The Official Story is simply untenable for many basic reasons

that don't even take into account the physical evidence:

1) the massive documentation of forewarnings

2) the hijacking drills and other drills on the day of 9/11

3) the political connections of intel agencies to terrorism

4) the flaws in the hijacker stories

5) the obvious benefit 9/11 had to the DOD, the intel agencies and defense contractors in terms of money and power

etc.

The CIA, the military, the politicians and the media CANNOT be given the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth on this critical issue. This should be abundantly clear by now given their behavior on other matters in just the past eight years.

All this is more than enough to point to an inside job where the hijackers were allowed to perpetrate the attacks with significant official facilitation. Note-- in this scenario, there is no demolition, no video fakery, there are the official planes.

Any honest person should be able to get to this point of doubting the official story.

However, the next step is realizing that if the attack was facilitated, that the facilitators would not risk real hijackers flying around with real planes, with uncertain consequences.

The next step after this then, is analyzing the physical evidence for clues of more extensive involvement by the "facilitators"-- signs of fakery with the planes and videos, signs of fakery at the plane crash sites, signs of demolition of the towers. As far as I am concerned, the physical evidence is just as clear as the initial signs of an inside job.

I think to a certain extent, honest people can disagree as to the extent of what was done by the US govt and affiliated private US contractors to perpetrate the 9/11 crime. But everyone should be able to agree that there is clear evidence of an inside job.

For some reason though, for the past few years, this discussion board has been dominated by people who can't even admit that 9/11 was an inside job! Worse yet, these people constantly ridicule people who support the inside job thesis! Or link to articles that ridicule the inside job thesis and/or people who support the inside job thesis!

The official story is simply untenable. To support the official story thesis is incredibly naive. Yet there are large numbers of official story supporters who are clearly not children who spend huge amounts of time here arguing precisely for the official story. They ignore or pooh-pooh EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE OFFICIAL STORY.

Of course, the facilitators/perpetrators of 9/11 have every incentive to maintain the fantastical official story and to block any large scale or official action to get at the truth and to bring the facilitators/perpetrators to justice. The stakes are obviously huge and like in most matters of politics, ordinary citizens are at a disadvantage to those with more money and power.

Nonetheless, as Democrats/liberals who care about the truth and the abuse of power, we should all be able to admit that the evidence for an inside job is overwhelming.

The 'Official people' really do try to keep the lid on the box. With so many government CTs becoming true recently I think we may get an answer soon.

The official 9/11 Commission Report is based on information obtained through torture.

It can not stand.

The report itself is a war crime, separate and fully removed from all of the rest of the war crimes. Its existence is a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.




Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who's testimony/confession comprises over a hundred footnotes in the report, was repeatedly waterboarded.

The existence of the report itself is illegal.

Once you remove all the torture confessions, the whole narrative virtually disappears. There is no "official" story.

so why do so many here keep defending the OCT?

Some of the folks here defend torture.

Go figure.

Now would be good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x106608#106646

There's probably hundreds of threads, and probably as many supporters of the "ticking bomb" scenario. And that's only the most recent debate. Go back into the archives and look at the Abu Ghraib stuff.

Think about where we are. Israel is supposedly much better at this stuff than we are, and they used to use torture. :sarcasm:

Since it gives them a carte blanche to dismiss the 9/11 Commision Report entirely.

Given that KSM had already admitted to being the mastermind behind 9/11 prior to his capture, I wonder what sort of torture devices Yosri Fouda was equipped with... (the interesting bit starts on page 25)

By "official" story I am specifically talking about anything that is being represented by the United States of America.

If the 9/11 Commission Report is found to be a document that has no legal significance, because it is illegal, then what IS the official story?

They put all their "official" eggs in a single basket, didn't they?

1) the massive documentation of forewarnings
Hindsight, 20/20, etc. That's not to say that there weren't legitimate warnings going around, but it's only in hindsight that everyone is able to see the importance of them.

2) the hijacking drills and other drills on the day of 9/11
One drill planned which didn't even get underway.

3) the political connections of intel agencies to terrorism
Political connection? If you're going to trot out US support to the Afghan mujahadeens, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as evidence of "direct support" of OBL, I'm going to call BS. Not that the CIA haven't been up to some despicable stuff before, but in this case I think they might actually be innnocent!

4) the flaws in the hijacker stories
Care to provide examples?

5) the obvious benefit 9/11 had to the DOD, the intel agencies and defense contractors in terms of money and power
The audacity! *gasp* They took advantage of a situation to give them the maximum benefit!

Is there any prior instance of human beings disregarding forewarnings?

:evilgrin:

You are ignoring our long history of covert operations, murderous actions and official lies-- and you seem to be acting willfully ignorant with your responses.

Considering some of the other opinions you hold, I don't think it is OnTheOtherHand who is naive or willfully ignorant.

wow, we all have opinions!

But I am still not clear why you want to give the fuckers in charge the benefit of the doubt, when they have a clear history of horrible deeds.

As far as I can tell, your only basis for that allegation is my failure to agree with your conclusions. That isn't much of a way to promote reasoned discourse.

inhibits the promotion of reasoned discourse.

How would agreeing with your conclusions promote reasoned discourse? Reasoned discourse about what?

it's not clear that I can do much in the way of reasoning with you.

you seem to be missing something:



Find one of those and I'll be your biggest supporter. Proof, dude, not your unsupported bullshit.

There is zero, zilch, nada smoking gun evidence that supports the official story.

a "smoking gun". I don't know what you'd call that in your little world.

-- need I say more?

the benefit of the doubt.

I don't see anyone who wants to give Bush/Cheney the "benefit of the doubt". What I see are people who know your nonsense makes far less sense than the "official story".

beyond the shadow of a doubt, in your mind?

I'm really interested in your answer :shrug:

these people are proven manipulators, liars, mass murderers, torturers.

SO why trust them about 9/11?

Agreeing with various people -- including the ones you mention -- that, say, the Twin Towers weren't destroyed by nuclear weapons doesn't entail "assuming they are being honest" or "trust(ing) them."

It's very hard for me to understand how you can make that mistake.

I am referring to the simple issue of whether entities in the govt facilitated the attacks in some way.

You have no way to know that entities of the Bush admin did this unless you take their word that they didn't.

On the other hand, if you agree that 9/11 was an inside job at some level, then we have no beef.

their word that they didn't."

That's utter bullshit, Spooked.

unless you're CIA who was directly involved in dealing with the hijackers, how could you possibly know what sort of facilitation might have occurred?

Are you CIA or other intel with direct knowledge of this?

I'm not accusing you, I'm asking.

If you don't have this knowledge, you have no fucking way of knowing what the CIA did-- and my point is they can't be trusted.

You're telling people who didn't and don't trust the Bush administration that we must trust the Bush administration because you've deduced that we must. That's wacky, assuming that it is sincere.

I assume you meant to write, "You have no way to know that entities of the Bush admin didn't do this...." For that matter, I have no way to know that a malevolent deity didn't do it. You seem to be projecting your dogmas upon other people in mirror image.

Jeesh, this isn't so complicated.

It really isn't so complicated. You just have some strange compulsion to get it wrong. :shrug:

I don't think that I'm trusting anyone in particular, but I'll try not to be glib. Someone has to try.

is this really such a complicated question?

Maybe you will catch a glimpse if I ask in return: who are you trusting to tell you the batshit 9/11 story?

do you believe the official story-- total outside job by al Qaeda-- or not?

Are you now defining "the official story" as "total outside job by al Qaeda," and will you stick to that?

If you think I somehow know just what you mean when you say "official story," you've missed a developmental stage.

A lot of people have varying theories about what happened on 9/11. A lot of other people have no theories of their own, but just don't believe the official one. You apparently believe the official one which comes from government officials. I don't blame you for trying to weasel out of admitting that.

It's interesting to watch y'all spin your various definitions of "the official story," but the construct has no more specific meaning to me than "the batshit story" has to you.

Perhaps this is literally beyond your comprehension. I don't know.

How many official stories are there? If this is beyond your comprehension, the official story is what the government told us happened. What did government officials tell us happened? That's your official story. Simple as that, no need to pretend it's complicated at all.

Maybe you and spooked can reach a binding consensus on what the official story is, and then get back to me.

Are you asserting that all government officials agree on every aspect of what happened on 9/11? Just how simple do you think this is?

Stop pretending the official story is some undefinable mystery that even government officials are in disagreement about. :rofl: You guys can be so comical.

What government official has ever claimed anything other than: We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked planes after overcoming the pilots with boxcutters...?

I never said or insinuated that government officials have claimed other than that we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda terrorists.

I think we both know that isn't all "the official story" has been used to refer to. But maybe not.

So, are you endorsing the argument that in order to believe that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda terrorists, one has to trust government officials?

I'm trying to cling to a shard of curiosity here.

to not understand what the "official story" is.

"So, are you endorsing the argument that in order to believe that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda terrorists, one has to trust government officials?"

Do you normally believe notorious liars?

You've reached some acme of belligerent incoherence. Have fun!

Your answer is OCTist-speak for "Unable to answer for fear of blowing my cover."

I'm just not that into you.

as yours.

it's called your lack of this:

Your reply assumes they are the only source for info about 9/11. They aren't. You're committing the "genetic fallacy".

The official story is what our government told us happened. Our government officials had determined al Qaeda was responsible for the attack by the night of 9/11. Bush wrote in his diary that night, "we think al Qaeda did it." Any other sources might supposedly "confirm" the official story, but those sources are not "official."

by the night of 9/11".

Really? Then why didn't Bush write "we know al Qaeda did it"? Do you really believe it was unreasonable to suspect them at that point?

you need to explain why you trust not only Bush and Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Rice, the CIA, etc

You also seem to assume that criminals are going to tell you the truth!

Based on past behavior, there is NO REASON to trust any of these people or entities.

"If you don't buy our bullshit, that means you trust Bush".

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

Is your position that the so-called "Official Story" "is simply untenable"? or is it that we have "no way of knowing" whether it is true?

(edit to fix typo)

your argument appears to be:

We have no way of knowing what the CIA did.
They cant be trusted.
Therefore, they must have done it.

Yon have some weird version of argumentum ad ignorantiam going here.

The CIA is our main source of info on "al Qaeda", and they were the Americans most contact with the group.
The CIA cant be trusted-- they lie and spread propaganda.
The CIA has a history of doing shitty things-- covert operations, torture, etc.
There are strong basic reasons to doubt the official story (ignored forewarnings, unlikelihood of the hijackers succeeding, etc)
9/11 fit into the geopolitical plans of powerful people in the administration and benefited the defense industry-- they had a clear motive
There is no reason to give the CIA the benefit of the doubt and it is naive to believe the official story of incompetence.

Your position is -- simply believe what the CIA says about 9/11? Or what?

This is silly. Your argument rests upon a number of unproven assertions. Beyond that, you absolutely insist upon putting words in our mouths as if we're a bunch of unsophisticated rubes. For example:



Um, no, Spooked. I don't "simply believe" what the CIA says about 9/11. Like anything else, I look for corroboration. And there are plenty of sources for that. I'm also not convinced by your claim of an "unlikelihood of the hijackers succeeding" at all.

Simple question, Spooked. Do you believe we shouldn't have any intelligence services at all? Do you think the CIA is responsible for all evil in the world? Do you read anything at all except paranoid CT claptrap?

The CIA had the means, motive and opportunity. Plus, the CIA are known criminals.

You'd have to be REALLY DUMB to not suspect them!


As far as your other points-- where do you get corroboration? Other intel agencies? There is MUCH info on the official story that ultimately comes from the CIA or other intel agencies. Is that so hard to comprehend? Getting "corroboration" from the NYTimes is silly when the info ultimately derives from the CIA or other intel agencies.


"Do you believe we shouldn't have any intelligence services at all?"

No I don't think that. But that doesn't mean that we need the CIA. I guess it depends on how you define "intelligence services".

"Do you think the CIA is responsible for all evil in the world?"

No. But they do perpetrate a significant amount of evil done by the US.

"Do you read anything at all except paranoid CT claptrap?"

Yes. I read lots of different things, and I don't read that much CT material. For one, it's depressing.

I think *you* should read more alternative history. I could give you lots of good reading suggestions if you like. Have you read "Into the Buzzsaw", for instance? It's about how the powerful elites and corporations and the government censor the news media. That's a good book to start with. You should also try "Defrauding America, 2nd edition" by Rodney Stich.

Nevermind, Spooked. I don't think you have the slightest notion what the CIA really does.

tell us about it, Duderstadt.

Do you think they all work in covert ops? Do you know what Valerie Plame was doing? Do you think what she was doing was valuable?

If I had my way I would break them up and convert them into a pure research organization. There's an argument that all intelligence could be done with open-sources anyway. The covert stuff has to go, as well as their various extra-curricular activities.

But the actions of the intel agencies are actually a very involved and complex, with many layers that I am not sure you comprehend. Nor do you seem to comprehend what the powers that be are capable of.

why don't you go ahead and make that argument, Spooked?


And you can drop the silly posturing about what you think I do or do not comprehend, dude.

odd

please tell us how all the intel we need could be gotten from open sources. Or, you cvould do like you normally do and run away from the question.

See post #89

since I don't think I've ever claimed I did trust them.

I still don't get you people.

you continue to believe we must trust the CIA.

That is, if you are actually saying you don't trust them about 9/11.

Or, are you saying you don't trust them about some things but for 9/11 you take their word for it?

Please to explain why you continue to think so.

official 9/11 story?

They probably share lots of things with me and many other people, like the law of gravity. That doesn't mean I depend on them for the law of gravity.

who DO you depend on for the official story?

At least I'm not misrepresenting what other posters say.

Pretty please with sugar on it.

Don't you have your own? Or has the "Anonymous Physicist" stopped feeding you info?

for the official al Qaeda outside job story?

Why is this so hard to answer?

What's so wrong with that? :shrug:

It seems you are doing much more than that.

Why do you think I trust these people?

as I've said-- there are aspects of the story for which they are the only source. Ergo, if you believe the OS, you are trusting them.

Point out the posts where I have supported the "aspects of the story for which they are the only source."

If you think 9/11 was an inside job, then say so.

If you support the idea of incompetence, disorganization and pure outside job, then you support the official story.

If you support the official story, then you rely on the Bush administration and the CIA for much of the basic story.

Maybe in the future you should look before you leap.

why is it so hard to type out a simple answer here?

You certainly didn't go searching through them before you made your claim. Instead you just spouted off about the content of them without bothering to find supporting evidence first. Pretty stupid, really.

I have seen your posts here for years now and invariably you support the official story.

If now you don't, just let me know!

I don't support the "official story" - I support logic and rationality, two things significantly lacking in most of the "alternative" theories (including yours).

fine, I'll play-- do you find the official story the most rational and logical explanation for 9/11?

I didn't realize there was such a thing. Please define the term.

I already defined it several times in this post.

The games continue.

"The games continue."

I don't read every post in the thread, you know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=259731&mesg_id=260221

Man, you're awesome!

No wonder I missed it. Care to try again?

n/t

However, don't let this interfere with your intention to at some point in time, hopefully sooner rather than never, actually respond to spooked911's interest in your seeming contradictions about your support/non-support of the OCT or what might be the OCT or
however you're parsing that common term which may not be something that you're even familiar with, what with everything else that's
going on here that needs your careful attention.

Keep at it, spooked911. You're doing very well. Too well for some.

Please to point them out.

and no, I am not going to waste more time with you on this, when clearly you are either not paying attention or you are just goofing around.

Good day, sir.

Don't like being confronted with the inadequacies in your theories?

What I do know is that you are wasting my time by not giving me a straight answer.

I am perfectly fine with being confronted about "inadequacies" in my theories. I don't remember you pointing any out. You may have, I just don't remember.

What is clear is that you are not willing to give me a straight answer on whether you think 9/11 was an inside job. So, I say good day to you, sir.

You expect me to answer you based on a crappy definition of "official story" and whine when I tell you I can't. What's next - asking me if I stopped beating my wife yet?

... that Spooky must think he's found a perfect way to avoid losing every argument he gets into around here: Don't actually make any arguments; just pretend that "defenders of the official story" are on the hook to waste their time trying to convince him of anything.

"If you support the official story, then you rely on the Bush administration and the CIA for much of the basic story."

The major media? They're little more than stenographers. In the case of operations like 9/11, it might be said that
they were/are patsies. I will post more about my theory of their involvement whenever I am eligible to start a thread here.

though the CIA is also embedded in the media, and they are not exactly innocent.

What about the 1998 Embassy bombings? The thwarted Millennium attacks? The USS Cole attack? The high level of terrorist chatter in the summer of '01?

What about the Scheuer contradiction--publicly stated concern about the threat posed by al Qaeda while behind the scenes al Qaeda operatives were protected (Ali Mohamed for years, sealed indictment of KSM until '98 even though he was implicated in the Yousef/Shah/Murad terrorist plots in the Philippines and withholding of information about the January 5-8, 2000 Malaysian summit which was attended by al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar) and missions to kill/capure Bin Laden kept being canceled (according to Scheuer there were up to 10 good chances).

""2) the hijacking drills and other drills on the day of 9/11
One drill planned which didn't even get underway.""

Where's your evidence of that?



Air Training Drills the Morning of September 11th:

On the morning of September 11th, two nationwide annual air defense drills were in full stride.

NORAD was in the midst of one of its four major annual exercises, the week-long “Vigilant Guardian”, which the Commission described as “postulat a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.”37

A second annual global readiness exercise, Global Guardian, which had traditionally been held in October or November, and which, according to NBC News military analyst William Arkin, had been scheduled for October 22-31, 2001,38 was also underway. The Space Observer, a military newspaper, reported on March 23rd 2001 that this exercise was scheduled for October 2001,39 which meant that sometime after March 23rd, Global Guardian was rescheduled for early September.

Third, Richard Clarke, in his book “Against All Enemies”, noted that acting Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC) Chairman Richard Myers told him in a videoconference on 9/11, “Not a pretty picture, Dick...We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise.”40

Information about military drills is classified and difficult to research. There have been suggestions that Richard Clarke confused this drill with Vigilant Guardian (the North Pole drill) but Vigilant Guardian is a NORAD exercise, apparently without JSC involvement. It has also been reported41 that the “Warrior” designation equates to JSC involvement and includes “live-flies”. A NORAD press release, reported in USA Today in 2004, stated that, “These ‘mock hijacked aircraft,’ otherwise called ‘live-flies,’ are used sometimes in air-based war games involving hijacking scenarios. They are actual planes of a variety of makes, in the air (manned or under remote control), pretending to be hijacked for the benefit of effective training.”42

Thus the evidence suggests that mock hijacks were in progress on September 11th, which would explain the reports of military officers in the next section.

There were more “planes into buildings” scenarios going on that morning. “In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings... The National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise...in which a small corporate jet would crash into...the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. ...The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.”43

Finally, USA Today reported that “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” was on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Thus, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still hadn’t found a way to fly back to Washington.”44 Furthermore, the FBI had deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” While the attacks were in progress, then, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes was being AWOL.

""4) the flaws in the hijacker stories
Care to provide examples?""

19 "terrorists" passing by at least a dozen cameras each in the departing airports,
ZERO vid of them in airport or boarding planes.

7 of the false ID'd "terrorists" still alive, FBI at first admits there's a problem, then sticks to the original lists with no explanation. FBI chief comes out and says ZERO hard evidence tying the 19 to the attacks.

flight instructors said "pilots" couldn't even solo a single engine Cessna.

Before 911 ISI Spy Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad wires Mohammed Atta $100,000. Shortly after 911 he "retires".

On the morning of September 11,Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.

None of this is mentioned in the 911 Omission report. That's why it's called an omission report.

you think the "Official Story" is untenable but controlled demolition, mini-nukes and "no-planes" ARE tenable.

You can't make shit like this up.

For my very first post, I'm glad to see your topic right at the top of the page, where it should be. Let me say right from the
get-go that 9/11 was definitely an inside job.

Secondly, greetings and howdy to one and all,
from the Lone Star State.

It's important to know around here.

What exactly do you mean and while you're at it what are you?

no plane hit the pentagon, and or no planes hit the WTC's, and or no plane crashed in Shanksville.

I am not a no planer.

How about you?

By that definition, I am a "no planer".

I now know you live in a 9/11 fantasy land and discourse is pointless. But I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this.

Good luck.

even attempt to have a dialogue with you. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this and I'm sure I'm not the first
person who has hoped that you would remember what you said and keep your promise.

apply some sort of equivalence to their whacked theories with the rest of the rational world.

No point in trying to reason with you. It's impossible.

When you use the same kind of "reasoning" process as my dog uses, it's impossible to have a discussion with you. Although I must
say that my dog's associative technique is often very accurate, but I trust her skillful use of the art and yours is suspect at best.

What type of reasoning process can possibly lead an intelligent human being to conclude no planes were crashed on 9/11.

Seriously, there are many independent videos, eyewitness', plane wreckage, body parts, the list goes no, yet you think your opinions are valid and should be taken seriously? LOL.

or you're not being honest.

And I know you damn well know the case for no planes.

A reminder--
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

It's not like we can avoid it - you spam the damn thing here all the time.

So I don't see how I am spamming it. It's a good reference resource since it has a lot of material going back 5 years on 9/11. I do cross-post articles here that I post there, but I don't see how that is spamming.

Not sure what you mean by "crappy" and "little". It's normal sized. And I've put a lot of time into it over the years so it's hardly lacking in content.

Maybe you just don't like the white text on dark blue background?

nonsense content is still nonsense.

is how many things are beyond your understanding. You seem to think your theories have merit, and that posting your ideas in a blog somehow qualifies as valuable content. Neither of these is true.

What's the deal? This isn't a comedy forum.

That blog is an agglomeration of ignorant questions. Asking a bunch of goofy questions neither creates a case nor does it explain the thought process required to believe such nonsense.

there are no questions there. There are a LOT of assertions. Even if a few are wrong, the rest together make a damn good case for no planes.

So just don't fucking act like you don't know what the issues are, okay?

believe such utter nonsense as no-planes.

Only in the deep recesses of a fantasy is no-planes a reality. It's as real as Freddy Kruger, or Spiderman, or Humpty Dumpty.

the totality of the evidence supports an inside job-- once you get to inside job, then it is clear there was fakery regarding the planes

Anyone whose beliefs about 9/11 are based mainly on what they saw and read in the MSM are doing themselves a disservice if they
don't avail themselves of the information spooked9/11 has provided on his blog. Remember: MSM's very livelihood depends on
access to Government sources, so they don't often bother to ask critical questions, much less attempt to give both sides
of important issues. If what you believe is based on what you learned from MSM (Gov't) sources, your beliefs and opinions rest
on very uncertain grounds.

I will be sure to print the 155 reasons and use it to train the puppy.

Have a heart.

I am sure you would be happy to point out the items on the list that are incorrect and/or not logical reasons.

methinks.

think.

prove their case nor refute the simple fact that real planes can't glide into buildings.

were the planes supposed to do?

"what exactly
were the planes supposed to do?"

If you only saw the videos a few times on 9/11, it's very understandable that you might be fooled into thinking they were
real planes. It was only after a few months had gone by that I learned they were fake. Funny thing is, most people can
instantly see that they're fake whenever they see them now. I think the easiest way they can spot that they're fake is
whenever they see them glide thru the buildings. Just like in a cartoon.

You can't weasel out of the question forever.

The flyover planes? The CGI planes?

floundering around isn't helping your credibility.

is not likely to convince any rational person that you have any idea WTF you are talking about.

Boning-up on juvenile insults?

Maybe if you answered it I wouldn't have called you on failing to do so.

Taking the crazy position that the planes were indeed real, what should have the impact looked like?

And remarkably I have seen most likely all the available videos of the impacts literally dozens of times. Not once did I think they were fake. Not a single time.

about some beachfront property in Arizona.

"I have seen most likely all the available videos of the impacts literally dozens of times. Not once did I think they were fake. Not a single time."

your claim is laughable.

in Arizona? What if I told you there's even a video presentation showing it?

network videos" you claimed and not at all interested in your continuing evasion.

I will change the subject because if I honestly answer the question, I will look like a fool.

Just asking.

when you're getting your ass kicked all over the place. Maybe DU has a starter forum you could frequent.

MEthinks.

"There are a LOT of assertions. Even if a few are wrong, the rest together make a damn good case for no planes."

I've read your blog off and on for a long time and there's never been even one SERIOUS attempt to refute the
evidence you've provided. I used to think that maybe one day I'd see proof SOMEWHERE on the Net that an Official
Conspiracy Theorist might be able to prove that the Bush version wasn't just a CT, but it hasn't ever happened
and it won't. The plain and simple truth of the matter is that 9/11 was an inside job.

Mother Goose, and The Three Little Pigs.

OCT

P.S. That one has been thoroughly refuted and discredited, but go ahead and try your other favorites if you feel so inclined.

was not accomplished by anyone. And even if it was, it makes not one iota of difference in no-planes fiction. No-planes is still just a fantasy.

"No-planes is still just a fantasy."

IRON CLAD PROOF THE FBI, ALONG HELP FROM WITH THE CIA, INTENTIONALLY SABOTAGED THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION OF MIHDHAR AND HAZMI!

On August 22, 2001, FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, who was working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, found out from the INS that both Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US.

She contacted both FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire to inform them of this information. We now know from Wilshire’s email back to his CIA CTC mangers in July 2001 that Wilshire knew immediately, when given this information, that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans

From email now found in the DOJ IG report and in the “Substitution for the testimony of John”, AKA Tom Wilshire located on the Moussaoui trial web site at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/, we know that Wilshire had already alerted his CIA CTC managers on July 5, 2001 that he thought the people at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2001, Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi, were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA thought would take place inside of the US and on July 23, 2001 to the fact that he was sure that in particular, Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda operation. See Wilshire's email dated July 23, 2001 back to his CTC managers at the CIA.

In spite of having this information both CIA officer Tom Wilshire and FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi participated in outright criminal actions to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

At this time, both Wilshire and Corsi knew that the CIA had been hiding from Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators, the photograph of Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda meeting actually planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi had even admitted this when interviewed by DOJ IG investigators that she had been aware of this photograph on August 22, 2001, and was aware that Walid Bin Attash, along with Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 actually planning the Cole bombing.

On August 28, Bongardt found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US when a FBI supervisor at the New York office, John Liguori, accidentally send him, FBI Agent Dina Corsi's EC with the NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. The fact that Walid Bin Attash had also been at this meeting was deliberately left out of this EC

From Defense Exhibit #681, found on the Moussaoui court official web site, in email on August 29, 2001, from Dina Corsi to John Liguori (the FBI manager at the New York FBI field office who had directed Corsi's EC to Bongardt), Dina Corsi says:

”There is material in the EC from which has not been approved and which is not cleared for criminal investigators (meaning the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Cole bombing). Steve and Rod, (this is Rod Middleton, her boss) and I spoke with him (Steve Bongardt) and tried to explain why this case had to stay on the intel side of the house.”

Unfortunately DE #448, on the same web site, is the actual NSA release that Dina Corsi received from the NSA, and shows that this release had already been approved on August 27, 2001, and sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. This release clearly said that the NSA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi who were attending this important al Qaeda planning meeting, had been cleared by the NSA on August 27, 2001 to be sent to "the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in New York".

When Corsi tells Liguori that this information had not yet been approved and is not cleared for criminal investigators, when it had been approved two days before she had contacted him, it is clear she is lying in an attempt to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

FBI Agent Bongardt could not see any connection to any FISA warrant when the NSA had obtained this information, and he was sure that the NSA and NSLU would readily approve this information going to him and his team.

When Corsi told Bongardt on August 28, 2001, that he and his team of Cole bombing investigators were not allowed to take part or start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, in spite of the fact that Bongardt was sure that they were both inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, Bongardt asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU, the attorneys at the FBI HQ, to see if he and his team of FBI criminal investigators could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi told him on August 29, 2001 after she consulted NSLU attorneys, that the NSLU had ruled he could not be part of any investigation and search for Mihdhar.

But FBI Agent Bongardt was right. From page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission’s own report we learn that Corsi had fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling, and that in fact Sabol had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant.

Sabol even told Corsi that if she, (Corsi) was still confused she could go to the NSA, and get a release herself unaware that Corsi had already gotten this release the previous day. Since Corsi had kept even this release secret from the NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol, it is clear that she was deliberately keeping secret from others in the FBI HQ her nefarious actions in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar.

But exactly why did Wilshire and Corsi sabotage Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi?

It is now clear that since Tom Wilshire had set up the meeting with Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators, on June 11, 2001 in New York City with the help of Dina Corsi, both knew that if Bongardt had been given the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and then had found out that Walid Bin Attash had been at the same al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 with both Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, he would have immediately known that the meeting in New York between the FBI Cole investigators and the CIA with the FBI HQ agents had been nothing but a CIA sting on the Cole investigators to find out if they had somehow found out about the meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the people who were at that meeting.

This was the very information that the CIA had first been trying to keep secret from the FBI criminal investigators since January 5, 2000 when Tom Wilshire first blocked the CIR by FBI Agent Doug Miller on Mihdhar and his travel to the Kuala Lumpur meeting. At the New York meeting Corsi presented three photographs Wilshire had obtained from the CIA taken of Mihdhar at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and CIA officer Clark Shannon asked Bongardt and his team if they could recognize anyone in these photos. When Bongardt asked who are these people in these photographs, photographs of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and what do these people have to do with the Cole bombing, he was given no answer except one name he could not use since it included no passport number or birth date.

Since Corsi, Wilshire and Shannon and even almost all of the mangers at the CIA, already knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Bin Attash, it is clear that by withholding this information that they all were criminally obstruction Bongardt’s investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors. Since Wilshire was denied twice in July by his CTC managers, who had to include Cofer Black and George Tenet, from giving any of this information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI criminal investigators, it is clear that this criminal conspiracy to obstruct the Cole bombing investigation went way up the command hierarchy at the CIA, and also even the FBI.

Tenet and Black are forbidding Wilshire from turning over to the FBI criminal investigators in July 2001 the very information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 at the very same time they are holding urgent meetings in the White House with Rice and Clarke, and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld describing an imminent al Qaeda attack inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans.

Wilshire’s and Corsi’s out right criminal actions that shut down the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have found these al Qaeda terrorists in time to head of the attacks on 9/11 lead directly to the deaths of almost 3000 people on 9/11.

Much of this very information has been carefully concealed by the Joint Inquiry investigation on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission and even the DOJ IG investigation of the FBI after the attacks on 9/11. But by combining all of these accounts with the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, and the information in Bob Woodward's book State of Denial to fill in all of the missing pieces of this account, it was ultimately possible to put this information all back together again and actually see what had occurred prior to the attacks on 9/11 and why our intelligence agencies had not prevented these attacks when they had much more information than was required to stop these attacks.

It was not so much that these reports actually lied about what had happened, it was the fact that each report had carefully left out many of the more significant details so it was not possible for the American people to see the complete picture.

I was just looking at a Naudet video of the alleged WTC1 crash and noticed several things that strike me as being peculiar.

First, the pedestrians don't look up at the sky until after the explosions - unlike the firemen who turn their eyes skyward prior
to explosions.

Second, the narrator, speaking in a heavy NY accent remarks about the rarity of hearing the sound of a plane over NYC. He then says
"especially a real loud sound" -- but the sound in the video ISN'T very loud.

It's also interesting that the perps had to color in an additional 30 feet or so to make the "entrance" hole large enough to
accommodate the 160' wing span of the airplane that supposedly crashed there. No bonus for whoever goofed up!

And what an odd-looking "plane"! It's transparent -- whatever "it" is.

So I have gone around with some of the posters here and it seems there is a real reluctance to defend the official story.

Can we now take it as a well-accepted conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job?

conclusion that with some possible exceptions (that I can't think of, but who might exist), the Official Conspiracy Theorists here
are unable to do more in support of the official story other than to say that 19 Arabs did it...but it would take a cast of
thousands if it was an inside job.

dude. Actually, in a way, you and Spooked kinda deserve each other. I think you'll be quite happy together. You guys are the Rodney Dangerfields of the 9/11 forum.

alas, you didn't even try. Oh well, better to try and change the subject and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.

Sdude can always be counted on to post nonsense or insults. Or both. At least s/he's consistent.

dude.

waste time talking about how you don't waste time trying to come to grips with the fact that you've been fooled about the OCT.

Unless you mean videos that show real planes. Those don't exist. If they did, we'd have seen them a thousand times on Network TV.

Where are the videos of the towers exploding, yet no plane hit them? That's a game-ender for your stupid claim.

Real planes can't glide into and thru buildings (even if the "thru buildings" part was a mistake made during the compositing of the video).

quit this ridiculous claim that the reason you can't produce one is that somehow all the videos were altered. It doesn't even make logical sense.

"It doesn't even make logical sense." Were you really fooled, or are you joking?

Your tap dancing is evident.

There are a few videos that the Networks have which they won't allow anyone to see, but those videos obviously do not support the
claim that real planes crashed; otherwise they'd be shown over and over and over. Just like other videos of important events.
So, all we're left with are the faked videos which show what are called CGI (computer generated images) planes gliding into
buildings as though the buildings were made of cream cheese or something even softer than cream cheese.

what you claim? That's my point.

No one can prove the impossible, but many people can produce fake videos. Obviously, you are too heavily invested in
the bogus "Official" conspiracy theory to admit you were fooled, so we'll just leave it at that for now.

why is that, dude? Were they all "altered"? If so, why aren't the people who shot the video coming forward? Oh, you mean they ALL claim the plane hit the building? You can't even keep THEM on the reservation?

Some have tried to get access to them, but the Networks won't provide them, which leaves the only logical conclusion that the reason they won't is because they do not support the claims made by the Gov't and the MSM.

"the evidence exists, but it's being hidden". What a cop out.

Actually, I have evidence that YOU were responsible for 9/11. but it's being hidden.

Oh, BTW, have you located a single person who shot video who claims no plane hit the buildings? You haven't? My, my, my.

those videos would be shown on TV over and over. Ditto the Pentagon. All of the videos that have been released show only
CGI (computer generated images) planes. There are two known videos that haven't been released and the networks have refused
to release them. Why? If they showed REAL planes crashing, they WOULD release them. Obviously, those two videos do not
show any such thing.

The TV videos that were shown on TV and that are available on the Net totally destroy the Official Conspiracy Theory. The videos
do not show real planes crashing and if real planes had crashed, that would be seen in the videos. No other proof is needed
to prove that the OCT is bogus.

Planted evidence, questionable witness accounts, and impossible physics cannot change the video proof that shows only fake
plane crashes.

Are there any videos of the events that weren't confiscated? Maybe, but if there are any such videos, they certainly don't show
real planes crashing or you can bet the ranch that they would have been all over your TV by now.

the networks are supposedly suppressing. otherwise this is just more of your bullshit, dude. You can't even seem to advance a reason why the networks wouldn't plaster it all over the air. Typical ''truther'' bullshit.

The major Networks almost always willingly license the use of videos for things like documentaries etc., but when they were
approached and asked to license the two 9/11 videos in question, they just said that they can't do that. They didn't give a
reason. Obviously, they don't want the public to see them because they don't show planes crashing into the WTC. Oh, and
these two particular videos were made with high-resolution, professional equipment, so they would be especially interesting
to see. Wouldn't YOU like to see them?

not you continuing to yammer on and on. You simply making the assertions over and over doesn't prove anything. Study a logical fallacy called ''begging the question''.

I can prove that the networks won't release them. Can you prove they don't exist?

Do you know ANYTHING about Logic at all? It's YOUR fucking claim that the videos exist. I merely asked you for proof of that and you can't provide a damn thing. You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me. Stupid.

Can you prove that the Networks won't release them? Do you think those videos show a real plane crashing into the WTC? Is THAT
why they won't release them?

Can I prove the networks won't release them? I never said the networks had any such videos to begin with and challenged YOU for proof of YOUR claim. Your flailing around on this is hysterical.

them? Mind you, they didn't say or even imply that the video shows anything gruesome.

why don't you just say that. I've given you an easy out and you won't take it because said proof is nonexistent. This is comical, especially coming from someone who bragged he would make me "eat crow".

Dude, you're nothing but a garden variety "truther" with more evasions than the GOP has bankrupt ideas.

You can answer that question without BSing, can't you?

all you're doing is stalling.

waste time trying to reason with a "no-planer", dude.

How many comments have you made on this thread without addressing in a simple manner whether you support the official story? I count 20 comments.

Despite all those comments, you can't admit that you support the official story or defend why you trust the CIA regarding 9/11?

Yeah, you don't like to waste time all right.

your stupid loaded questions.

or why you trust the CIA regarding 9/11???

You call that "loaded"?

the "official story" is just a catchall phrase you use to make it appear that your opponent supoorts Bush or something. Asking me why I "trust the CIA" assumes I do and also assumes there are no sources of info besides them.

that he doesn't waste time trying to defend the indefensible. To him (and to Newsweek), I guess TIME is a degenerative force.

big difference, dude.

Helpful hint: you might try taking a writing course to improve the coherence of your posts.

the impossible or why you didn't think anyone would catch-on to your selective use of words as a sly way to insult people who
have the temerity to ask Official Conspiracy Theorists to explain how planes can glide into buildings as though the buildings weren't even there.

Hit the towers and bounced off? Take an elementary physics class, dude.

n/t

Arguments typically don't start with the conclusion.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Since you've implied that you know something about logic, then
based on what you're now saying, I think THAT claim is bogus. Otherwise, some people might wonder what's going on
over there in Official Conspiracy Theorist land.

precede the premises? I'll match wits with you on Logic any day, dude.

As far as the claim about the planes:

There were multiple witnesses who saw the planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon. You have ZERO witnesses who saw the buildings explode yet not be struck by the planes.
.
There was plane crash debris at each site.

Nearly all passengers were positively identified through DNA at all three sites.

Now, where's your evidence?
There was plane crash debris at the sites

Got anything new?

Got anything new?