9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Jonfairway]

'Please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.'

hey i remember that request !!! he he he

 

[Jonfairway]

i'm only going to be happy with signed confessions signed in blood

 

[kamalktk]

THE UNDERGROUND COMMAND CENTER
Although it is unclear what effect the absence of Mies and the members of the battle staff had upon Stratcom's ability to respond effectively to the 9/11 attacks,

I say the US should lock all the people responsible for it's safety in a room, and not let them have lives.

The question is how did Al Qeada know this was going on?

Vast conspiracy with "them" informing Al Qaeda, or luck on the terrorists part?

See the problem here is everything gets tied up in conspiracy somehow, to the point where "they" are arranging kids football games and clearing traffic, as posited in links from upthread. Really?

 

[waitew]

Explain to me exactly how it gets Col Marr off the hook.

If there were so many obstacles deliberately laid in the path of a successful resolution to the crisis - military drills, billionaire soirees, understaffing in key areas etc - then why the need to have a further obstacle in the shape of Colonel Marr?

It's called redundancy and it is the hallmark of a military operation NOT a terrorist attack.

 

[Analis]

Explain to me exactly how it gets Col Marr off the hook.

If there were so many obstacles deliberately laid in the path of a successful resolution to the crisis - military drills, billionaire soirees, understaffing in key areas etc - then why the need to have a further obstacle in the shape of Colonel Marr?
[......]
In short, if Marr's actions alone were sufficient to determine the outcome then why expand the conspiracy to include many more people than required? I'm not suggesting that Marr is innocent on this basis, simply that it seems Truthers, as ever, wish to take the existence of contradictory facts as a doubling of the evidence.

That the headquarters were off-duty does not necessarily mean that Marr was useless. If he was involved, it would be crucial that no-one could notice that he wasn't doing his job. Better take many precautions than only one. The success of such an operation meant that the whole US defence had to be paralyzed.
Besides, there may be some sides of the events that we don't know of.

THE UNDERGROUND COMMAND CENTER
Although it is unclear what effect the absence of Mies and the members of the battle staff had upon Stratcom's ability to respond effectively to the 9/11 attacks,

I say the US should lock all the people responsible for it's safety in a room, and not let them have lives. Goodness forbid they do something as non-protecting as attend a charity function, perhaps they would be best chained to their desks, feeding and excreting via tubes, so they never are not at maximum ready.

Yes, they 'had their lives' at the right time again.
I agree that it may not look like the best of links, but it underlines the crux of the matter. Hadn't there been an incredible series of coincidences, exercices, missing ministers and chiefs of staff, odd events and extraordinary incompetence, the supposed hijackers could not even have dreamt of succeeding in their mad attempt. How could they have known that this big strike of luck would happen ?

An article relating to the dancing israelis and the mysterious vans spotted in New York :

http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/230407vans.htm

The Mystery Of The 9/11 Car Bombs
Evidence points to multiple roaming backup teams with vans full of explosives
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, April 23, 2007
12
digg
A much underreported aspect of the 9/11 attacks is one that concerns transmissions, sightings, reports and statements alluding to multiple mysterious suspects in different vans packed with explosives that were stopped and detained in New York while the towers were burning and in the aftermath of the attacks.

Some evidence even suggests that some of these vehicles actually exploded, and at least one was reported by mainstream media sourcing the FBI as having been parked at the base of one of the towers when it exploded and aided the collapse of the tower.

At first it sounds outlandish, but were teams of "terrorists" with huge amounts of explosives roaming around on the ground in New York on September 11th ready to jump into action and attack whichever structures or buildings they were ordered to target?

The first, and most mysterious, piece of evidence to highlight comes from an actual transmission from audio from Channel 30 NYC, one of the emergency communications channels, on the morning of September 11 which makes reference to the discovery of a van full of explosives and two suspects located between 6th and 7th on King Street, some blocks away from the World Trade Center.

The bizarre thing about the transmission is that the responder makes reference to a mural painted on the side of the van depicting a "remote controlled plane" diving into New York City. A full transcript follows the audio:

http://we-dont.gotdns.org/~culhavoc/aud ... -plane.mp3

Begin Transcript:

officer: [inaudible]
officer: 5 the message about the plane
officer: Sergeant [inaudible] seven five (Miller?)
officer: 5 [inaudible] about the, 10-5 the message about the plane
officer: 9414 hold up
officer: 5 the message about the remote-control plane
officer: [inaudible] on the air
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] Trinity and Liberty… all city wide task force units are to respond to Liberty Trinity Place
officer: 10-4 the message is the plane [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] task forces
c/o: [inaudible] and [inaudible] will be the mobilization point at this time [inaudible]
officer: 10-4 c/o central who is [inaudible]
officer: didn’t find any mention about the plane (alt: didn’t find any admission about the plane)
officer: central, we need the bomb squad and EAQ over at King and……background noise….click
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] units
officer: [inaudible] on the air
officer: 9415 you on?
officer: 85[inaudible] this is uhh operator
officer: [inaudible]
officer: negat[inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] giving up these [inaudible] (planes?)
officer: [inaudible] I got a message on that uh plane,
it’s a big truck with a mural painted of a of a airplane diving into New York City
and exploding [inaudible] know what’s in the truck, the truck is in between 6th and 7th on King Street
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] 10-5 10-5
officer: with a mural painted uh airplane diving into New York blowing up. Two men got outta the truck
ran away from it, we got those two [inaudible] under.
officer: kay great.
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] are you holding those to guys [inaudible] (kay?)
multiple voices/commotion: [inaudible] fucking beat the shit out of him.
officer: [gasps]
multiple voices/commotion: [inaudible] fucking shit out of him [inaudible]
officer: all right listen you need any [inaudible] on those two guys over there? you all right over there kay?
officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drive…drove in the van and that exploded
we have both of them under kay let’s get some help over here
officer: now I’m sending you [inaudible] I just want to make sure you and your guys all right over there kay, that’s all.
officer: what’s the location [inaudible]
officer: put em up, put em up
officer: you know we have both the [inaudible] driven that exploded. Is that correct?
officer: what location?
officer: location [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] location [inaudible]
officer: King Street between 6th and 7th
officer: King Street and 6th and 7th avenue, King Street and 6th and 7th avenue
officer: [inaudible] on the scene King 6 and 7, which unit are you kay?
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] explosion
officer: which unit is on the scene at king street?
officer: truck to Manhattan
officer: [inaudible] 10 truck
officer: [inaudible] 10 truck is heading a team toward 14 Trinity Place
officer: all right you take care of that for me and get back to me
multiple voices: [inaudible]
officer: all right just check out that location let me know what you got
officer: [inaudible]4
officer: [inaudible] on the air
officer: on the air
officer: [inaudible]
officer: that fine with you?
officer: CIT Units on the air, CIT
officer: [inaudible] always available [inaudible] we’re talkin
The indication is that the suspects ran away when the van was stopped and were then apprehended following some sort of struggle. It is then stated that the van has actually exploded.

Naturally the strangeness of this audio clip has lead to questions concerning its authenticity, yet this was cleared up soon after the clip emerged sometime last year, when it was discovered that reference to the mural van was also made in the February 2006 Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) report entitled: “Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks”. The report states:

“There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.”

The Culhavoc blog site, which has covered this mystery in depth here, notes:

The MTI quote makes absolutely no mention of the truck exploding.

This report states that the truck was rented. Doesn’t the MTI find it interesting that middle eastern men rented a truck and painted it with a mural depicting an attack currently taking place blocks away? Why would someone paint a mural of WTC being attacked by planes on a rented van?

In addition if this was an "innocent delivery truck" why did the suspects attempt to run away?

We have two middle eastern men in a van with a mural on the side of New York being attacked by a plane diving into it on the same day as two planes are flown into the twin towers. Is this alone not suspicious enough to warrant a full explanation in the MTI report?

Something about the mural also must have caused the officer heard on the transmission to believe that it depicted a remote controlled airplane packed with explosives. The remote controlled plane comments are interesting when put into context side by side with Operation Northwoods, the now infamous 1962 plan by the Joint Chiefs to carry out terror attacks on American soil to be used as a pretext to invade Cuba.

What happened to these two men? Why was the apparent explosion of the vehicle never reported? And why was first responder audio stating the vehicle had exploded subsequently ignored by all the official investigations into 9/11?

More Roaming Explosive Vans in NY on 9/11

Another transcript of 9/11 police radio transmissions, originally obtained by memoryhole.org in 2005 through a Port Authority Freedom of Information Request, reveals a second separate mention of a van with “terrorists” and explosives:

CPD - Ch . 018 - Radio (Ch . W) LT Police
from page 148 of 1593 (in pdf pages)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-tra ... ipt027.pdf

MALE C: Attention all 880(?) police units . Stand by for the (Inaudible) the Holland Tunnel . (01 :18:57)
MALE D : (Inaudible) copy .
MALE C : (Inaudible) from the Holland Tunnel exit, a tan Ford alpha van . New York tags . delta (Inaudible), November 8970 . Information has it this van was seen with possible terrorists in it, with explosives . That’s from the Holland Tunnel desk, (Inaudible) 32nd . It’s heading eastbound towards Le Havre(?) at this time . but they haven’t caught it yet, and it may be coming towards this way . (01 :19:25)

The Holland Tunnel exit is a few blocks from King between 6th and 7th.

Could this be the same van that exploded on King St. as was reported on NYPD radio or is it a completely different van?

Certainly if the van had a mural painted on its side one would assume any sightings would include a description of this also. This is not the case here however, which suggests this may be an altogether different white van with 'terrorists" and explosives.

In a separate transcript first broadcast by NBC news, another mention is made of a white van with explosives and "terrorists" heading for the Holland Tunnel.

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab.
Based on that phone call, police then issued a "Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city's bridges and tunnels from New Jersey.

Is this yet another white van or is it again the same one? It is somewhat strange that the caller describes the man or men as "dressed like an arab". Certainly there was no mention of out of the ordinary dress when the two suspects from the King St. incident were apprehended.

Furthermore, why would any potential terrorist attract attention to themselves by dressing out of the ordinary? Why would any potential terrorist paint a mural of an attack they know is going to happen that day on their vehicle? Were these sightings hoaxes or deliberate distractions or were there actually people carrying out these actions, and if so on who's orders were they acting and why were they being so blatant?

These reports are very strange but they are in the record on 9/11.

In addition to these Holland Tunnel reports, The Jerusalem Post and others also reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge:

American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported.

It was reported that two or three men were arrested and the van contained tonnes of explosives.

CBS's Dan Rather also reported on this, a video of which appears below:

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/815786 ... id_OEV_P_P

Could these two incidents at the Holland Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge have involved the same white van and the same group of "terrorists"? The George Washington Bridge is several miles north of the Holland Tunnel. It certainly becomes clear that the suspects detained at the GW Bridge were not the same suspects detained in King St. with the mural on their van.

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11

Another often documented instance of suspicious individuals seen in a white van on 9/11 is that of the so called "Five Dancing Israelis". It was reported by the New York Times any many other outlets that Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents on and after 9/11 claiming that a group of five "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery.

The following details are taken from whatreallyhappened.com's excellent datapage on this aspect of the story.

Some witnesses stated they saw the men set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.

In each case the white van was mentioned and a group of three to five described. Could these reports have all pertained to the same group of middle easterners or was there more than one group?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/record_9-11.jpg
It was reported by ABC, the New York Post and the New Jersey Bergen Record that police stopped a group of five men in a white van on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel at around 4.30pm on 9/11.

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives.

The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released.

It was also determined that the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominick Suter, dropped his business a few days after 9/11 and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as Mohammed Atta and the 19 hijackers.

Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11? This is clear evidence of prior knowledge.

Below is a video of a report that includes footage of the afore mentioned Israeli chat show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezb ... r_embedded

The fact that these men were exposed as Mossad agents raises the question, who were the other groups of middle eastern men spotted in white vans on 9/11 working for?

More Exploding Vans?

The following clip shows Jack Kelley a foreign war correspondent stating to USA today that the FBI believed that a truck full of explosives was parked beneath the buildings which exploded and weakened the structures aiding their complete collapse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3su9mWt ... r_embedded [not available anymore]

The next clip shows MSNBC news reporter Rick Sanchez stating that NYPD found suspicious devices and think a van with explosives was parked inside the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUkbLaFe ... r_embedded [not available anymore]

The next clip, which also contains the above two, shows many witnesses stating that they heard explosions inside and at the base of the buildings. It also contains MSNBC's Pat Dawson stating that the chief of safety for the New York City Fire Department had told him that they believed a secondary device had exploded somewhere inside one of the buildings:



So not only do we have reports of explosive vans from all over New York on 9/11, news reports also strongly suggest that the authorities believed that vans packed with explosives were used in the actual attack on the World Trade Center.

Another widely circulated report picked up by multiple mainstream outlets on 9/11 was the announcement by senior law officials within the State Department in Washington that a car bomb had exploded outside the their building.

The news anchors in the following British Channel 5 clip also make mention of a car bomb at the State Department and the bombing of a shopping mall in Washington DC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6N66vP ... r_embedded

These were not rumors generated as a result of "confusion" as is often the defense - the anchor cites a "senior U.S. law enforcement official" as the source. Why were these events reported and then never covered again?

It is commonly accepted that the breadth of the 9/11 attack was planned to be larger in scope because Flight 93 did not reach its target. Were the State Department and Washington Mall "bombings" intended to go ahead but for whatever reason failed or were called off? Was the media fed a script too early as in the case of Building 7, which was also reported to have collapsed by both the BBC and CNN up to 30 minutes before it actually fell?

By the evening of September 11, following a "perimeter walk around our building," the State Department publicly stated that no such bombing had taken place.

Why were senior State Department officials telling the media that there had been a bombing without even conducting a basic appraisal of the building's perimeter? Can this all be put down to "confusion" or were some elements of the 9/11 script changed according to how events were unfolding on the day?

Conclusion

There are reports from 9/11 of white vans with explosives and middle eastern suspects in at least eight different places in New York on that day:

King Street
nr. Holland Tunnel
nr. George Washington Bridge
nr. Lincoln Tunnel
Liberty State Park
Weehawken
Jersey City
World Trade Center
These locations are represented by the blue placemarks on the map (click for enlargement).

There were at least three different parties involved:

1. The Israeli group detained near the Lincoln Tunnel
2. The mural van pair detained on King Street
3. Whoever it was that was detained near the GW Bridge
None of these groups were dressed in Arab garb so, if the documented call to police stating this was authentic, there may have been another group.

There are many more witness statements and reports of exploding vehicles in and around ground zero on 9/11, far too many to go into detail about.

Were all these reports and statements, including the NYPD transmissions inaccurate or false alarms? Or do they represent evidence of 9/11 being a much larger scale operation than we have been led to believe? Were all the mysterious suspects "backup" in case the planes never reached their targets? Were some involved in bringing the towers down?

We can only speculate on who these people were, what their roles were and who they were working for, but once again it is clear that the whole truth as to what happened on the day that changed the world is far from being told.

Note: More transcripts from 9/11 can be found here. Independent researchers may wish to look through them. There may be more references to suspicious vehicles contained within this myriad of documentation.



INFOWARS.net Copyright © 2001-2007 Alex Jones All rights reserved.

The reference to a mural painted on the side of the van depicting a "remote controlled plane" diving into New York City is really strange. Does it suggest that another scenario had been planned, a scenario that was cancelled ?
Coming to the intent of the dancing Israelis, I think that the author of this comment may have come with an interesting idea : the Israelis were posing as dancing Arabs :

Ryan Dawson
The owner of Urban Moving Systems Dominik Otto Suter fled to Israel and was listed by the FBI as 911 terrorist suspect. Urban Moving Systems also got a one time government grant in 2001 of 500,000 dollars. The Israelis arrested near the Lincoln tunnel had each been working with Urban Moving Systems and living in the US just 6 months before the attack. The 9-11 call about Palestinians in a van combined with the Israelis saying we are not your problem the Palestinians are your problem, fits with other events of the day including the faked tape of Palestinains cheering and dancing about the attack which went on US airways, and later the anthrax attack notes and the lies from Israeli security Forces claiming they witnessed Iraqis giving anthrax to Atta in Prague at a meeting that turned out never even took place. This Prague meeting myth first came from PNAC's Schmit who sourced Fred Barns and Zionist James Woolesy who claimed to have photographic evidence of this meeting. They were lying. Later after the Israelis added to the myth the lie about a transfer of anthrax, Libby's girl friend Judith Miller (who would go to jail for 85 days) assisted the false narrative by writing about fictional Iraqi mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax attacks. more here http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/v ... 11&t=23624
Friday, October 29, 2010, 08:44:04

 

[Jerry_B]

hey i remember that request !!! he he he

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO. It would at least be useful if people who support 'the truth' tell us what the truth is about who was involved. Was it GWB, Cheney, et al? Some rogue element inside the US system? Even saying that 9/11 was a false flag op' doesn't really tell us anything.

Instead we have to put up with some rather daft ideas that don't tell us anything (i.e. the stuff about vans). Like I've said, that's just windmill chasing. I assume this is just so people like Jones can make a living off it all by dividing guesswork to the nth degree and not coming anywhere near proving that the 'truth' of 9/11 is that was an inside job. I mean, 10+ years of that sort of stuff and they still haven't shown us who was responsible for planning, etc it all? Pretty shoddy, I'd say.

 

[kamalktk]

Yes, they 'had their lives' at the right time again.
I agree that it may look like the best of links, but it underlines the crux of the matter. Hadn't there been an incredible series of coincidences, exercices, missing ministers and chiefs of staff, odd events and extraordinary incompetence, the supposed hijackers could not even have dreamt of succeeding in their mad attempt. How could they have known that this big strike of luck would happen ?

So the conspiracy, taking advantage of an organization that operates in cells to compartmentalize knowledge in case a cell is discovered, tells the explosive van cell the real plan is flying planes into towers. Something which they, as Mossad agents, decide to advertise to everyone by painting this onto their van? Keep in mind this conspiracy is so competent they arranged all the other coincidences that are cited. Once again there's a problem of the supremely competent conspiracy being incredibly stupid.

An article relating to the dancing israelis and the mysterious vans spotted in New York :

http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/230407vans.htm

The Mystery Of The 9/11 Car Bombs
Evidence points to multiple roaming backup teams with vans full of explosives
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, April 23, 2007
12
digg

Then again, those reports were retracted shortly thereafter. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_truckload_of_explosives and http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/b...tion-occasionally-creeps-in.html?pagewanted=2 (about 2/3 of the way down the page).

Also, if their were a van or vans full of explosives captured by the US on 9/11, where is this information in the 9/11 report? That report does, after all, "convict conspirators" like Col. Marr? Why would the authors of the report be willing to provide the evidence against some members of the conspiracy, and lay out in detail all the "unbelievable coincidences" that are cited, yet make no mention of evidence of other parts of the conspiracy?

Keep in mind that there was a tremendously chaotic situation, and rampant paranoia immediately during and after the event. Any Arabic people in the US were certainly looked at suspiciously and hate crimes against them increased dramatically. http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=3107

 

[Bigfoot73]

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO

.

It doesn't speak anything at all, it just means the top level of the plot covered their tracks very well. Besides which if anyone did you wouldn't believe them.
Can any sceptic come up with an innocuous reason for the shares trading in the airlines' stocks just before 9.11?

 

[ramonmercado]

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO

.

It doesn't speak anything at all, it just means the top level of the plot covered their tracks very well. Besides which if anyone did you wouldn't believe them.
Can any sceptic come up with an innocuous reason for the shares trading in the airlines' stocks just before 9.11?

Good point. I still thibk theres something odd about the activities about the USAF on 9/11.

The Irish Times originally reported that a van explosion had taken place on 9/11 in Washington in addition to the jet attack.

 

[kamalktk]

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO

.

....
Can any sceptic come up with an innocuous reason for the shares trading in the airlines' stocks just before 9.11?

Other than the investment newsletter that recommended those trades, and most of the trades were by subscribers to the newsletter? Scroll down to "Options Hotline" http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

Other than maybe the writer of the investment newsletter was paying attention. The stock market was down 4.5% overall in the week ending September 1, and a 5.3% fall in August. American Airlines and United Airlines stock was down for the year already. So betting on future falls in the stock price wasn't out of line.

Of course there's another innocuous reason you could pick: Bin Laden was worth an estimated $300 million or so, and knew about the attack beforehand. Bin Laden would have the money and the knowledge.

 

[Bigfoot73]

That is indeed a most interesting read, I haven't come across those findings before.
It does go on to say that bin Laden could not have been behind any of the trades.

 

[waitew]

Other than maybe the writer of the investment newsletter was paying attention. The stock market was down 4.5% overall in the week ending September 1, and a 5.3% fall in August. American Airlines and United Airlines stock was down for the year already. So betting on future falls in the stock price wasn't out of line.

It only creates more questions than it answers. What's the circulation of the news letter? What are the demographic? Do they who get the news letter or the publisher of the letter themselves have any 'special' connections to the US or international intelligence community or defense contractors/Government? Were America & United the only airlines whose stock prices fell in the months preceding 911? If not why were those two singled out?

 

[Jerry_B]

It doesn't speak anything at all, it just means the top level of the plot covered their tracks very well. Besides which if anyone did you wouldn't believe them.
Can any sceptic come up with an innocuous reason for the shares trading in the airlines' stocks just before 9.11?

That's not a very convincing idea. According to the conspiracy, there's trails of evidence everywhere - yet no-one has demonstrated who they ultimately lead back to.

 

[Analis]

That's not a very convincing idea. According to the conspiracy, there's trails of evidence everywhere

Yes, that's my point, and I remember when the officialists' position was that it was unrealistic to assume that such a conspiracy would not let trails of evidence...

yet no-one has demonstrated who they ultimately lead back to.

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO. It would at least be useful if people who support 'the truth' tell us what the truth is about who was involved. Was it GWB, Cheney, et al? Some rogue element inside the US system? Even saying that 9/11 was a false flag op' doesn't really tell us anything.

Instead we have to put up with some rather daft ideas that don't tell us anything (i.e. the stuff about vans). Like I've said, that's just windmill chasing. I assume this is just so people like Jones can make a living off it all by dividing guesswork to the nth degree and not coming anywhere near proving that the 'truth' of 9/11 is that was an inside job. I mean, 10+ years of that sort of stuff and they still haven't shown us who was responsible for planning, etc it all? Pretty shoddy, I'd say.

No-one has been able to show any clues ? Not exactely. Other than Marr, there are reasonable motives to suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld. Norman Mineta's testimony is very important. Cheney and Rumsfed have given contradictory reports of their whereabouts during the attacks, and their lack of action is virtually unexplainable. General Myers too had an incomprehensible behaviour this day.

Also, if their were a van or vans full of explosives captured by the US on 9/11, where is this information in the 9/11 report?

I suppose you mean the 9/11 Commission Report. If a van was captured, maybe not full of explosives, but in any case full of alleged conspirators, and if these conspirators were not Arab, then the Commission would not mention it, becuse it didn't support their theory that only islamist Arabs were behind the attacks.

That report does, after all, "convict conspirators" like Col. Marr? Why would the authors of the report be willing to provide the evidence against some members of the conspiracy, and lay out in detail all the "unbelievable coincidences" that are cited,

I don't consider such remarks as really constructive. Evidence for an inside job is indeed present in the Report, and what then ? That just makes more evidence for an inside job, and that it is in the Report. And additionnally, it suggests that the Commssion did not do its work well.

yet make no mention of evidence of other parts of the conspiracy?

For the motives mentioned previously. It is possible that additional events should have figured in the grand 9/11 narrative, but that they were dropped for various reasons.

Keep in mind that there was a tremendously chaotic situation, and rampant paranoia immediately during and after the event. Any Arabic people in the US were certainly looked at suspiciously and hate crimes against them increased dramatically. http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=3107

I also keep in mind that these live reports of people dressed as Arabs happened on te morning of 11 September 2001. When nobody knew, or was supposed to know, that the attacks were perpetrated by Arabs.

So the conspiracy, taking advantage of an organization that operates in cells to compartmentalize knowledge in case a cell is discovered, tells the explosive van cell the real plan is flying planes into towers. Something which they, as Mossad agents, decide to advertise to everyone by painting this onto their van? Keep in mind this conspiracy is so competent they arranged all the other coincidences that are cited.

At first sight, it seems indeed a mad idea that they advertised not only that they were going to fly an airplane into buildings, but that it was a remote controlled plane. Why, if the scheme was to promote the belief that Atta and co had flown the planes by themselves, after taking flight school lessons and reading pilot manuals ? Nobody, even the most fervent officialist, could support that Al Qaeda had the skills and the means to remote control a plane into the WTC towers. It would be, seemingly, exposing an inside job.
But maybe the original goal was not to spread the belief we all know. Maybe the goal was to incriminate a foreign service, helping Al Qaida to perpetrate the attacks. The narrative changed, for some reason. It would be consistent with the supposed threat on Air Force One, too easily dismissed as a mistake. It seems that G. W. Bush genuinely felt he was in danger this day, from something much more dangerous than islamists operating from a cave in Afghanistan.

 

[Bigfoot73]

That's not a very convincing idea. According to the conspiracy, there's trails of evidence everywhere - yet no-one has demonstrated who they ultimately lead back to.

Like Analis says, Cheney has incriminated himself. Complex crimes such as this are rarely solved before proper investigation and there hasn't been one.

 

[kamalktk]

Other than maybe the writer of the investment newsletter was paying attention. The stock market was down 4.5% overall in the week ending September 1, and a 5.3% fall in August. American Airlines and United Airlines stock was down for the year already. So betting on future falls in the stock price wasn't out of line.

It only creates more questions than it answers. What's the circulation of the news letter? What are the demographic? Do they who get the news letter or the publisher of the letter themselves have any 'special' connections to the US or international intelligence community or defense contractors/Government? Were America & United the only airlines whose stock prices fell in the months preceding 911? If not why were those two singled out?

You should look into that. Those questions are all answered.
2000 person circulation. In California. They were investigated and no connections were found. No, other airlines such as British Airlines was also singled out, and also had the same "unusual behavior". Irrelevant as other airlines stocks also had the same behavior.

If I recall correctly, the issue of the newsletter recommending the action is available online.

People keep asking questions that if they'd only look, have long been convincingly answered.

 

[Jonfairway]

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO. It would at least be useful if people who support 'the truth' tell us what the truth is about who was involved. Was it GWB, Cheney, et al? Some rogue element inside the US system? Even saying that 9/11 was a false flag op' doesn't really tell us anything.

Instead we have to put up with some rather daft ideas that don't tell us anything (i.e. the stuff about vans). Like I've said, that's just windmill chasing. I assume this is just so people like Jones can make a living off it all by dividing guesswork to the nth degree and not coming anywhere near proving that the 'truth' of 9/11 is that was an inside job. I mean, 10+ years of that sort of stuff and they still haven't shown us who was responsible for planning, etc it all? Pretty shoddy, I'd say.

yes i agree

but to ask for 100% proof ( unless its a good whisky ) is an unreasonable request as i said many moons ago.

There would never be 100% proof in any case available.

but yes i agree, after 10 years, the facts are as they stand.

 

[Jerry_B]

yes i agree

but to ask for 100% proof ( unless its a good whisky ) is an unreasonable request as i said many moons ago.

There would never be 100% proof in any case available.

but yes i agree, after 10 years, the facts are as they stand.

But there's nothing pointing back to originators of the plot, in terms of an evidence trail that suggests who was involved. That doesn't need 100% proof. It just needs to show who may have kicked the whole thing off, for what reasons and when a plan was hatched and then put into action.

The conspiracy (and those making a living out of discussing it) might not want to do that sort of finger-pointing, but it's very much needed to round out the bigger picture in a convincing way. So far we still really just have odds and ends.

 

[waitew]

I agree,America's not as far down the Orwellian road as the UK. At least we aren't arresting teenagers for POLITICAL Facebook comments we don't like (that would be protected free speech under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution-if the Constitution hadn't ceased to exist with the passage of the NDAA,that is). Nor do we have the number of cameras you have or playgrounds with state approved minders where the parents aren't allowed to enter the playground because they are not State approved and therefore guilty of being a danger to children until the state determines otherwise. Or cameras in dust bins to make certain you don't over fill them. or filling stations where cameras scan your plate & prevent you from buying petrol without insurance.

I think your outlook on how such things are in the UK is a little warped.

Really? http://www.prisonplanet.com/21-signs-th ... ciety.html

 

[Jerry_B]

Yep, still a little warped. Prison Planet also has the same rather odd outlook. Here is the thread for the discussion of such things. And another...

 

[Jonfairway]

But there's nothing pointing back to originators of the plot, in terms of an evidence trail that suggests who was involved. That doesn't need 100% proof. It just needs to show who may have kicked the whole thing off, for what reasons and when a plan was hatched and then put into action.

The conspiracy (and those making a living out of discussing it) might not want to do that sort of finger-pointing, but it's very much needed to round out the bigger picture in a convincing way. So far we still really just have odds and ends.

agreed !

but if the was 100% of evidence there wouldnt be a thread !!!! to discuss, just convictions.

any money being made by conspiracy buffs is small potatoes compared to what some people have made out of arms sales and oil !!!!

 

[Jerry_B]

agreed !

but if the was 100% of evidence there wouldnt be a thread !!!! to discuss, just convictions.

Unfortunately we don't have that luxury, so some idea of who may have been responsible would be useful for furthering the argument.

any money being made by conspiracy buffs is small potatoes compared to what some people have made out of arms sales and oil !!!!

That doesn't mean it's not without an element of dodginess.

 

[Jonfairway]

Unfortunately we don't have that luxury, so some idea of who may have been responsible would be useful for furthering the argument.

Quote:
any money being made by conspiracy buffs is small potatoes compared to what some people have made out of arms sales and oil !!!!


That doesn't mean it's not without an element of dodginess.

You have to admit Jerry the invasions of Iraq both times, afghanistan are not run by conspiracy buffs.

follow the money

 

[Jerry_B]

You have to admit Jerry the invasions of Iraq both times, afghanistan are not run by conspiracy buffs.

follow the money

That's not what I was saying

 

[Analis]

Other than maybe the writer of the investment newsletter was paying attention. The stock market was down 4.5% overall in the week ending September 1, and a 5.3% fall in August. American Airlines and United Airlines stock was down for the year already. So betting on future falls in the stock price wasn't out of line.

The yearly tendency doesn't explain why there was a sudden surge in shares trading shortly before the attacks.

No, other airlines such as British Airlines was also singled out, and also had the same "unusual behavior". Irrelevant as other airlines stocks also had the same behavior.

I remember that Delta Airlines stocks were affected too. But insider traders could have targetted any airline company, as the whole airline stocks would be affected by the ensuing crisis.

The Irish Times originally reported that a van explosion had taken place on 9/11 in Washington in addition to the jet attack.

I still have newspapers from 12 September 2012 where this news was reported as factual. The location was usually near the State Department.

In Loose change 2, there is an excerpt from a live coverage from Fox News, where the reporter states that shortly before, when he was near the Capitol, he had heard an explosion coming from the vicinity of the Supreme Court.


Another story, relating to a terrorist threat on another plane; I remember that in the following days, I had heard of something similar.

http://norcaltruth.org/2011/11/21/the-c ... 23-on-911/

The Curious Case of United Airlines Flight 23 on 9/11
Brian Romanoff Nor Cal Truth Nov 21, 2011

Perhaps it is nothing.

The 9/11 Commission Final Report did not mention it.

The FBI investigated it and interviewed many people, several different times. FBI officials never contested the media reports, nor did it ever release any findings of its investigation publicly.

Perhaps it was not important enough to warrant a note or comment ….. perhaps it is.

During the 10 year anniversary of the attacks, ABC brought us the first-in-a-long-time mainstream news report of the mystery:


UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 23

UAL flight 23 was scheduled to depart New York’s JFK airport at 8:30am September 11th, 2001, bound for Los Angeles. Piloting flight 23 was Tom Mannello with First Officer Carol Timmons.

Flight 23 was delayed, but it eventually taxied out to the tarmac to wait behind a line of other planes.

During this time, the first and second hijacked planes would strike the North Tower and South Tower at 8:46am and 9:03 am, respectively.

Apparently the pilots of flight 23 overheard another pilot, who was sharing the same frequency, say a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Expecting a long wait, Pilot Tom Mannello shut the engines off and told passengers a mechanical problem was holding them up.

It would not be long before flight 23 would receive its first warnings from an alert United employee.

United Airlines dispatcher Ed Ballinger started to relay text messages to the planes for which he was in control of, 16 flights in total, including both UAL flight 23 and 93 as soon as he had an idea of what was happening.

9/11 Commission MFR (Memorandum for the Record) #040200009, from Ballingers time in front of the Commission, states that he sent a series of warnings to the planes in his control(download PDF). The following timeline is for the warnings UAL flight 23 received from Ballinger:

°9:12 am Received a message to the effect that a “ground stop of all aircraft” was in process
°9:20 am “Beware any cockpit intrusion…..Two aircraft in New York hit Trade Center buildings”
°9:24 am ”Beware any cockpit intrusion…..Two aircraft in New York hit Trade Center buildings”
°9:32 am “High Security Alert. Secure cockpit.”
The pilots of UAL flight 23 took heed to Ballinger’s warnings. First Officer Carol Timmons started to barricade the door with to the cockpit with luggage, while Pilot Tom Manello held the crash-axe for protection.

Captain Manello relayed the warnings to the flight crew, stating to not open the cockpit doors – “no exceptions!” Shortly after, the cockpit received a call from an attendant on the plane stating she thought “it was unusual” that a group of four Arab men were sitting in first-class. The warnings from Ballinger to the pilots of flight 23 did not contain any specifics of the hijackers appearance, to be sure.

The smoke from the World Trade Center was visible from the plane. JFK airport was in a declared emergency and shut down while UAL flight 23 was seventh in line to take off. The pilots, having already received warnings from Ed Ballinger and the in-flight call from the attendant, announced they were heading back to the gate.

As the plane headed back for the gate the group of Middle Easterners apparently got up and began consulting with each other, refusing orders from attendants to go back to their seats. An argument ensued between the men and the flight attendants, prompting a call from the plane to airport security. The men were reported to have insisted that they ”have got to be on this plane.”


Security officials apparently met the plane at the gate - yet were unable to apprehend the men in question. JFK Airport was being evacuated and perhaps in a bit of chaos: The crowd of people apparently provided enough cover for the men to escape without question. These men were never seen again - that we know of.

Ed Ballinger had “figured it out” and started making moves well before federal officials had fully grasped what was happening on 9/11. Due to his actions he is largely credited with saving UAL flight 23 from a potential hijacking, and he was also able to give Flight 93 warnings before the pilots lost control of that flight.

http://youtu.be/7mL-bBBTI8I

UNCLAIMED BAGGAGE

While the suspicious men were able to escape with the crowd in the frantic evacuation of JFK, they may have left something behind.

Law enforcement officials searched unclaimed baggage from flight 23. Some bags apparently contained a “Quran, al-Qaeda instruction sheets and false IDs,” and according to some media reports and Lynn Spencer’s Touching History(p102-105), box-cutters too.

The History Channel aired a program in 2005 confirming those accounts. The show focused on the air-traffic controllers of 9/11, it was called Grounded on 9/11 and it contained the following segment:

http://youtu.be/EC3dWzgyxjE

The FBI obtained the passenger manifests of flight 23, thinking that the passengers in question had bought tickets for their flights ahead of time.

THE FOLLOWING DAYS

Though officials including the FBI deny any links to the events of United flight 23 or 9/11, the following event is worth a mention.

On September 13th, as air traffic was beginning for the first time since the 11th a group of men were arrested at JFK.

Four men were apparently detained on a flight heading to Los Angeles with tickets from Tuesday, 9/11. Accounts on the specifics differ slightly, suggesting errors in reporting, but as Peter Jennings would say, there was “something going on.”

http://youtu.be/l_ZCklenPuo
http://youtu.be/5wO8Fybmop8
http://youtu.be/IR40-fEv0vs
http://youtu.be/XtwIfpFoiYo


Another report by FOX from 9/14/01 adds more detail:

On Thursday, according to the airline industry source, a man presented a ticket for Tuesday’s Los Angeles flight at the counter — but told airline employees that he had changed his mind and now wanted to travel to San Jose.

People at the ticket counter were suspicious, but they changed the ticket and alerted a supervisor who, in turn, notified Port Authority police. Authorities tracked the man to the gate, where he passed through security checks, including metal detectors. He was then stopped at the gate by security.

A short time later, three more men arrived at Kennedy and boarded American Airlines flight 133 to Los Angeles. Minutes later, law enforcement officers secretly boarded the plane using a catering cart, according to the industry source. The officers, with weapons drawn, then removed the three from the plane.

Reports of the JFK incident were numerous, yet perhaps unrelated to flight 23 on 9/11.

Federal officials were said to have released all of the suspects and to have found no connections to the events of 9/11, including flight 23.

Enter Joe Biden and his 24 hour turn-around after a very awkward interview with Peter Jennings.

On September 13th Joe Biden refers to the arrested individuals as a ”second team” during an interview with Peter Jennings. Biden seems to infer he ”can’t reveal things” he knows bout the arrests, though during the interview his main point seems to be about bringing more funding to the Intelligence agencies.

http://youtu.be/ttkTtxE69MQ

The very next day on September 14th USA Today carried a story quoting Joe Biden telling CNN this:

Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN the arrests were based on suspicions that the men were linked to Tuesday’s attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

One man was arrested because he was belligerent, while the others were merely detained and questioned, according to the senator’s chief of staff, Alan Hoffman.

Biden said there were explanations for the suspicions. One man was originally thought to be traveling with a fake pilot’s license. Biden said the man was a pilot who also had his brother’s identification.

“His brother happened to live in an apartment complex that was one in Boston where some of these people had actually been,” said Biden, D-Del.

Others were traveling to a Boeing Co. conference, either because they work for the airline manufacturer or were invited, Biden added.

“The folks at the airport thought, ‘Hey, wait a minute, are they impersonating crew?’ And they weren’t.”

This seemingly simple answer is a stark contrast to his comments the day before with Peter Jennings. It also seems that with his statements to CNN he must not have known anything credible at during the Peter Jennings interview a day before, raising suspicions as to what exactly Biden was acting for.

On the contrary, if Joe Biden was giving a cover story to CNN on the 14th for his revealing information on the 13th with Peter Jennings, what was the reason?

NO ANSWERS

Ten years after the events of September 11th and after the recent killing of Usama bin Laden, there is so much we don’t know. Where could this information lead?

°The names of first class and all other passengers on United flight 23
°The amount of people booked for United flight 23
°What exactly was found in the baggage of United flight 23
°The results of the FBI’s investigation into United flight 23
°Was surveillance footage from the airport checked and archived for suspect identification
°Were any names of passengers from flight 23 on FBI or other watch lists
°Why the 9/11 Commission Final Report did not mention United flight 23
°What were the details of the arrests on 9/13 at JFK at JFK airport
°What were the names of the people arrested on 9/13 at JFK airport
°What was found in the possession of those arrested on 9/13 at JFK airport
°What exactly did Joe Biden know about the arrests of 9/13 at JFK airport

TIMMONS RECENTLY PROMOTED

In the more recent news, First Officer of United flight 23, Carol Timmons became Delaware Air National Guard’s first female General.

http://youtu.be/_QEHlGzTPWc

This prompted the latest round of discussion regarding UAL flight 23. Many still don’t know about flight 23 while others consider it a myth or bad reporting at the time, and some even call it an urban myth.

A news story from the Delaware Journal Online was cited by Jan Ting of NewsWorks as turning his mind to thinking the 9/11 UAL flight 23 incident actually happened. The link Ting provided in his story to the original article is no longer working.

Fortunately archivists at MilitaryHeritage.org saved the entire story, along with a short profile on Carol Timmons, because it appears the original has been removed from the archives of the Delaware Journal Online. The article Ting cited was authored by Jeff Montgomery and Adam Taylor and titled “Delaware Air National Guard piloting historic course,” published on May 15th, 2011.

———————————–

As always, more information can be found at the Complete 9/11 Timeline

 

[kamalktk]

Other than maybe the writer of the investment newsletter was paying attention. The stock market was down 4.5% overall in the week ending September 1, and a 5.3% fall in August. American Airlines and United Airlines stock was down for the year already. So betting on future falls in the stock price wasn't out of line.

The yearly tendency doesn't explain why there was a sudden surge in shares trading shortly before the attacks.

Yes, it does. The investment newsletter recommendation was on 9 September. You can read the investigation for yourself http://911myths.com/images/0/01/T-0148-911MFR-00139.pdf where they discovered 90% of the trades were from subscribers to the newsletter. This was explained by the link I provided on the previous page of this thread. In fact the whole stock trading thing was explained there.

I still have newspapers from 12 September 2012 where this news was reported as factual. The location was usually near the State Department.

Once again, comprehensively explained on the previous page of this thread, including with links to the NY Times retraction.

 

[flamesong]

The fact that, over the years we've been having these discussions, no-one has been able to show any clues as to who allegedly ordered 9/11 as an 'inside job' speaks volumes, IMHO. It would at least be useful if people who support 'the truth' tell us what the truth is about who was involved. Was it GWB, Cheney, et al? Some rogue element inside the US system? Even saying that 9/11 was a false flag op' doesn't really tell us anything.

Instead we have to put up with some rather daft ideas that don't tell us anything (i.e. the stuff about vans). Like I've said, that's just windmill chasing. I assume this is just so people like Jones can make a living off it all by dividing guesswork to the nth degree and not coming anywhere near proving that the 'truth' of 9/11 is that was an inside job. I mean, 10+ years of that sort of stuff and they still haven't shown us who was responsible for planning, etc it all? Pretty shoddy, I'd say.

If the CID took the approach that a body with four bullet holes in the back of the head didn't appear to be murder because there was no motive or suspect and that without a motive or suspect the evidence was not worth analysis, the prisons would be empty.

There is plenty of information worthy of official investigation but absent a government warrant, it will never happen.

And having endured the full evolution of the 9/11 truth campaign, it has always been fairly blatant that critics aim their blunderbusses at the likes of David Icke and Alex Jones and when the evidence gets a bit tough to refute, let rip with grapeshot. Easy pickings. But how about taking on somebody a little less er... controversial - Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin or (for those who like to think that all the truthers are right wing nutters), how about Marxist, Webster Tarpley.

The manufacture of a conspiracy of the magnitude necessary to pull off something like 9/11 would be layered and compartmentalised in such a fashion that most people involved would not be aware of the significance of their actions. To see this in a simplified format, watch Stanley Kubrick's 'The Killing' in which a racecourse robbery is masterminded.

There are plenty of facts and statistics to show that very basic sums do not add up. But the central question of 'who?' is a trap into which conspiracy theorists fall. Goading for an answer is just baiting the trap.

The truth may never be known. But what I have found very revealing over the past 20 years or so, is that with almost tedious reliability, the forecasts made by those who take the most stick for their trouble bear alarming fruit. The bars of the police state are only invisible to those who don't want to see. Or those who think that they are on the other side.

 

[Jerry_B]

There is plenty of information worthy of official investigation but absent a government warrant, it will never happen.

So the conspiracy theorists (CTs) should get around this by publishing their own evidence. Now, some might say that this has already been done. The problem is that it has not established a link of evidence that points at any sort of covert operation. There is instead guesswork and assumption in it's place.

The manufacture of a conspiracy of the magnitude necessary to pull off something like 9/11 would be layered and compartmentalised in such a fashion that most people involved would not be aware of the significance of their actions. To see this in a simplified format, watch Stanley Kubrick's 'The Killing' in which a racecourse robbery is masterminded.

That's if the whole idea of the alleged operation being compartmentalised isn't just another assumption about how 9/11 was carried out as a covert operation. Either demonstrate how it was that type of operation or don't assume that it was. It doesn't aid the case for the allegations.

There are plenty of facts and statistics to show that very basic sums do not add up. But the central question of 'who?' is a trap into which conspiracy theorists fall. Goading for an answer is just baiting the trap.

If the 'Who' question can't be answered then the theory falls flat, as there can be no proof of original intent and planning. It's not goading - it is instead asking a very basic question of the conspiracy theory. Thus far it has not been answered.

The truth may never be known. But what I have found very revealing over the past 20 years or so, is that with almost tedious reliability, the forecasts made by those who take the most stick for their trouble bear alarming fruit. The bars of the police state are only invisible to those who don't want to see. Or those who think that they are on the other side.

That depends on whether 'the truth' is actually the truth and whether there are actually any bars there too. The idea from conspiracy theory that an unbelievers are dupes is a standard approach that tends to saying more about the CTs misanthropist streak than anything else.

 

[flamesong]

Who are the conspiracy theorists you pompously talk about?

Most of the people I have encountered in the 9/11 truth movement are not theorists at all. Exposing evidence that the official explanation is false is not theorising, it is, if anything, countertheorising, i.e. disproving a theory.

It is people like you who on the one hand are demanding that the evidence is assembled into an hypothesis and then on the other hand using any such hypothesis as a stick to beat people with and as a license to use the epithet 'conspiracy theorist' or as you glibly put is, CT.

Unfortunately for you, most truthers don't theorise.

Unfortunately for the truthers, those who do theorise are the only ones people like you take any notice of and by and large find themselves on the fringe of the truth movement. Once their damage is done, they normally drift into obscurity. We hear very little these days from Web Fairy, Nico Haupt, Phil Jayhan et al but their silly ideas of TV fakery, holograms and missile pods still pollute the internet and provide easy ammunition for those who wish to scoff.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Who are the conspiracy theorists you pompously talk about?

Most of the people I have encountered in the 9/11 truth movement are not theorists at all. Exposing evidence that the official explanation is false is not theorising, it is, if anything, countertheorising, i.e. disproving a theory.

It is people like you who on the one hand are demanding that the evidence is assembled into an hypothesis and then on the other hand using any such hypothesis as a stick to beat people with and as a license to use the epithet 'conspiracy theorist' or as you glibly put is, CT.

Unfortunately for you, most truthers don't theorise.

Unfortunately for the truthers, those who do theorise are the only ones people like you take any notice of and by and large find themselves on the fringe of the truth movement. Once their damage is done, they normally drift into obscurity. We hear very little these days from Web Fairy, Nico Haupt, Phil Jayhan et al but their silly ideas of TV fakery, holograms and missile pods still pollute the internet and provide easy ammunition for those who wish to scoff.

Drawing on your experience of most truthers roughly what percentage would you estimate state no more than the evidence supporting the official account is either inconclusive or selective? And of those who state as much how many would you say are unconvinced that a conspiracy of some sort on the part of those presenting the official account has taken place?