against having a complete investigation. So, no, I don't think we agree.

Those who, as I said, possess the required experience and knowledge will also have connections to groups or individuals, like defense contractors or government agencies or universities funded by other "questionable" companies, that will "taint" (cause them to be labelled as invalid or corrupted) them with the 9/11 truth movement (the various organizations and individuals working to clarify the narrative of the events of September 11th, 2001).


Is that more clear?

If you are saying that some will object to, or attempt to counter certain 'experts' in the process of a thorough investigation, I say that's precisely what would help to make the investigation complete. Let it all hang out.

It's unfortunately not a common attribute of government. I believe strongly that there are few things that do not better serve the citizens if they are exposed to the light and that the 9/11 Commission did us all a disservice by hiding exactly the sort of things I had originally hoped would be brought to the attention of the public.

Is it possible to have our investigation?

If we all worked together the possibility increases. Instead what I see is disunity toward a goal I think we all want, and that decreases the possibility.

The internet (both the forum and the web page/blog), as wonderful as it may be, might be partly responsible for the increasingly stagnant divide between the various factions of the 9/11 truth movement. Perhaps it is time to move away from it and to other mediums that do a better job bringing people together rather than reinforcing the differences. I think most of the people here do honestly care about exposing the truth, we just don't do a very good job talking to each other.

plausible alternative story.

Stories based on wildly improbable scenarios--Controlled Demolition, Remote Controlled Planes, No Planes-- are never going to provoke any investigation. They just provide an excuse to ignore reasonable questions.

If the Truther movement cannot denounce the nutcases and grifters and anti-semites in its midst, it will continue to fragment even further into irrelevance.

FWIW, "The OCT" is not a Bush Admin press release. It is the work of dozens of agencies and many thousands of individuals. It's just not possible that publicly visible facts are fabrications.

An analogy: One can imagine two guns in Dealy Plaza, or sinister forces never identified. But, too many people saw the shooting and the dead body for anyone to seriously believe that JFK was -strangled- and his body never found. The prominent Truther claims are analogous to this.

facts and then determining what happened.

Not the other way around.

Been there done that.

Your analogy is silly too. JFK's brain was lost and never found. Not his body.

And another -20 Points for missing the point entirely.

1. Investigations -always- proceed by forming hypotheses and testing them. "Just asking questions" goes nowhere, as has the Truther movement over 5 years.

2. The basic facts of the JFK assasination were observed (and participated in) by many thousands of people). There is no agency that could just make create those facts from thin air. But, some agency -might- have planted an extra gun in Dealy Plaza and got away with it.

The Truthers, mostly, are claiming that the basic facts of 911 were created from thin air. That's Just Not Possible.

you're imlpying that all official govt investigations are reasonably accurate and truthful.

Does that implication also apply to investigations by the British or Russian govts into their own internal affairs?
Would you trust the narrative or conclusion from an official investigation by one of those govts?

The 911 Commission involved distinguished people of both parties, 100s or so of investigators and analysts, public hearings, testimony from numerous intelligence people, and a thick written conclusion. If you believe the report is completely wrong, you have to explain how that -process- could have created a -fake- reality.

Is it completely accurate? NO.
Does it pull some punches for political reasons? YES
Is it a complete fiction? NO
Does it get the basic facts right? ALMOST CERTAINLY YES.

In order of inherent trust of a Gov't report, I'd go with"

British>US>>Russian

Open scrutiny of the Gov't is new in Russia and not well established. US journalism and gov't has descended to a dangerous level of disfunction but there is a long legal tradition descended from the British, and the British, well, they're British, after all.

the Republicans who ran interference for them on
the October Surprise and the Iran Contra scandal?

You trust Jamie Gorelick who was obviously there
to cover for her buddy George Tenet?

You trust Richard ben Veniste, the former lawyer
for Barry Seal, key figure in the Mena AK
drug smuggling that links Clinton to the CIA?

When Max Cleland resigned, calling the 9/11 Commission
a sham, how come none of these had the integrity to
resign with him?

Obtuseness. Pretended failure to comprehend the argument.

explode into dust in mid air. Too many people saw wimpy fires burning out.
Too many people saw the symmetrical collapse down the path of greatest resistance
after asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires.

finally a rational comment.

Now if we could only get a legitamate investigation...

the top spot on the greatest page. Or maybe they don't think all the mainstream reports of Al Qaeda
being controlled by Saudi and Pakistani intelligence and enabled by the administration
and the FBI is a coherent theory?

The JREFers must have some good explanation for their avoidance of this topic
because I'm sure the best political analysts in the world hang out at JREF.

:sarcasm:

They must be too smart to bother posting on stuff that makes the greatest page at DU.
It would probably seem kindergarten stuff to those big brained boys.

Here a link in case any of those most gifted of all humanity folks are sluming here in the forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x125057

I doubt the result will be pretty, but go ahead if you wish.

No Controlled Demolition, Disappearing Jets and Passengers, Fake Fone Calls, or Death Rays from Space?

You just want to show that the 19 hijackers were controlled by the Saudi's and Pakistani's and 'enabled' by the FBI.

That's progress. It's a coherent theory -if- you will define "enabled".

Do you have any ahhh... evidence? That would be helpful.

and you don't know the evidence that supports this?

and "enabling" by the FBI?)

Until we get that cleared up, we do not have a Coherent Story.

You are -not- claiming that there is evidence of "Controlled Demolition", Free Fall, Fake Fone Calls, Suicide CIA agents, Remote Controlled Jetliners, or Death Rays from Space?

YES or NO.

If we can agree to this very basic sanity test, we can then discuss evidence of involvement by Saudi's Pakistani's, etc.

I've seen evidence, yes, that there is a great deal more to the story. That's -one- reason for debunking the insane bullshit that only discredits anyone who asks serious questions.

What evidence do you have that al qaeda did the deed? Other than what the government has told you, that is. :shrug: How did you verify that evidence?

Sanity test my ass! :eyes:

Who really funds them? Where did they come from? Where are they now? Who are their "leaders"? What is their goal? Do you really know?

Did you pass?

Don't worry, you won't have to show whether you actually know what the evidence is
supporting the idea of Al Qaeda as an intelligence asset because I failed your sanity test.
You won't need to engage in any discussions about deliberate obstruction
on the part of the FBI because I think some of the physical evidence is suspicious.
You won't need to engage in any discussion about whether Pakistani officials bribed
the 911 Commission as reported by the Indian Press
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp
Because although I don't buy into no planes, space beams,
or missiles at the Pentagon, I do think the circumstances surrounding
building 7 are pretty strange. So I guess I failed your test. So aren't you relieved?
You won't have to engage me in discussion about the more serious questions
related to Al Qaeda's ties to intelligence agencies because I must be insane.

By the way maybe you know someone at JREF who can provide a diagnosis for my
mental condition? After all, disciples of a psychic-debunking magician must also be
experts in the field of mental health in addition to being expert political analysts.


:sarcasm:

How much would that cost? And, was the staff bribed also? Or just the members?

We may need to do some remedial tutoring here.

But congrats on saying 'No' to No Planes, Death Rays, and Pentagon Missiles. That's shows definite progress.

Read this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

Then, remember UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave's 9-26-2001 interview of retired Pakistani General Hameed Gul in which Gul said that the U.S. Air Force and Mossad did 9/11?

++++++++++++++

Oh, it is all so interesting, is it not?

Check out this book:

From BCCI to ISI: The Saga of Entrapment Continues

by Abid Ullah Jan

Preface of the Book (as published publicly at amazon.com)

Preface

"There's so much more. God, there's so much more. A lot more."


FBI agent, Robert Wright, who is officially prevented from telling the public about how his supervisors blocked his efforts to investigate al-Qaeda pre-9/11. `Called off the trial?' ABC News, December 19, 2002.

ENTRAPMENT is the illegal and unsavory practice of luring someone into committing a crime, and then prosecuting him for it. Sometimes the entrapped person, organization, or state has no intention or knowledge of the committed crime. The target becomes a victim of a set-up by government agencies, criminal elements, or a collaboration of both, all intent on achieving unstated objectives. Various agencies within the U.S. Government have been using entrapment in diverse ways.

"Frame-ups" in drug "conspiracies" are routine in the United States: there are literally thousands of drug-related conspiracy cases in the United States in which innocent people are implicated and punished. Arnold S. Trebach writes in his book, The Great Drug War: "In many of these cases, the DEA allowed some of its informants to traffic in drugs in exchange for turning in their friends and supplying other information. In too many cases, Gieringer claimed, DEA agents themselves directly engaged in trafficking."1

Trapping innocent people is routine in the United States, and is by no means limited to crimes involving drugs. James Bovard gives numerous examples in his famous book: Lost Rights. Based upon his many years of research he concludes: "During the past fifteen years, law enforcement officials have set up thousands of elaborate schemes to entrap people for `crimes' such as buying plant supplies, asking for a job, or shooting a deer. Dozens of private accountants have become double agents, receiving government kickbacks for betraying their clients to IRS."2

At the highest level, the classic example of entrapment, before Operation 9/11 to frame Osama bin Laden and company, was operation "C-Chase" in 1988, the purpose of which was to frame the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and force its closure. Operation 9/11 is more complex because during this operation, Pakistan's military intelligence agency (ISI) was entrapped while playing a role in facilitating 9/11.

Frame-ups are not a new idea for U.S. agencies. During the heyday of the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), the FBI routinely used entrapment against members of the civil rights and antiwar movements. In a later, and much publicized, case known as Abscam, the FBI (at the behest of the Justice Department) used agents posing as Arab businessmen to bribe various public officials in return for political favors. Writing in Governing magazine in 1998, Alan Ehrenhalt wrote, "Before the Abscam sting against members of Congress in 1980, the idea of inventing crimes and using them to tempt public officials was virtually unheard of in this country."3

If the FBI and U.S. Justice Department have no problem orchestrating witch hunts against public officials at home, what can we expect of them when it comes to safeguarding the country from the scourge of "international terrorism" from abroad? Especially when the neo-conservatives and religiously motivated officials of the current administration are determined to make invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and beyond their highest priority.

The specter of "Islamic" terrorism gave U.S. agencies and other actors a perfect excuse to return to the good old days of entrapment operations. In their 2001 book, The COINTELPRO Papers, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall suggest that, following the merging of the CIA and FBI, we can likely expect more spurious terror scams, entrapment scenarios, and heavy-handed surveillance of political "targets" at home.4 Churchill and Vander's work shows that entrapment and "setting up" are part of the U.S. agencies' daily routine. At the international level, and as recently as the year 2000, the CIA tried to entrap Iran. Code-named operation Merlin, the CIA used a Russian scientist to sell nuclear blueprints--technical designs for a TBA 480 high-voltage block--to Iranian representatives at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5

After the BCCI incident, the second historical frame-up involved Operation 9/11. The first part of Operation 9/11 was to plan and execute the actual 9/11 attacks, and the second part was to frame Arabs in Afghanistan to pave the way for a war of aggression and occupation of the country. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) was not only a partner in the crime but also a victim of the entrapment. We do not know whether the ISI was knowingly involved in the set-up of 9/11 or if it unknowingly played a role in the bigger operation without realizing its full scope. What we do know, from information available in the public domain, is that the ISI was, nevertheless, fully involved in the initial set-up phases of Operation 9/11. Washington has already been blackmailing Pakistan as a result. However, Pakistan has yet to face the full consequences of the ISI's collaboration with the CIA.

Other than the authors and promoters of the official conspiracy theory surrounding 9/11, most people have concluded that the 9/11 hijackers did not act of their own volition, nor did the World Trade Centre Towers and World Trade Centre 7 building collapse solely due to the impact of "hijacked" planes and subsequent fires. However, a minority of people still accept the `official' version publicized globally by the media. Considering the life-style of Muslims implicated in the 9/11 attacks, and the fact that they are known to have consumed alcohol at a bar the night before 9/11, it is possible that the hijackers may not even have known that they were going to die the next morning--never mind the assertion that they were preparing to die as martyrs the next day. Even Muslims of the weakest faith would not visit nightclubs and consume alcohol when they knew they would shortly die, let alone those who were presented as Muslim fanatics, willing to sacrifice their lives for Islam with an attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.

The evidence discussed in this book suggests that the `hijackers' were used as tools in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were closely linked to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI, in turn, owes its existence to the CIA:

With CIA backing and massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the ISI developed into a parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government... The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers estimated at 150,000.6

The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a `go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI had, and still has, access to considerable funding from the CIA. According to Selig Harrison, a leading American expert on South Asia with access to CIA officials, distribution of these funds has been left to the discretion of the ISI itself with whom "The CIA still has close links." Harrison spoke to an audience of security experts in London at a conference on "Terrorism and regional security: Managing the challenges of Asia" in the last week of February, just before the Taliban's destruction of the Buddha statues of Bamiyan. As a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1974 to 1996, he had been in close contact with the CIA.7

The ISI directly supported and financed a number of operations and organizations without realizing the seeds of destruction it was sowing for Pakistan. Mossad (the Israeli government's intelligence agency) also became involved in these operations, in order to have access to the structure and operations of the ISI and Pakistan's military. These are the lesser well-known facts.

The growing body of evidence suggests that the ISI was actively involved in part of Operation 9/11, where it was required to use its intelligence assets to frame Osama bin Laden for the planned 9/11 attacks. An elaborate operation was undertaken to develop evidence, linking Arabs to the 9/11 attacks, to pave the way for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. A transfer of funds to the lead hijacker on the orders of the ISI chief is just one piece of the bigger picture. The FBI had this information--they knew exactly who was transferring funds to whom. Less than two weeks later, Agence France Presse (AFP) confirmed the FBI's findings. According to the AFP report, the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of General Mahmood ."8 Dennis Lormel, director of the FBI's Financial Crimes Unit, has confirmed that Saeed Sheikh transferred $100,000 to Mohammed Atta at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, before the New York attacks.9 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source): "The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism."10

The questions remain: What did the U.S. government do with the information provided by the FBI and other sources with regard to the ISI's involvement in 9/11? Why has there been no meaningful action and investigation? Why are U.S. officials not telling the truth? In a May 16, 2002 press conference on the role of General Mahmood Ahmad, a journalist asked Condoleezza Rice about her awareness of "the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups." She was also asked why General Mahmood was in the United States, and about his meeting with Condoleezza Rice. She replied: "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me."11

Michel Chossudovsky concludes in his June 20, 2005 report, published by the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) that the ISI and CIA have developed close relationships, and that Condoleezza Rice was covering up the ISI Chief's involvement in 9/11:

Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 press conference is an obvious cover-up. While General Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the September 11 terrorists. What this suggests is that key individuals within the U.S. military-intelligence establishment knew about these ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist `ring leader', Mohammed Atta, and failed to act. But this conclusion is, in fact, an understatement. Everything indicates that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmood Ahmad had established a close working relationship. General Mahmood had arrived a week prior to September 11 for consultations with George Tenet. Bear in mind that the CIA's George Tenet, also has a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet would meet the President nearly every morning at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an hour. A document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is prepared at Langley by the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early morning meeting with Bush." This practice of "oral intelligence briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's predecessors at the White House received a written briefing: "With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and earthy."12

It is hardly coincidence that the U.S. agencies had prior knowledge of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre;13 the hijackers of 9/11 were linked to the ISI and CIA, and that the alleged mastermind of 7/7--the July 7, 2005 bombing in London--was an MI6 agent. Former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus claims alleged London bombing mastermind Haroon Rashid Aswat is a "double agent" who "works for MI6".14 The games of deception played by the various international intelligence agencies, whether the CIA, Mossad, RAW, ISI, or KGB, have taken on a life of their own. Their own governments seem incapable of holding them accountable. The pressing issue for weaker states, such as Pakistan, is that the CIA views its agencies as disposable agents and treats them as pawns. It is only a matter of time before the ISI, in turn, is treated in the same manner as it treats its own agents who are no longer considered "valuable assets".

This book tells the untold story of how the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was entrapped, and demonstrates that American interests and people are not of concern to those who have set their eyes upon global domination. The story of the BCCI entrapment leads us into the rest of the book, which unravels the role of the ISI, the CIA, and Mossad in Operation 9/11.

The ISI played the part of a worthless pawn in Operation 9/11--as insignificant as the hijackers themselves. The stakes of the game are much higher--the strategic military might of Pakistan and other Muslim states, and the Muslims' struggle toward self-determination. The ISI was used as simply an individual intelligence asset of the CIA. The question we must ponder is: What will happen when it is time for the chess masters to discard the ISI, particularly when the ISI's fingerprints are all over the 9/11 crime scene? It matters little if the ISI knew little or nothing about the scope of the crime. The remaining evidence is all that matters.

Since the ISI has been such a valuable asset for the planners of Operation 9/11, it is highly unlikely that the agency itself will ever face the charges laid against them--Pakistan will be held responsible for the ISI's cooperation in its various dubious activities. It seems that immoral agencies and individuals always undermine the existence of their home nations and bring misery to the world, and Pakistan will soon find itself increasingly bearing the consequences of the ISI/CIA partnership. This vicious cycle will lead to a downward spiral--ISI's direct or indirect participation in crimes will be used to punish Pakistan. Musharraf's story be a dull shadow of Saddam's--a tale of the "good soldier" who salutes, gets promoted, is used and abused, and is finally discarded.

Pakistan has already experienced how the United States treats its partners in crime when it requires more of them. In March of 2003, the ISI faced severe criticism during a U.S. Senate briefing on the drug trade, a crime in which the CIA has been involved since 1960.15 Questioning two key members of the Bush administration at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, several Congressmen came down hard on Pakistan.16

Nancy Chamberlin, Washington's ambassador to Pakistan until 2002, was forced to confirm and reconfirm that over the past six years, the ISI's involvement in the drug trade was "substantial." When asked, as ambassador, did she ever report Pakistan's involvement with the Taliban and its intelligence unit's involvement in the opium trade, the former ambassador replied "No, I did not." She was never asked "Why not?", and this is a question that must be asked now. Why was Pakistan not reported? Why has the ISI's role in 9/11 not been documented? Why did the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission ignore all the facts relating to the ISI? Is their silence part of a bigger plan? In the chapters of this book we will attempt to shed light upon these questions, and address the future of Pakistan following the saga of the BCCI closure.

This book shows how General Musharraf has become a victim of blackmail for the ISI's role in Operation 9/11. Subsequently, the General has done more under constant threats than he could against the sovereignty, independence and strategic interests of Pakistan. Despite that, the blackmail continues. Now it is a matter of life and death for General Musharraf, but he still has limited time and razor sharp options to save not only Pakistan but millions of other who are set to suffer and die in the coming Greater War--a war which is the humanity's common destiny if the truth about Operation 9/11, the ISI's role in it and the way Pakistan has been blackmailed since then remains hidden from the masses.

Seems like we are getting a statistically significant finding here.

I heard there would be flaming pancakes at this party. I've got to say, I didn't think it was possible but this one blows even more than Generarth's party did last time. Ah well, at least you had the good sense not to hire the reptiloid strippers this time.

Who knew the reptiloid masters were such prudes?

You obfuscated with the "did Al Qaeda do the deed?" business.

So for the record, here you go - yes I think Al Qaeda was involved.
Just like framers were involved in building my house
but they didn't pay to build it.

Now would you please stop obfuscating and address the subject of Al Qaeda
as an intelligence asset?

Usually when JREFers address this subject they have some brilliant response like
"why don't you ask an Al Qaeda member if they are paid by the CIA
and see what reaction you get? Snort. Snort."

Pretty much "The OTC", wouldn't we?

Buncha Ay-rabs hijack 4 planes, fly them into buidings, or the ground. Buildings fall from damage and fire. Leaving no visible evidence of anything else?

(I assume you mean that al Qaeda did the deed, but was paid or helped or encouraged, or something by US spies.)

Is that your theory? It's coherent, so we're past the first stage.

Now, is there evidence?
Well, it's undisputed that:
the Carter admin was helping Afghan rebels, including the Taliban, that Bin Laden is of a prominent Saudi family, that elements of the Pakistani military and public support bin Laden, that US intelligence is operating in these countries.

There are unconfirmed reports of specific activities. But these -are- unconfirmed and ambiguous.

So, there -is- evidence, but of what, exactly?

I don't think so...So the ISI chief pays the lead hijacker, he's forced to resign under pressure from the US
when the story gets out but remains a free man in a high profile private sector job. Gee what could that be evidence of?



http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmoodAhmed

See, you are back at the vague allusions again. What's the problem with just stating things clearly?

This looks to me to be evidence that the Pakistani's were involved in 911. That's entirely possible.

But, what -is- your theory? What do you claim/think/suppose actually happened? What do you claim this evidence means? Tell me that and we can have an actual discussion.

And, do you have a source besides a conspiracist website? This story is vague, even if I trusted the source: "according to Indian Intelligence, which claims the FBI has privately...". This is an unnamed source quoting a "private" source. Not the best of reporting.

Thank you!

You said it so coherently too!

I would clarify by saying evidence that the head of the ISI paid Mohammed Atta would be evidence that
the ISI paid for 911.

Is that coherent enough?

It's undisputed that -parts- of the Saudi elite and the Pakistani military were/are sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Therefore, the assertion that "Pakistan was 'involved' in 911" is unexceptional; if we construe "involve" and "Pakistan" broadly, it is certainly true, in some sense. Some members of both groups were almost certainly in contact with and assisting bin Laden and al Qaeda. This is a serious and troubling issue and the American public ought to be far more aware of it. But, this is not what you are claiming. -You- want to claim that these parts of the Saudi and Pakistani elites are -actually- controlled by the American elite. That's a far less plausible assertion and one for which I have not seen solid evidence. Do you have evidence, beyond vague "connections", timelines, and unnamed sources in Indian newspapers?

Why not?

ya think it could be because it involves clandestine intelligence services?

I'm hoping to see the wheat separated from the chaff.
The wheat being unheeded warnings of a likely impending terrorist attack, the chaff being CD et al.

I assume you have good reason to believe what you do, and I'd like to see it presented in a way that would probably satisfy people like those quoted in the OP.

Ummmm.

Yeah, by definition, we don't know, and may never know, a lot that the spies do.

That's frustrating, but you can't cure the problem by relying on questionable sources, vague assertions and unsound logic.

If you -think- you know something about the spooks and 911, you have to state your hypothesis clearly and allow it to be subject to the same critical process as any other assertion.

That's just the way it is.

see trailer:

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/


It's on googlevideo

Not good enough.
Do you take this issue seriously, or not?
I'd think you'd care to take some time to gather your thoughts on the subject and present a coherent theory with evidence.

Blaming Pakistani intelligence is progress, I think.

But, I'm not sure we've cleared up Controlled Demolition entirely.

When those who give all indication of being among the upper echelon of rationality in the 9/11 CT circles still believe in CD, I hear Godley and Creme.
This includes a few involved with creating content for cooperativeresearch.

When I first discovered that site several years ago, I actually sent Paul an email to thank him.
Entropy, I guess.

Read links above.

Where's your assesment of this evidence?
I've never seen your thoughts on it laid out
so either A) you don't think the evidence is compelling
- which I find hard to believe or B) You haven't told us what you think
it indicates.

I've been through this topic with you several times greyl,
so excuse me if I don't think it necessary to be redundant.
You know what the evidence is. Now what do YOU think?

--I'm hoping to see the wheat separated from the chaff.
The wheat being unheeded warnings of a likely impending terrorist attack, the chaff being CD et al.

I assume you have good reason to believe what you do, and I'd like to see it presented in a way that would probably satisfy people like those quoted in the OP.--

pauldp: "I've been through this topic with you several times greyl.."

Not really. We've touched on it once or twice, but there's never been more than unconvincing vague insinuations.
If the issue is so familiar, why hasn't a coherent theory been presented in this thread?
I certainly can't be blamed for stifling discussion on the matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=71662

So saying "Al Qaeda was working for the ISI" and providing mainstream articles that support it is vague?

Whatever.

What gets me about the OP is that it asks "What would you need to believe"
But I thought JREF is all about not believing anything? James Randi thinks belief systems
are bunk - which I happen to agree with.
So why would a JREFer believe anything anyway?

I'm losing faith that ours will be a productive discussion.
The statement "Al Qaeda was working for the ISI" isn't vague. It's very simple, though unaccompanied by corroborating evidence.
The problem is what you choose to extrapolate from that statement - that's where the vague insinuation begins. If you think "Al Qaeda was working for the ISI" is all you need for a compelling case, I'm sorry.

Now, can you please gather your evidence (reasons for what you believe) into the most coherent and efficient presentation possible? Please leave out BS about WT7 - that's chaff.

The JREFers -will- believe if presented with coherent theories and compelling evidence. With theories like Death Beams from Space, Remote Controlled Aircraft, and Controlled Demolition, they are going to be hard to convince, for the simple reasons that the theories are both incoherent and implausible and the evidence has been repeatedly refuted.

Institutional relationships between al Qaeda and Pakis or Saudis are an entirely different matter. The theories do not violate any laws of physics or common sense and there is at least some evidence. But you need to be a bit -more- coherent.

1. "Al Qaeda is working for the ISI" -is- vague. Do you mean al Qaeda is wholly controlled by ISI? Or that ISI is supporting and assisting al Qaeda? Is al Qaeda an independent agency or a puppet of ISI?

2. What, exactly, is your evidence? The mainstream articles that -I- have seen -suggest- some links between ISI and al Qaeda. NOT control. Do you have additional evidence of control?

3. You keep -insinuating- connections between ISI and the FBI or American corporations. What's your evidence of that?

That there is sufficient evidence for them to get off their smug butts and join the
Jersey Girls and others in demanding a new investigation?
Somehow I doubt that.

Anyhow...


If you hire someone it usually means you have at least a certain amount of control over them right?

As I said, I'm sure you've already seen this...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432

Story also appeared in the WSJ. The Times of India is a very reputable paper
and they have not retracted the story nor has the FBI refuted it. This would support the
claim that Indian intelligence has solid evidence linking Gen Ahmed and the payments
to Atta.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

Other foreign news outlets reported the same.

So we have evidence of ISI paying for 911
AND we have evidence that the 911 Commission was bribed to cover it up.

Al Qaeda was working for the ISI and this was covered up by the 911 Commission and buried in the US media.
A simple coherent theory with credible evidence.

Not specific enough for you? Granted it does not explain all the connections, we'd need a real investigation for that,
but it does indeed turn the official story on it's head.
But I doubt it's enough to even get a JREFer to write their congressman.

<<"So we have evidence of ISI paying for 911">>
No, you have evidence of ISI paying a member of al Qaeda later involved in 911. The purpose is undetermined. al Qaeda was involved in a -lot- of stuff. This is a plausible story, but it is based on unnamed sources and does not imply as much as you claim.

Why can't this be a shadowy James Bond world of shady characters and triple-crosses and cross-purposes and byzantine plots gone awry?


<<"AND we have evidence that the 911 Commission was bribed to cover it up.">>

This is much less plausible. "The 911 Commission" is not a human being that you can bribe or persuade or blackmail. It's an organization of 10 (or whatever) members plus a hundred or more staff. Conceivably, you could bribe or coerce an individual staffer into losing a piece of information, but it's nonsense to claim that "bribe the 911 Commission" to ignore information that was part of the official record.

investigation. It's possible to bribe the Executive Director.

Belief is not necessary for a skeptic. Evidence either leads to a better understanding of something or it does not.
Whether you believe it or not is actually irrelevant right?

I saw this on a skeptic site once.

"Reality is what we are left with when we stop believing"

still using some goofy definition of believe.

How is that "off topic" ?

Skeptics should seek understanding not belief.
What is it about that statement that is "goofy"?

What do the terms informed belief, educated belief, reasonable belief, rational belief, and justified belief mean to you?

Believe: To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.

OK Greyl, I don't have time right now to fully respond
and I realize the question -"are beliefs necessary?" is very contentious but
here is what I'm getting at. I tend to agree with this:

"Although one can argue that beliefs supported by scientific evidence represent a benign form of beliefs, they also act as barriers towards further understanding. Even the most productive scientists and philosophers through the ages have held beliefs which prevented them from seeing beyond their discoveries and inventions."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

"Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.
Some people think that one can choose to investigate and research a matter but that one can not choose to believe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

It directly relates to the Op in that I think JREFers and the like tend to push
a strawman that the 911 truth movement is pushing a belief -"inside job"
where in reality it's about "investigate 911" - an effort to understand what happened
in the face of obfuscation by the govt.

but Walker is generally using a definition of belief which entails clutching ones ideas in the face of contrary evidence i.e. not provisional. I'm pretty sure Walker believes that what he wrote is true.

pauldp: "It directly relates to the Op in that I think JREFers and the like tend to push
a strawman that the 911 truth movement is pushing a belief -"inside job"
where in reality it's about "investigate 911"

Please see JQC's lovely poll titled "Was 9/11 and inside job", and tell me again how the 9/11 Truth Movement isn't operating on beliefs.

This could rightfully segue into an existential discussion about consciousness and reality, but...

Imagine you are trying to persuade a jury, or the JREF forum. What do you need?

1. One or more clearly stated hypotheses that are internally consistent and are not contradicted by established facts, do not violate any laws of physics, require collusion by half the US military, etc.

2. A clear statement of the evidence for (1.) above.

3. A clear statement of what kind of investigation you want to promote (eg. a congressional investigation into Pakistani and Saudi Gov't involvement with al Qaeda before 911).

4. An unequivocal and irrevocable statement that you consider Death Beams from Space, Controlled Demolition, Pod Planes, Remote Controlled Planes, Fake Fone Calls, Pentagon Missiles and Romulan Disruptors to be insane bullshit. (This is not logically part of the argument, but in the present atmosphere it is necessary if anyone is to take you seriously.)

About what I expected.

ISI paid Atta. ISI hosted Osama (or "hostaged" him) 9/10/01, then
claims they had no idea where he went after.) Daniel Pearl was
beheaded after he went after the story of ISI connections to Atta.

ISI is funded by the CIA. The news media won't cover the ISI-Atta
story. The 9/11 Commission won't either; they specifically declined
to "follow the money."

We have a coverup of the CIA connections to the hijackers.

Coherent theory: CIA hired Osama to round up 19 guys to take the
fall for a false-flag op undertaken to justify the invasion of
Afghanistan, the restoration of the opium trade, and the construction
of military bases in the strategically vital Central Asian region.

haven't I heard this some place before? ---Like "The OCT"??

No Death Rays from Space? No Fake Fone Calls? No Invisible Elves Planting Explosives? Just 19 Ay-rabs hijacking 4 airliners and crashing them?

You just want to add that these 19 Ay-rabs were actually employed, indirectly, by the CIA. This lacks detail, but (OK) it's coherent enough for a start.



1. What evidence do you have? There are reports (unconfirmed) of "connections" between ISI and OBL, but none of these reports involve direct control. There are more tenuous report(s) of "connections" between CIA/FBI and ISI, but even less evidence of direct control.

Is there more?




2. On this hypothesis, what would we see in NYC 9/11/01??

Pretty much the official story, right? --No Death Rays from Space, Invisible Elves, Explosive Potatoes, Fake Fone Calls, etc??
Right????

that 9/11 was a set-up.

Most of the evidence is there in plain sight (even in the OCT).

and more damning evidence would be available if the redacted 28 pages are released and a more thorough investigation allowed.

But the reality is that there is no way that anyone in the MSM would give airtime to someone who accuses factions of American, Saudi & Pakistani intelligence services (of allowing and/or facilitating 9/11 to happen). An accusation of this magnitude has never been allowed by any govt anywhere in the world (and been able to survive it). No govt or society would allow it's very foundations to be rocked by such accusations.

Listen, you probably know as well as I do that the MSM promotes all manner of sensational content.

If all you want is air time, that's well within the realm of possibility, but you'd need to provide a more coherent story for them to go with. Even Fox has given CTists air time. The problem is that the CTists they give air time to are ridiculous.
Isn't there a respectably coherent theory out there with verifiable evidence to back it up?

I don't have the motivation or energy to collate all the information I've read in the past five years into a presentation. (And I wouldn't want to because I'm not that brave). And what I've written isn't much different to what many DUers have figured out for themselves based on their own reading up on the issues of Bush/House of Saud links, PNAC, CIA/ISI connections etc etc etc.

The only reason the MSM allows all sorts of wacky CTers airtime is because they are not a threat to the status quo.

The Democrats are regaining power, remember.

Bush's weak point is (or should be) his handling of "the war on terror" because in reality invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting al-Qaeda and has made things worse.

So, yes, focusing on Bushco's results (disastrous) and trying to reverse his policies is a quicker win than trying to delve into his motivation or complicity.

so they can "defend American interests" around the globe.
It's the motive.

Pesky union organizers, journalists, whistleblowers,
scientists, activists? Zap!

Of course to get a budget for stuff like that, they need
the famous "catalyzing event" of a New Pearl Harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin.

haven't taken a few stabs at it.

Probably, if an earthbound pilot model exists, it's bulky, klunky, and takes a whole
electrical substation of its own to run it.

A statement of how much fire at what temperature burning for how long does it take to weaken the weight bearing capacity of the amount of steal in the WTC support beams.