Please feel free to start and participate in other threads if this one puts you to sleep.
You are one of the people on here I respect most, hailhail ... But I will admit that this kind of topic is very hard for me to discuss without some sort of negative remark ... I don't know ... I have trouble putting any stock in 9-11 conpiracies right now, given the absense of decent evidence. Until decent evidence emerges, the whole enterprise just strikes me as ... I don't know ... offensive and odd. I know that's not your intent with this thread ... Just saying that I can see where the negative reactions come from.
i mean, i agree with you, but the evidence is Everywhere.
peace
lz
Depends on your definition of evidence, I suppose. I don't consider circumstantial evidence and speculation to be enough to draw a definitive conclusion.
4. Other video footage from various sources surrounding the Pentagon. I've heard, and I assume, that there must have been other cameras pointed towards the Pentagon. One can only hope! Heh!! It is the Pentagon after all...
This article says there are 85 confiscated tapes of the Pentagon attack (lawsuits are underway to have them released).
The FBI says that only 13 of them actually show the buildings, 12 of which show the building only after impact. They say the only video showing the impact is the one they released (was it three frames?) The most secure building in the world, and only one camera pointed at it? And why not release the other tapes if they don't even show the building?
There were several traffic cameras pointed at the Pentagon that day, but none of them had film in them.
The article also mentions the “straw man” that this could be providing to discredit the 9/11 truth movement…..if people focus too much on this and make it one of the main reasons for not believing the official story, then the tapes are released clearly showing a plane, it could discredit the whole movement in the eyes of the average citizen. Like the article says, there are unanswered questions about the Pentagon that need to be investigated, but we should be focusing more on things like WTC7.
again, how is this a crediable source. wtc7.net is made by a guy name jim hoffman. (according to the site)
who is jim hoffman? i have no idea. all of a sudden cuz jim hoffman says its true, it is?
sorry i need more then that to believe the government had part of 9/11, in any way at all
and rinf.com? never heard of it sorry. I like to get my information from the 9/11 commission report. IMO, some very smart honest people worked on it.
Some very smart people also worked on the Warren Commission after the assassination of President Kennedy, and there are holes all over that report too.
There are too many holes in the official story to ignore. It's like they are asking to us to believe a bullet made 7 seperate wounds in 2 individuals and fell out on a stretcher in perfect shape.
Depends on your definition of evidence, I suppose. I don't consider circumstantial evidence and speculation to be enough to draw a definitive conclusion.
What do you need for good evidence? The new recipient of 7 billion dollars to say "yep we did it"? I have a feeling that even then many Americans would have a hard time changing their minds that there was an Attack on US citizens by its government. As I've mentioned before most modern societies have had governments commit terrible attrocities on their own people what would make our government and the people in power in this country behave any differently?
With the combination of circumstantial evidence, evidence provided by physics professors (what makes it so hard to believe a prof. who spends her/his life on studying just this sort of stuff?), post 9/11 governmental actions, harms to our freedom, etc. that would never have flown prior to this it makes too much sense that those who have the power and received more power, freedom, and money to have committed this act rather than 19 men trained by the CIA.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...feel free to add to my list...there are so many.
1. Where are the pics of the bodies / body parts AFTER they hit the ground from jumping out of the twin towers. You know someone took pics of that. I don't delight in seeing them, but nothing has ever been released.
What do you need for good evidence? The new recipient of 7 billion dollars to say "yep we did it"? I have a feeling that even then many Americans would have a hard time changing their minds that there was an Attack on US citizens by its government. As I've mentioned before most modern societies have had governments commit terrible attrocities on their own people what would make our government and the people in power in this country behave any differently?
With the combination of circumstantial evidence, evidence provided by physics professors (what makes it so hard to believe a prof. who spends her/his life on studying just this sort of stuff?), post 9/11 governmental actions, harms to our freedom, etc. that would never have flown prior to this it makes too much sense that those who have the power and received more power, freedom, and money to have committed this act rather than 19 men trained by the CIA.
This evidence from physics professors has been de-bunked, repeatedly ... Yet people ignore the counterarguments and continue to cite this so-called evidence. And nor are post 9-11 actions on the part of the U.S. government good evidence, and I think you know better than that. Taking advantage of terrorism and behind behind it are two different things.
And no, any presumably guilty party here is unlikely to confess, although surely these people left some kind of trail. It shouldn't be too unreasonable to wait for such evidence to surface BEFORE drawing such firm conclusions. People are letting mistrust of Bush (a mistrust that is often justifiable, IMHO) cloud their judgment here.
I just don't get how a building could freefall like that?!?! If it was slamming down pancake style wouldn't it take a moment to thud knock down the next level etc. etc. it moved as if there was NO resistance, when clearly any theory which 'debunks' the implosion theory necessarily means that there had to be some resistance, hence longer falling time. But, again, some people will refuse to believe that our government would do it, in the face of all evidence. BTW, besides popular mechanics, how/where else was this debunked?
What proof? I have seen the video, and not only is their no actual proof, the claims made have been refuted by people on this board in earlier posts.
well, id like to see where people refuted that particular part,... must have missed that.
also, you are telling me that those columns being clean cut at an angle with molten metal solidified down the side isn't evidence of an explosive device? how does the pancake theory explain that? come one man, you gotta be kidding,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
well, id like to see where people refuted that particular part,... must have missed that.
also, you are telling me that those columns being clean cut at an angle with molten metal solidified down the side isn't evidence of an explosive device? how does the pancake theory explain that? come one man, you gotta be kidding,...
Man, how do you people sleep at night ... Fuck ... The furnace kicks in, and you probably jump out of bed ready for World War III. Anyhow, from commentary I've heard (from engineers and other sources), the metal basically broke, a stress fracture. Temperatures got high enough to cause said fracture. And yes, metal can indeed break that way. Also, explosives aren't a giant magical pair of metal-cutting scissors ... I don't know why something has to be evidence of explosives simply because it broke.
Sorry, I guess I missed the news. Case closed, clearly it was the U.S. government. The masses are ignorant, blah blah blah.
it's hard to sleep at night knowing we are getting fucked at every corner. how do you sleep at night knowing this stuff?
I don't fully trust ANY government, let alone the American one ... But I don't think there is any strong reason to believe that they did this at this point in time. The quality of the evidence is poor. I try to look at everything with an open mind ... Maybe it WAS some inside job. The evidence will suggest this eventually, if indeed it was. Right now, both the official account and the conspiracy theories have holes.
Man, how do you people sleep at night ... Fuck ... The furnace kicks in, and you probably jump out of bed ready for World War III. Anyhow, from commentary I've heard (from engineers and other sources), the metal basically broke, a stress fracture. Temperatures got high enough to cause said fracture. And yes, metal can indeed break that way. Also, explosives aren't a giant magical pair of metal-cutting scissors ... I don't know why something has to be evidence of explosives simply because it broke.
Sorry, I guess I missed the news. Case closed, clearly it was the U.S. government. The masses are ignorant, blah blah blah.
i think you might have overreacted just a little.
so the metal just snapped, eh? i mean, i guess. im not saying that it couldn't have happened, but it seems pretty farfetched.
and seriously, chill out with the PAIR-UH-NOY-UH talk. just because someone second guesses a theory, it doesn't mean that they are a fucking fruit cake man.
anyways,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
so the metal just snapped, eh? i mean, i guess. im not saying that it couldn't have happened, but it seems pretty farfetched.
and seriously, chill out with the PAIR-UH-NOY-UH talk. just because someone second guesses a theory, it doesn't mean that they are a fucking fruit cake man.
anyways,...
You second-guessed a theory? That's pretty strong second guessing. Anyhow, sorry. I've probably had too many of these discussions to be very rational about this topic. I admit that its an emotional one for me, and I really don't want to let the people who most likely commited this crime totally off the hook ... I think that's my basic issue. I need more than speculation and circumstantial evidence to really go along with this stuff.
You second-guessed a theory? That's pretty strong second guessing. Anyhow, sorry. I've probably had too many of these discussions to be very rational about this topic. I admit that its an emotional one for me, and I really don't want to let the people who most likely commited this crime totally off the hook ... I think that's my basic issue. I need more than speculation and circumstantial evidence to really go along with this stuff.
You seem pretty openminded about stuff so what would actually make you change your mind? I mean the guy who owns the buildings stated explicitly that they "pulled" the #7 tower. If he said the same about the WTC would you believe it?
You second-guessed a theory? That's pretty strong second guessing. Anyhow, sorry. I've probably had too many of these discussions to be very rational about this topic. I admit that its an emotional one for me, and I really don't want to let the people who most likely commited this crime totally off the hook ... I think that's my basic issue. I need more than speculation and circumstantial evidence to really go along with this stuff.
ok, not buying a theory because i think it's bullshit. nothing adds up. if it doesn't pass the smell test, then it probably isn't right. i might search a little and exploit something if it works for an alternative theory. but seriously, it could easily go towards my side. look at that metal column. it doesn't LOOK like it just snapped. it looks like it was cut with a "metal cutter of some type" and some of it melted too. (so i presume it was an explosive device that probably had some type of thermate reaction) and plus, it's not like it's just one column that looks that way. trust me, it would be a lot easier for me if the official story added up. but it doesn't, in my opinion,... and obviously a lot of other people. i don't know. it makes me sick to my stomache sometimes,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
and it's not like our leaders have done all they can to make this world a better place. they have been sneaky shady little fuckers with some bullshit agendas, and they have been making a lot of money. fuck the commission report, fuck the nist report. fuck the conspiracy theories. fuck oil, fuck the pope, fuck "islamic whatever", fuck the red vs. blue, fuck global warming/cooling, and fuck people who don't like pearl jam,... fuck it all.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Man, how do you people sleep at night ... Fuck ... The furnace kicks in, and you probably jump out of bed ready for World War III. Anyhow, from commentary I've heard (from engineers and other sources), the metal basically broke, a stress fracture. Temperatures got high enough to cause said fracture. And yes, metal can indeed break that way. Also, explosives aren't a giant magical pair of metal-cutting scissors ... I don't know why something has to be evidence of explosives simply because it broke.
Sorry, I guess I missed the news. Case closed, clearly it was the U.S. government. The masses are ignorant, blah blah blah.
i noticed you keep forgetting to reply to his question about what made the stell melt at the breaking points?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
What do you need for good evidence? The new recipient of 7 billion dollars to say "yep we did it"? I have a feeling that even then many Americans would have a hard time changing their minds that there was an Attack on US citizens by its government. As I've mentioned before most modern societies have had governments commit terrible attrocities on their own people what would make our government and the people in power in this country behave any differently?
With the combination of circumstantial evidence, evidence provided by physics professors (what makes it so hard to believe a prof. who spends her/his life on studying just this sort of stuff?), post 9/11 governmental actions, harms to our freedom, etc. that would never have flown prior to this it makes too much sense that those who have the power and received more power, freedom, and money to have committed this act rather than 19 men trained by the CIA.
there was a peice in the wall street journal claiming the head of the isi <pakistans cia, they played the middle man between us and some other countries and ppl like bin laden and al-zawhiri in the 80's> sent $100,000 to mohammed atta shortly before 9/11....
it was also reported elsewhere that pakistan lobbied <ie bribed> the 9/11 commission to downplay pakistan and in a lot of cases take their names completely out in report
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I think I have at least one more thing to say about this thermite business ... Let's say there WERE strips placed there. I mean, there's no real proof at this time beyond this mystery melting (which could have been impurities in the steel extruded though the break), but let's say. Now, who put them there? How do you know it wasn't a terrorist? I mean, they planned this thing quite well ... They couldn't have had guys on the ground do it? I had to be some American capitalist's thug, right?
I think I have at least one more thing to say about this thermite business ... Let's say there WERE strips placed there. I mean, there's no real proof at this time beyond this mystery melting (which could have been impurities in the steel extruded though the break), but let's say. Now, who put them there? How do you know it wasn't a terrorist? I mean, they planned this thing quite well ... They couldn't have had guys on the ground do it? I had to be some American capitalist's thug, right?
im pretty sure they found unexplainable traces of sulphur (add sulphur, thermite becomes thermate, right?), but i don't have a source. i know it's there though. say, if there were explosives,... listen to the guys on abook's movie. two seperate floors were empty, yet they heard mysterious noises. there was the big powerdown and evacuations that were unprecedented beforehand where they said mysterious men entered and left as they pleased. so we could speculate when and how,...
who, dont' know, and it would be easier for me to swallow if they were terrorists,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
im pretty sure they found unexplainable traces of sulphur (add sulphur, thermite becomes thermate, right?), but i don't have a source. i know it's there though. say, if there were explosives,... listen to the guys on abook's movie. two seperate floors were empty, yet they heard mysterious noises. there was the big powerdown and evacuations that were unprecedented beforehand where they said mysterious men entered and left as they pleased. so we could speculate when and how,...
who, dont' know, and it would be easier for me to swallow if they were terrorists,...
well, the weekend before 9/11 <which was on a tuesday> they shut down the power on floors 48 and up to perform a cable upgrade...seems like the perfect time to do it...no cameras or other security devices working up there...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
why the towers free fell. that is one of the most fucked up things that nobody ever touches on. very disturbing.
I know. To have a 'pancake' effect, there has to be actual time accounted for the impact created from each floor on top hitting the one below it... or at least I would think so.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I know. To have a 'pancake' effect, there has to be actual time accounted for the impact created from each floor on top hitting the one below it... or at least I would think so.
Thank You! I have said that since I saw it happen. Loose Change mentions it. I have not heard one believeable explaination yet.
Has anyone seen debris from flight 93 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I saw a burnt black spot in a field. Nothing more. No wing. No tail. No tire. No engine. No nothing.
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
There is a book out called "9/11 Comission: Omissions and Distortions"
The author details all of the lies, omissions and distortions in the official 9/11 comission report. A lot of testimonies and physical evidence were omitted from the report and other facts were distorted to support their agenda. It's clearly the result of coming up with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence, rather than looking at the evidence and finding the truth.
The author doesn't claim 9/11 was an inside job or that the U.S. government had anything to do with the 9/11 events. He is simply pointing out the fact that the 9/11 comission report is a lie.
The author is Professor David Ray Griffin.
Several government officials have come out and made the same claims.
Claims the commission was used for partisan purposes
Some conservatives believe that the Democratic Party used the commission for partisan advantage during the 2004 election campaign. Rather than focusing equally on all factors, critics predicted that Congressional Democrats would ignore any policy errors made by Bill Clinton while emphasizing the mistakes of President Bush[12].
In contrast, many opponents of the Bush administration believe that the commission was set up to perform a superficial examination of the background of the attacks, thereby meeting public demands for an investigation while still preventing any substantive examination. Also they argue that Republicans on the commission and in Congress ignored mistakes of the Bush admistration while exaggerating those made by former President Clinton.
Four books that critique the official Commission are Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert[13], The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute, by Paul Thompson[14], The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report by David Ray Griffin[15], and Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror, by Peter Lance[16]. All describe severe conflicts of interest that the Commissioners had and point out problems in the official narrative that suggest the attacks were allowed to happen in order to achieve long-sought policy changes (the Iraq war and "Homeland Security").
Newsweek, in late February, 2006, reported that a draft of the 9/11 Commission Report expressed skepticism about Dick Cheney's claim to have spoken with President Bush before giving an order to shoot down United Flight 93. According to Newsweek, White House officials successfully fought to have those parts of the report toned down[17].
Claims of bias within the commission
Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice. Both the Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, without success. (Philip D. Zelikow).
In addition, many members had ties which could be viewed as conflicts of interest.
Members of the 9/11 commission. Top row: Ben-Veniste, Lehman, Roemer, Thompson, Kerrey, Gorton. Bottom row: Fielding, Hamilton (Vice-Chairman), Kean (Chairman), Gorelick.Thomas Kean has served on the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad. Kean also has a history of investments that link him to Saudi Arabian investors who have financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past. One example is his former business connections to Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier. He was also at one point or still is on the board of Pepsi Bottling, Amerada Hess, UnitedHealth Group, CIT Group and Aramark.
Fred F. Fielding has done legal work for two of Bush's leading "Pioneer" fund-raisers. Fielding also works for a law firm lobbying for Spirit Airlines and United Airlines.
Slade Gorton has close ties to Boeing, which built all the planes destroyed on 9/11, and his law firm represents several major airlines, including Delta Air Lines.
James Thompson is the head of a law firm that lobbies for American Airlines, and he has previously represented United Airlines.
Richard Ben-Veniste has represented Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and continues to represent Boeing and United Airlines.
Max Cleland, former U.S. Senator, has received $300,000 from the airline industry. He has since resigned from the commission.
Lee Hamilton sits on many advisory boards, including those to the CIA, the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.
Tim Roemer represents Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). She also is on the board of United Technologies.
The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission maintained its neutrality.
Claims of lack of cooperation from the White House
In April 2002, Bush said that the investigation into 9/11 should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. [3]. But by September, the White House came under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims' families [4]. In response, President Bush finally agreed to the creation of an independent 9/11 commission. [5] But many 9/11 victims' families believed that the scope of the investigation by the Commission did not go far enough in investigating the U.S. government's failures because the Commission was not to investigate intelligence failures[6].
However, the White House insisted that it was to appoint the commission's chair, leading some to question the commission's independence. The initial person appointed to head the commission, Henry Kissinger, has been accused by many of having been involved in past government coverups in South America (specifically, the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile).
Even after Kissinger resigned, the White House was often cited as having attempted to block the release of information to the commission [7] and for refusing to give interviews without tight conditions attached (leading to threats to subpoena [8]). The Bush Administration has further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million [9]), and by giving the commission a very short deadline. The White House insists that they have given the commission "unprecedented cooperation".
While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions:
They would be allowed to testify jointly;
They would not be required to take an oath before testifying;
The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;
These notes would not be made public.
The commission agreed to these conditions, and the President and Vice President gave their testimony on April 29.
Commissioners Suspected the Pentagon was Deceiving the Commission
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington, D.C..
The Commission reported a year later that audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center. (Washington Post, August 2, 2006, [10] For example, Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not even hijacked until 12 minutes later. According to later testimony, the military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the FAA and Norad to release evidence such as audiotapes. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, said in an August 2006 interview. (Washington Post, August 2, 2006)[11].
Claims that the investigation lacked adequate funds
". . .Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million."
from David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. p.284
Claims the commission ignored or censored key government evidence
Former FBI, NSA and other federal intelligence experts claim the 9/11 Commission report was fundamentally flawed because the 9/11 Commission refused to hear, ignored, or censored testimony about the many pre-September 11 warnings given to the the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11 regarding the 9/11 plot[18].
Claims the commission ignored information regarding Able Danger
The reputation and credibility of the commission has recently been damaged by evidence of a lack of thoroughness or possibly a coverup. In August 2005, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer claimed he had informed 9/11 Commission Executive Director Dr. Philip D. Zelikow about a highly classified data-mining project called Able Danger that had identified two of the three terrorist cells responsible for 9/11. Shaffer said Dr. Zelikow was initially very interested and gave Shaffer his card to contact him again. However, Shaffer claims when he contacted Dr. Zelikow, he was no longer interested in information about Able Danger[19]. The commission later issued a response saying they found Shaffer "not sufficiently reliable" and the information was "lacking historical significance" and did not warrant further investigation. [20] Subsequently, four additional "credible witnesses" have come forward to support Shaffer's account of Able Danger[21].
Former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the Commission, said: "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us." A search for documents on Able Danger has not been very productive, leading U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) to speculate that a coverup may have occurred[22]. The Pentagon investigated the matter and has not been able to find any documentary evidence confirming the allegations[23]. Pentagon spokesman Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz said: "We've interviewed 80 people involved with Able Danger, combed through hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of e-mails and have still found no documentation of Mohamed Atta." But Weldon claims that the Pentagon ordered the destruction of a large volume of documents related to Able Danger[24].
Claims of gentle treatment of Rudy Giuliani
Commissioners Thomas Kean, a Republican, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, disclosed in their 2006 book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (ISBN 0-307-26377-0) that the Commission did not pursue a tough enough line of questioning with former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani because its members feared public anger if they challenged him.
"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani. We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote. As the New York Times reported, "The commission’s gentle questioning of Mr. Giuliani during his May 19, 2004, testimony at the New School University in Greenwich Village was "a low point" in its handling of witnesses at its public hearings, they wrote."[3]
The authors assert that the commission had failed to ask Giuliani more probing questions partly because of criticism of a comment by fellow commissioner John F. Lehman. At the hearing on 18 May, the day before Giuliani's testimony, Lehman stated that New York’s disaster-response plans were "not worthy of the Boy Scouts, let alone this great city." The following morning, the cover of The New York Post displayed a photograph of a firefighter kneeling at the World Trade Center site, captioned with the single word "Insult" above.
The commission has been criticized for its delicate treatment of Giuliani by some relatives of 9/11 victims. The New York Times reported that during his testimony at the public hearing, Giuliani and others were interrupted by audience members imploring commissioners to ask the former mayor about trouble with radio communications and other problems the day of the attack. One man shouted, "My brother was a fireman, and I want to know why 300 firemen died," adding, "Let’s ask some real questions. Is that unfair?" Several people were removed from the hearing.[3]
The book does not, however, criticize Giuliani's testimony itself. The authors said he "spoke calmly and articulately, and with emotion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
You are one of the people on here I respect most, hailhail ... But I will admit that this kind of topic is very hard for me to discuss without some sort of negative remark ... I don't know ... I have trouble putting any stock in 9-11 conpiracies right now, given the absense of decent evidence. Until decent evidence emerges, the whole enterprise just strikes me as ... I don't know ... offensive and odd. I know that's not your intent with this thread ... Just saying that I can see where the negative reactions come from.
Depends on your definition of evidence, I suppose. I don't consider circumstantial evidence and speculation to be enough to draw a definitive conclusion.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm
This article says there are 85 confiscated tapes of the Pentagon attack (lawsuits are underway to have them released).
The FBI says that only 13 of them actually show the buildings, 12 of which show the building only after impact. They say the only video showing the impact is the one they released (was it three frames?) The most secure building in the world, and only one camera pointed at it? And why not release the other tapes if they don't even show the building?
There were several traffic cameras pointed at the Pentagon that day, but none of them had film in them.
The article also mentions the “straw man” that this could be providing to discredit the 9/11 truth movement…..if people focus too much on this and make it one of the main reasons for not believing the official story, then the tapes are released clearly showing a plane, it could discredit the whole movement in the eyes of the average citizen. Like the article says, there are unanswered questions about the Pentagon that need to be investigated, but we should be focusing more on things like WTC7.
Some very smart people also worked on the Warren Commission after the assassination of President Kennedy, and there are holes all over that report too.
There are too many holes in the official story to ignore. It's like they are asking to us to believe a bullet made 7 seperate wounds in 2 individuals and fell out on a stretcher in perfect shape.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
With the combination of circumstantial evidence, evidence provided by physics professors (what makes it so hard to believe a prof. who spends her/his life on studying just this sort of stuff?), post 9/11 governmental actions, harms to our freedom, etc. that would never have flown prior to this it makes too much sense that those who have the power and received more power, freedom, and money to have committed this act rather than 19 men trained by the CIA.
Do you mean videos like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Y3r36PZBk
CAUTION: Pretty graphic stuff
There you go, bodies, body parts, people hitting the ground.
I don't quite understand how not having seen this would make a person go 'hmmmm'.
This evidence from physics professors has been de-bunked, repeatedly ... Yet people ignore the counterarguments and continue to cite this so-called evidence. And nor are post 9-11 actions on the part of the U.S. government good evidence, and I think you know better than that. Taking advantage of terrorism and behind behind it are two different things.
And no, any presumably guilty party here is unlikely to confess, although surely these people left some kind of trail. It shouldn't be too unreasonable to wait for such evidence to surface BEFORE drawing such firm conclusions. People are letting mistrust of Bush (a mistrust that is often justifiable, IMHO) cloud their judgment here.
watch the video 'abook' posted at about 49 min 50 seconds. if that isn't proof of explosives, then what is it?
~Ron Burgundy
What proof? I have seen the video, and not only is their no actual proof, the claims made have been refuted by people on this board in earlier posts.
well, id like to see where people refuted that particular part,... must have missed that.
also, you are telling me that those columns being clean cut at an angle with molten metal solidified down the side isn't evidence of an explosive device? how does the pancake theory explain that? come one man, you gotta be kidding,...
~Ron Burgundy
Man, how do you people sleep at night ... Fuck ... The furnace kicks in, and you probably jump out of bed ready for World War III. Anyhow, from commentary I've heard (from engineers and other sources), the metal basically broke, a stress fracture. Temperatures got high enough to cause said fracture. And yes, metal can indeed break that way. Also, explosives aren't a giant magical pair of metal-cutting scissors ... I don't know why something has to be evidence of explosives simply because it broke.
Sorry, I guess I missed the news. Case closed, clearly it was the U.S. government. The masses are ignorant, blah blah blah.
I don't fully trust ANY government, let alone the American one ... But I don't think there is any strong reason to believe that they did this at this point in time. The quality of the evidence is poor. I try to look at everything with an open mind ... Maybe it WAS some inside job. The evidence will suggest this eventually, if indeed it was. Right now, both the official account and the conspiracy theories have holes.
i think you might have overreacted just a little.
so the metal just snapped, eh? i mean, i guess. im not saying that it couldn't have happened, but it seems pretty farfetched.
and seriously, chill out with the PAIR-UH-NOY-UH talk. just because someone second guesses a theory, it doesn't mean that they are a fucking fruit cake man.
anyways,...
~Ron Burgundy
You second-guessed a theory? That's pretty strong second guessing. Anyhow, sorry. I've probably had too many of these discussions to be very rational about this topic. I admit that its an emotional one for me, and I really don't want to let the people who most likely commited this crime totally off the hook ... I think that's my basic issue. I need more than speculation and circumstantial evidence to really go along with this stuff.
ok, not buying a theory because i think it's bullshit. nothing adds up. if it doesn't pass the smell test, then it probably isn't right. i might search a little and exploit something if it works for an alternative theory. but seriously, it could easily go towards my side. look at that metal column. it doesn't LOOK like it just snapped. it looks like it was cut with a "metal cutter of some type" and some of it melted too. (so i presume it was an explosive device that probably had some type of thermate reaction) and plus, it's not like it's just one column that looks that way. trust me, it would be a lot easier for me if the official story added up. but it doesn't, in my opinion,... and obviously a lot of other people. i don't know. it makes me sick to my stomache sometimes,...
~Ron Burgundy
~Ron Burgundy
i noticed you keep forgetting to reply to his question about what made the stell melt at the breaking points?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
there was a peice in the wall street journal claiming the head of the isi <pakistans cia, they played the middle man between us and some other countries and ppl like bin laden and al-zawhiri in the 80's> sent $100,000 to mohammed atta shortly before 9/11....
it was also reported elsewhere that pakistan lobbied <ie bribed> the 9/11 commission to downplay pakistan and in a lot of cases take their names completely out in report
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I don't know ... Heat? From a source besides explosives?
Act like a smartass, expect a smart ass reply.
im pretty sure they found unexplainable traces of sulphur (add sulphur, thermite becomes thermate, right?), but i don't have a source. i know it's there though. say, if there were explosives,... listen to the guys on abook's movie. two seperate floors were empty, yet they heard mysterious noises. there was the big powerdown and evacuations that were unprecedented beforehand where they said mysterious men entered and left as they pleased. so we could speculate when and how,...
who, dont' know, and it would be easier for me to swallow if they were terrorists,...
~Ron Burgundy
well, the weekend before 9/11 <which was on a tuesday> they shut down the power on floors 48 and up to perform a cable upgrade...seems like the perfect time to do it...no cameras or other security devices working up there...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I know. To have a 'pancake' effect, there has to be actual time accounted for the impact created from each floor on top hitting the one below it... or at least I would think so.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Has anyone seen debris from flight 93 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I saw a burnt black spot in a field. Nothing more. No wing. No tail. No tire. No engine. No nothing.
The author details all of the lies, omissions and distortions in the official 9/11 comission report. A lot of testimonies and physical evidence were omitted from the report and other facts were distorted to support their agenda. It's clearly the result of coming up with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence, rather than looking at the evidence and finding the truth.
The author doesn't claim 9/11 was an inside job or that the U.S. government had anything to do with the 9/11 events. He is simply pointing out the fact that the 9/11 comission report is a lie.
The author is Professor David Ray Griffin.
Several government officials have come out and made the same claims.