It boggles the mind, how many of you still support the "official story".

Does it not matter to you, how many lies had been handed to us in order to go to war in Iraq?

Does it not matter to you, what freedoms have been stolen from us for "national security purposes"?

Does it not matter to you, that a very large contingent of the PNAC went on to become a part of GWB's administration? Have you not read their mission statement, and their plan as described in "Rebuilding America's Defenses"?

Does it not matter to you, that Cheney AND the FBI have both stated that we cannot indict OBL for the 9/11 attacks because there simply isn't enough evidence to do so?

Does it not matter to you, that our military and intelligence has always been opined as being one of the best - if not THE best - in the world? And yet, somehow, on 9/11, there was "gross negligence", "confusion", "misinformation" and "miscommunication"? And THEN, we are supposed to believe that our once-again supreme military and intelligence was to be trusted with attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq?

I find it disturbing that so many of you would choose to ignore all of these FACTS, in exchange for believing that some really mean men from the Middle East did this all on their own, with airplane maneuvers that made some of our most talented pilots look like amateurs in comparison.

I also find it offensive that people in here who have very valid questions and doubts about the official story, become the targets of those who so easily believe the Bush Administration's account - when we ALL know how destructive and deceitful they've been from Day One.

This is why I did not donate to DU during the most recent fund drive.

doesn't wind up embarrassing the rest of DU.

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You usually do, and frankly, no one can see the color of your cheeks when you go off the deep end.

you just can't STAND it when someone rejects the "truther" orthodoxy, can you?

Sid

it must be nice to live in your world where it comes down to choosing to believe that either Bush/Cheney did it or "some really mean men from the Middle East did this all on their own", with no real ambiguity. The funny thing is there are answers to your questions, if you'd bother to look. And many of us who realize that Bush lied (WMD, etc.) nonetheless see no concrete evidence of your claims and realize that crashing planes into buildings isn't that complicated of a maneuver.

I despise Bush, but that doesn't mean that he and Cheney planned and executed 9/11. Develop some hard evidence, rather than supposition and circumstantial evidence and you might convince people. I urge you watch the National Geographic special on the 31st and approach it with an open mind.


The silliest thing about the "truth movement" is you guys think you're the only ones who care about the truth.

Please discontinue placing words in my mouth. Thank you.

substantial parts of it, right?

Maybe you should think about common ground before assuming that those of us who reject the goofier aspects of the "truth movement", necessarily "believe the official story".

Tell me if I'm wrong, but from everything I'm seeing here, the DUers who still believe the official story, believe that 19 Arab men were trained by OBL, came to the states, hijacked our planes, destroyed buildings in NYC and DC, killed thousands of people, and did this with no assistance from the inside - meaning powers-that-be?

that makes only slightly more sense than MIHOP. The first problem would be the risk that something wouldn't go as planned and the Bush administration could not control the outcome. While there is legitimate concern about LSIHOP (let something happen on purpose), that still makes little sense, again for the same reason.

For the record, I am not ruling out the possibility that the hijackers had some degree of help from the inside, but I would suspect other terrorists who had managed to work themselves into positions where they could help with information, however, no evidence of that emerged. Despite what you may think, I am open to different theories, including ones I find utterly implausible but, skeptic that I am, I want to see concrete proof for it, not some "truther" waving a "9/11 was an inside job" banner around. Evidence.

couldn't control the outcome (valarie plane) and the media ( controlled by a few large corporations that all have defense industry ties) would blow the whistle on the Bush administration.
(this has been a post by subliminal man.)

you're making my point.

OOOOPppps wrong not even close. My point is the plan did not have to be perfect as you claim it had to be. Cause when you own the media and the politicians
it makes f ups a lot less worrisome.

they couldn't plant WMD in Iraq?

How have they been held accountable for the lies?

but it still makes no sense that they could pull off some elaborate 9/11 plot, but couldn't manage to plant WMD in Iraq. That would have given them a leg up.

How have they been held accountable for the lies?

No documentation whatsoever. Can you prove this claim, Bill?

from what I understand. It may all be bs but it was reported. "Operation Skim Iraq"
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01142006.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x61456
:shrug:

Define "powers-that-be."

you have questions that have been answered or have no basis in reality.

Even if it's stipulate that there was numerous lies about the Iraq war, that a number of freedoms were stolen from us in the name of national security, that a large contigent of the PNAC were part of the Bush administration, etc, etc; It doesn't change that there is overwhelming evidence of the following facts:

1) Four planes were hijacked
2) One hit the north tower, one hit the south tower, one hit the pentagon, and one crashed in a field in PA
3) The plane crashes into the two world trade center buildings and subsequent fires caused those buildings to collapse.

If you don't believe these facts you are either ignorant, willfully ignoring the truth, or crazy. You can claim that the hijackers were Bush minions, I don't believe it, but it certainly is possible, but you can't sanely claim that planes did not hit the trade center or the pentagon, or the field in PA. There are too many witnessess and there is too much evidence for you to claim otherwise.

Granted, I wasn't in Manhattan on 9/11; but I have more than a couple of friends who were there that day. And yes, there were jets slamming into towers.

The Pentagon? Yes - something hit that building, too. I'm just not convinced that it was a jet.

All of that to say that it's really not something I'm interested in. I really don't care all that much about jets and collapses and thermite and drones and all of that other stuff.

Just because I question who was behind the orchestration of the events, doesn't mean I'm a "no-planer".

Some references are better than others...

Now, the 911 Commission report, which is a favorite of some "original conspiracy theorists" here is naturally good and contains no omissions or lies. :sarcasm:

but the fact you aren't sure about the Pentagon, when there is overwhelming evidence that a plane hit the building, makes you a no-planer. On 9/11 all I had to do was take a left off my street, drive 2.9 miles and the pentagon was on my right. I didn't see the plane hit, but I saw the aftermath from a hill overlooking that side of the Pentagon. Over 100 people saw the plane hit the building and thousands of people worked to clear the building and aircraft debris.

Again, you can reasonably question who was behind the events, but the only way you can question the major details of the events, four planes hijacked, four planes crashed, is through willful ignorance or downright stupidity.

I believe the evidence we have shows that the government, including Bush and his minions, had nothing to do with 9/11, but I don't believe I can show you iron clad evidence that they didn't.

Obviously, something hit it. Jetliner? Doubtful. The hit was too clean, and imo, too small. No markings on the ground.

Was I there that day? No. I was in Jersey, frantically trying to get in touch with friends and relatives in both Manhattan and DC.

Doesn't it matter to anyone that when Rumsfeld was interviewed one month after the attacks, he referred to the attack on the Pentagon as the result of a "missile"? Even more important - again, imo - the aftermath of the attack seemed, TO ME, more the result of a missile than an airliner.

One more thing - it sure as hell would have ended this rumor a lot faster if the tapes didn't skip that millisecond of time where the object hits the Pentagon.

One more thing - it sure as hell would have ended this rumor a lot faster if the tapes didn't skip that millisecond of time

Well, golly gee... If it was a TV studio camera, it would have a frame rate of 30 frames per second - that's 33 milliseconds per frame. Do you have any idea how ignorant it sounds to suggest that a security camera at a 24/7 manned facility should have a frame rate of 1 per millisecond?

Watch the video. Watch the time at the bottom of the screen. At the very exact time that the object hits the Pentagon, that frame of time is skipped. It jumps a second or two on the clock (to be honest, I don't remember how much time, it's been a long time since I've watched the video).

I've seen that video.

Have you ever seen this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

And so I believe I know where you are going with that question.

There's only one problem with that, though (and if I can find the transcript, I will produce it later): throughout a couple of different interviews, Rumsfeld repeatedly stated that it was definitely AA 77 that hit the Pentagon, and NOT a missile or any other type of weapon. In other words, he was differentiating between a jet and a missile. In the context of which he was speaking, they were not one and the same.

I tried to watch the video you posted, but after waiting 5 minutes for the thing to load, it didn't work. I will try it again sometime soon. Thanks.

that would lead you to believe it's a "missile". I don't know of any "missiles" that could create a 100'+ rectangular hole.

Not a full fledged moon-bat no-planer, but a no-pentagon-planer at best.

There are many kinds of planes. I question whether or not a JET plane was involved.

How could you possibly question whether or not a jet plane, specifically flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon? There was 100 witnesses that saw a jet plane hit the pentagon. There was debris from a jet plane at the pentagon. A jet plane was missing. The remains of that jet plane were found at the pentagon. Body parts and DNA from passengers on the jet were found at the Pentagon. A big ass fucking whole the size of a jetliner was created in the pentagon.

Where do you think flight 77 went? Did it really exist? Does Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the US, have his wife in the basement or was this a convenient way for him to get rid of her; by putting her on a plane that didn't really crash into the pentagon. Your belief is non-sensical and has no basis in reality. There are too many facts that trump your feelings. There are too many witnesses to the actual event. There are too many people who helped with the clean up. The cover up on this would have to be so massive as to make it impossible.

Where did I state that I have formed a belief? If something doesn't jive with me, I ask questions. And so far, I haven't been impressed.

Bottom line for me: the security tapes were fucked with so that we can't see the point of impact on the Pentagon. They're hiding something. I'm simply not buying into this whole mantra of "oh, it was just cheap, faulty security cameras". Nope. I call bullshit. The Pentagon is the epicenter of the nation's defense system, for fuck's sake. My local gas station has better security cameras than what they claimed to have had.

One other thing: is it wrong for me to assume that you've familiarized yourself with Operation Northwoods?

And please don't accuse me of being non-sensical. OUR GOVERNMENT came up with false flag operations. And I choose to not ignore that fact.

"cheap, faulty security cameras"? It's simple math. Have you ever noticed how video footage of a convenience store hold-up looks like one of those "movies" made by rifling the pages of a series of drawings changed ever so slightly from frame to frame to simulate action? There's a reason for that. With the old videotapes, it was so they could capture more elapsed time; with the newer digital systems, it's for the same reason and the images are lower resolution so they take up less "storage space" (memory).

So the Pentagon cameras were recording one frame per second. When AA 77 was closing in on the Pentagon, its reported speed was in excess of 500 miles per hour. That means the plane was going 500 X 5180 fph, so divided by 60 (mins) than again by 60 (secs), that means the plane was going 719 feet per second. To put that into perspective, a football field is 300 feet long, so in the time that it takes the camera to record one frame, the plane has covered the distance of nearly 2 1/2 football fields. So, if one frame captured an image of the plane that distance away, by the time the next frame would be recorded, the plane has already slammed into the building.

What is so hard to understand about that? Does that mean the security camera was "fucked with" or, is possible that your lack of knowledge has led you to a false conclusion?

Whatever.

Anyway....since you seem to need me to spell this out for you, I will try this one more time:

I don't give a rat's ass about the frames in the video. I am talking about the clock, and how it smoothly counts second after second, until the moment of impact. That is when it suddenly skips time. Watch the clock - it's really that simple.

I don't have the video in front of me, but this is a simple example of what that clock did:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 - number 11 being gone. How convenient that the very second of impact is somehow missing.

Would you agree that "ridicule" is often conveyed through tone and inflection? Would you further agree that one can't really hear tone or inflection online. I responded to the post I responded to and didn't recall your prior post. But, as is the case with the previous situation, I am sure there is a reasonably good explanation for it. Are you open to that.

BTW, you might want to check your own response. I'd say, "Anyway....since you seem to need me to spell this out for you, I will try this one more time:" fairly drips with ridicule.

Will you join me in the truce? You must have read about it. Did you step up to the plate?

BTW, the subject line of your OP doesn't help. It doesn't help at all.

up. Let's stipulate that Bush, acting on Cheney's orders, took the tape and edited to hide something nefarious. Let's stipulate that whatever he edited on that tape would have destroyed his administration. My question for you is how, even if that were true, would it changed or override all the other evidence we have that Flight 77 (A big ass jet and not a missile) hit the pentagon?

We have over 100 eyewitnesses
We have thousands of first responders
We have DNA evidence
We have a missing jet
We have a jet sized hole in the building
We have jet debris with flight 77 id code on them

I know what operation Northwoods was and the fact that parts of the US Government planned to kill civilians and frame people for it is a black mark on our government. So, yes I believe I government could plan something incredibly nefarious and I believe the plan could have come to fruition if someone else was in charge, however that doesn't change the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, for you to believe otherwise is ludicrous. I won't even try to convince you that Bush, Cheney, et al, were part of planning the attacks on 9/11 because I don't have concrete evidence that they were not. I do have concrete evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, your questioning not with standing.

Please show me a reference that plane parts were checked for id codes.

Thank you

But, how about the black box from the plane instead http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6.
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Could you also tell me where you got this specific version from?

This Should give the average thinking person pause when considering the nature of reality as it applies to facts put out in this case.
If someone announces they are gonna try and fool you and you still believe the magic well........

I am a thinking person; although I would consider my self above average.

On 9/11/01 it was reported by the media, not the government, that planes crashed into the two WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and a field in PA. These facts were not gleamed from the government, but from eyewitness accounts. I have relatives that saw the second plane hit the WTC in person, I heard on the radio the second impact as it was reported live, later that day I saw the hole in the side of the Pentagon in person. Over one hundred people witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon. Tens of thousands of people witnessed the plane hit the second tower in New York and it was reported with a live video feed on TV. If you don't believe planes hit the towers and the pentagon you are a fucking idiot, a wackjob, or an ignorant fool. There is no other viable explanation. You can argue that it was a Bush conspiracy and/or that explosives charges brought the buildings down after the plane hit the WTC, but you can not reasonably argue that there were no planes, that a nuclear bomb went off, or that fucking death rays were used from outer space. Those beliefs have no basis in reality; it shows ignorance, willful ignorance, or a lack of a firm grasp of reality.

I do not. The media is a corporate conglomerate of 5 or 6 large corporate octopuses that are mostly heavily invested in the military industrial complex.
I am not a no planer. But i do believe their was some level of Bush administration involvement that has been covered up.

Didn't the Bush Administration do enough evil things that we don't have to make up lame crap to tie onto it?

Is the Bush Administration our sole source of information about what happened on 9/11? No, it's not.

Don't Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dennis Kucinich, and Noam Chomsky all say the same thing we do? Yes, they do.

What "airplane maneuvers" are you talking about? All the hijacker pilots were certified to fly commercial planes.

What kind of horse shit is THAT? ..."that we don't have to make up lame crap to tie onto it?"

What the fuck are you talking about?

"Don't Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dennis Kucinich, and Noam Chomsky all say the same thing we do? Yes, they do."

Uhm... No. No, they DON'T, and who are you to think they DO?

Somebody get some Lysol spray...

:rofl:

Well, whatever floats your boat.

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

that's the problem for, at least, the goofier elements of the "truth movement". Your nonsense is being roundly rejected by most sane people.

None.

maybe you should chill out before you burst a blood vessel.

but over the years, I've found that pretty much every person with whom I've discussed this topic, believe that 9/11 was at LEAST a LIHOP situation. And these people aren't who you would refer to as "truthers". They're just ordinary people with ordinary lives. And when I ask them how they've come to this conclusion, their answers were all very similar:

1. Way too many coincidences.
2. Bush's agenda for war in the Middle East.
3. BushCo's fight to stave off an investigation.
4. Bin Laden's history with the CIA/US.

Also, IIRC, I believe it was the New York Times that had published a poll they had taken of NYers, to see how many NYers felt they were being deceived by BushCo's 9/11 Commission Report, and therefore, desired a new investigation. I remember the number very well: 83% of NYers who took the poll wanted a new investigation.

From all I've heard - from my own circle as well as polls such as I've stated above - I would say that YOU are in the minority.

"Does anyone here like fast food"? With all due respect, that's not a scientifically valid sample. As far as the "NYT Poll", please post a link to the poll in question. I'm fairly certain you're mischaracterizing the poll.

Let me end by addressing the "too many coincidences" claim. Unless you can show some sort of causal connection, I'm not particularly convinced. Any large-scale, catastrophic event is bound to have a many coincidences. You should read up on "the Law of large numbers".

To ride in your cessna and call it a commercial flight.

even more accurate in some cases.

... that "truthers" will randomly be called to jury duty.

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

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

six in this thread
ten times that is not boggling
and we get to go through the rote of atrocities again
boggled, disturbed, offended
is this a drill?
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

:)

Just out of curiosity, who do you suppose was flying the planes, if in fact you believe planes were involved?

The lies and deceptions of the Bush Administration infuriate me, and matter very much to me. It matters to me that many of them are not on their way to prison. How it should then logically follow that I must believe they engineered the 9/11 attacks, is not apparent to me.

I cannot, on the one hand, be angered by the fact that Bush ignored, for example, the August 6 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack The United States", and then conclude that on 9/11 Bin Laden did not attack the United States. Was the August 6 memo an elaborate ruse, in your view?

But I really want your answer to the first question. If, as you assert, tremendous skill was needed to fly airplanes into several of the largest buildings on the planet, then whom do you believe was piloting them?

Clearly that would be the argument.

Is it true? How can we know.

Since it is unknowable, we should agree that it is unknowable and leave it at that.

Not ridicule each other.

CTists are truly delusional.

And not a single troowfer will even think they may have been wrong all these years...



I am beginning to think that most troowfers are fairly simple minded....

The no-planer types are just fucking nuts :rofl: