Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
Perhaps then you might care to answer my question from earlier: name your two best pieces of evidence that Muslims did 911.
Posted by: MJ | February *27*, 2010 3:29 PM
Larry: how about demonstrating:
1) that you won’t just believe anything, and;
2) that you understand how to parse through claims to find out what is based on evidence and what is based on make-believe
by giving us your two best pieces of evidence supporting the official account. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve asked this simple, basic question and it’s getting beyond a joke.
And the same goes for ‘Truthers will fall for anything’; more so really, with a name like that.
Until you do, perhaps you should consider changing your handle to ‘Supporters of the official account don’t even need evidence to believe what they’re told’.
Not so snappy, but closer to the truth I suspect.
Heh dreoilin – you’re just not a very intelligent person. You made up the fact that you met an American who thought that Ireland was part of the UK. You then said that, because of this person that you DID NOT run into, there must be something wrong with the American education system.
Also, dreoilin, why did you believe in the 83 cameras at the Pentagon thing? Is it because you believe anything that dumbass right-wing Americans tell you if it fits your anti-American purposes?
I wish undercover_agent would show back up here and pull his pathetic attempt at being Mr. American Secret Agent Man.
MJ fell for it!
Just like MJ fell for Controlled Demolition Inc. somehow being involved in the destruction of the WTC!
Btw, the claim about Controlled Demolition Inc. comes STRAIGHT from the Alex Jones team!
If Tim McVeigh were still alive, would you also be in bed with him?
Here’s MJ’s main source! Even crazier than most crazy right-wing Americans!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot-AGY8xDqE
My God, he’s desperate not to answer MJ’s question.
Ducking and diving in every direction only the one he was asked.
Larry, hello? MJ asked you a question.
“I wish undercover_agent would show back up here and pull his pathetic attempt at being Mr. American Secret Agent Man.”
🙂
‘Course you do. It would be yet another distraction.
Now could you answer MJ?
“Here’s MJ’s main source!”
My main source for what? Asking you a simple question? Still waiting Larry…
There might be a mix-up between “83 cameras” and “85 videos”:
http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html
Question – isn’t “Men Who Stare at Goats” a comedy?
Bush was panicking post 9/11, the deed had been done and in his opinion there really wasn’t enough solid
evidence to back-up the rouse that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.
Bush pressed Tennet hard to come up with more evidence from the
Zubaydah diary which had been translated by a
CIA team in the first few days after the Shabaz cottage was cleaned out.
But Zubaydah was a fixer, a logistics man.
Tennet knew there was nothing ‘operational’ in the diary,
just fucking nonsense and nothing to link him to the US embassy bombings in
Africa or anything else for that matter.
The administration had created a reality; what it had to avoid in the immediate aftermath of
9/11 was ‘a real attack’ because now that would be a disaster and right now
Bush needed transparency and accountability.
The ‘war on terror’ needed validity.
Bush the ‘wartime’ President wanted freedom from rhetoric and he grasped the opportunity at Greenwich, Connecticut.
In front of a roomful of Republican Party contributors he said,
“The other day we hauled in a guy named Abu Zubaydah.
He’s one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and
destruction on the United States. He’s not plotting and planning anymore.
He’s where he belongs,”
That message was repeated time over by Cheney and Rice in the months that followed.
Dan Coleman told Tenet the diary was bullshit, nothing found and Zubaydah was a nutter.
While Bush was out in public claiming Zubaydah’s grandiose malevolence, we had nothing at Langley.
At one of those high pressure daily briefings, Bush snapped at Tenet,
“You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?”
It was after that meeting that Tenet knew Zubaydah, now fit and well, had to be tortured, had to speak,
had to tell us what we needed. Something he could deliver to Bush and Cheney.
We were worried about misleading the public for no apparent reason except short-term political gain.
Bush had pounded his law advisors for months over the detainment, interrogation,
and prosecution of captives in the “war on terror” as well as debates over which ‘debriefing’ techniques
would work most effectively on al Qaeda.
The United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then fuckingleap,
screaming, at every fucking word he uttered.
Zubaydah was waterboarded creating a sensation of drowning. He was punched in the stomach,
he was repeatedly threatened witha gun, and made certain of his impending death. His pain medication was withheld.
He was bombarded with deafening, continuous noise and harsh flashing lights.
He was, as a man already diminished
by serious injuries, more fully at the mercy of interrogators than an ordinary prisoner.
Under this duress, Zubaydah told them everything
they wanted and every city in America was put on high alert.
Fuck you Larry – I was trying to use Brit talk – We will meet soon – conspiraloon!
Agent Coulson
Fascinating. And Blair and our dear rulers were, and are, in bed with these guys. No, sorry, correction: they are waiting hand-and-foot on their masters. Top-class butlers, m’lud, top-class butlers.
Aha! Agent Coulson arrived as desired!
I think you’re going to look a fool if you don’t answer MJ, Larry.
(Even more so if you start posting as Anonymous)
So why not respond to his question? Are you not able to, Larry?
You mean you don’t have your own theory on how it all happened, after all?
I’m keeping an eye on ‘9/11 Debunking for Dummies’. This ‘Coulson’ guy is most likely your back-up — or even yourself. Pretend arguments are a great distraction. ‘Agent Coulson’ my arse.
What’s needed is your best two piece of evidence for the Arabs, Larry!?
Now, don’t you think that ‘Agent Coulson’ would know that George Tenet’s name was spelled with one “n”?
“which had been translated by a CIA team”
LOL! So tell me, how many translators did you have at that time, exactly? Because you were distinctly short of them in Baghdad when you built the Embassy and staffed it.
“Fuck you Larry – I was trying to use Brit talk”
Why? How idiotic! LOL! And you called me a liar.
————————–
Larry, MJ is still waiting!
Dreoilin,
Anonymous above (two posts) was me. Coulson speaks sense – look up Zubaydah. “Agent Coulson” is a character from Marvel comics.
I’m not sure that Larry is alright in the head…
Clark,
You could well be right about Larry.
I doubt if “undercover agents” post on public blogs though. Unless they have a 100%-absolutely-untraceable connection, and nothing better to do. All that material about Zubaydah is on the web.
Sorry, Clark, you posted this?
“There might be a mix-up between “83 cameras” and ’85 videos'”
Not on my part. I had said ‘approximately 83’ (I had read 83 somewhere) when I asked Larry for a photograph or video frame of the plane going into the Pentagon. Naturally he supplied no link to a picture, but still persisted in asking me for a source for the 83 — as if it was sacrosanct.
Must go to bed, I’m exhausted today!
Anyway, I think we can assume Larry isn’t prepared to state the evidence for his case.
I can’t say I blame him really because it is laughably feeble. The two best (indeed only) pieces of hard evidence that support the official story are:
1) a couple of holdalls found at Logan airport allegedly containing flying manuals, a letter and some wills, pilots’ uniforms and copies of the Koran, and
2) those cellphone calls from Barbara Olson on AA77 and various passengers on UA93.
The problem with the holdalls is that it sounds suspiciously like planted evidence. The problem with the phone calls is that it wasn’t possible in 2001 to get a connection with a cellphone from a plane flying above 8000 ft or so and faster than 250 mph. This is why the FBI quietly ditched most of that evidence in its submissions to the Moussavi trial.
This then is why critics of the official account are often to be found discussing physics, while the would-be debunkers are reduced to little more than personal abuse and name-calling. This is why the would-be debunkers tend to run away whenever they are asked to defend their own position.
The reason the majority of people still believe the official is not because of the evidence that supports it but because it has simply been repeated ad nauseum by the MSM. That’s often called brainwashing.
Yet one indignant supporter of the official account on this thread amusingly calls himself ‘Truthers will fall for anything’!
Here’s Steven Jones!
The Truther’s top scientific mind on Haitian oil and “generated crises”.
http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/02/steven-jones-flirts-with-haarp.html
LOL!
?1) a couple of holdalls found at Logan airport allegedly containing flying manuals, a letter and some wills, pilots’ uniforms and copies of the Koran, and
2) those cellphone calls from Barbara Olson on AA77 and various passengers on UA93.?
No, the problem is that there isn?t an ?official story?. There are vast amounts of overlapping pieces of evidence that explain what happened on that day.
There were phone calls from EVERY plane, not just one from Barbara Olson on AA77 and some from UA93. Conspiracy theorists like to comb through them to pick up anomalies that they seem to believe proves an inside job. Apparently, if various people making phonecalls on that chaotic and no doubt terrifying day don?t agree on every detail that Truthers think they should agree on then that proves the government brought down the Twin Towers with nanothermite after flying something that wasn?t a passenger plane into one of the towers. (Or something. I can?t make out what it is that Truthers believe most of the time).
I?ve gone over this numerous times how the suspects were identified. Much of it no doubt came from a process of elimination as well as other evidence that agreed with it (such as the holdalls which probably don?t figure as the major evidence). By the way, MJ, do you know why any of their bags were held off the plane?
dreoilin – you got the number 83 from right-wing American conspiracy-mongers. Google it. Apparently you’ll believe anything that those crazies write.
“The reason the majority of people still believe the official is not because of the evidence that supports it but because it has simply been repeated ad nauseum by the MSM. That’s often called brainwashing.”
Is that you morons always go around chanting: “9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!”
And continue bringing up the long-debunked canards about freefall, cellphones, flight manifests, nanothermite, explosive demolitions, no plane at the Pentagon, no Tom and Jerry shape on the Pentagon wall etc…etc…?
The reason most people don’t believe conspiracy theory drivel is because the conspiracy theories are incoherent drivel.
Despite what you appear to believe about the monolithic nature of the Mainstream Media, 9/11 conspiraloons have had many platforms both in the “mainstream media” and on the Internet in which to spout their nonsense. The nonsense lost.
“There were phone calls from EVERY plane”
No. Apart from those mentioned there was allegedly a long call from a stewardess on AA11 to a booking clerk at Logan. None from UA175 however.
“Conspiracy theorists like to comb through them to pick up anomalies”
The fact that the cellphone calls were impossible is quite an anomaly!
“There are vast amounts of overlapping pieces of evidence that explain what happened on that day”
Is that right? You ought to tell some of your like-minded pals on this thread about it. They all skidaddled when I asked them for the best bits.
“the holdalls which probably don?t figure as the major evidence”
Do you recall how the FBI came up with the whole story within 48 hours? That’s solely because of the names on the wills and letter found in the holdalls.
“do you know why any of their bags were held off the plane?”
One was found in an abandoned hire-car in the Logan car park. It wasn’t so much a case of ‘held off’ as ‘forgot to take on’. The other was Atta’s and we are led to believe that it was mistakenly not transferred to AA11 when he switched from the Portland plane. These things happen. It happened to me once and I was bloody annoyed.
“No. Apart from those mentioned there was allegedly a long call from a stewardess on AA11 to a booking clerk at Logan. None from UA175 however.”
Look, MJ. In two seconds of Googling I can find phonecalls from all of the flights. Even posted by a Troofer looking for anomalies. Betty Ong’s phonecall from AA11 is in the public domain. At least part of it.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/phonecalls.html
“Is that right? You ought to tell some of your like-minded pals on this thread about it. They all skidaddled when I asked them for the best bits.”
More phonecalls:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=complete_911_timeline_alleged_passenger_phone_calls&timeline=complete_911_timeline
EVERY flight had phonecalls made from it.
There were also recordings of things spoken by the hijackers as well.
“long-debunked canards about freefall…”
Long debunked? The speed of the towers’ collapses has yet to be adequately explained.
“…cellphones”
Long debunked? Hardly. No-one seriously argues these days that cellphone calls could have been made at that speed and altitude.
“…flight manifests”
Long debunked? These documents have never been made public.
“…nanothermite”
Long debunked? The discovery of thermite in the dust is rather significant.
“…no plane at the Pentagon, no Tom and Jerry shape on the Pentagon wall”
Long debunked? Here’s a good photo of the impact point: http://tinyurl.com/yhac8zb . No plane wreckage to be seen. No hole for it to have passed through. Do you not see the problem here?
?The speed of the towers’ collapses has yet to be adequately explained.?
What would count as ?adequately explained? for you? Leslie Robertson who built the bloody things has said that even floor would have given way ?instantly? or as far as human perception is concerned ?instantly?. It is strange that Truthers like to pretend that the collapse of WTC7 ?” the so-called ?smoking gun? – was covered up by the mainstream media (a lie, of course as it was filmed and reported on at the time and plenty of video evidence exists of it) but the one thing that was VERY, VERY publicly broadcast was the collapse of the towers and yet all but a handful of crappy architects (mostly software) engineers seem to have no problem with the explanation of how the towers came down and don?t think of them as controlled demolitions.
?Hardly. No-one seriously argues these days that cellphone calls could have been made at that speed and altitude.?
Popular Mechanics debunked this in 2006.
?First, communications experts state that cell phone conversations at such altitudes are quite possible. Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at CTIA-The Wireless Association, said, ?Cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet [10,670 meters].? Paul Guckian, vice president of engineering for cell phone maker Qualcomm, stated, ?At the altitude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet [9,145 to 10,670 meters], [some] phones would still get a signal.? (Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics, pp. 83-84.)?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=10830&start=40
?These documents have never been made public.?
Yes, they have. You can see them in Terry McDermott?s book, Perfect Soldiers, about the hijackers. I?ve shown them to you. You didn?t believe they were manifests. You seem to forget that the whole reason there ever was a question about the manifests is because David Ray Griffin couldn?t find the hijackers names on CNN?s victims list because he evidently didn?t realize the hijackers weren?t classed as victims. Do you really have so much trouble with that? You seem to believe the Dubai hospital story without very much evidence.
?The discovery of thermite in the dust is rather significant.?
The discovery that Steven Jones is loonytunes is also significant. What do you think of his recent belief that Haiti has more oil than Venezuala and the US may have ?generated a crisis? with the earthquake?
?No plane wreckage to be seen. No hole for it to have passed through. Do you not see the problem here??
There was plenty of wreckage found and plenty of witnesses saw it. There is even a book out by firefighters who helped put out the blaze who describe what they saw. The remains of all passengers were found except those of Dana Falkenberg. Care to explain why they left her off and yet claimed to have found all the others?
Good morning, everyone. And Goodnight, good afternoon and good evening… as the Truman Show used to say!