• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

9/11: The September 11th Attacks

ted_bloody_maul said:
Are examples of such attacks being carried out in countries with a free media so common though? Countries where access to information itself is not restricted by distance, military embedding, censorship and so on? Also, are there examples where so many civilians would be required to assist or at least turn a blind eye?
Click to expand...

Well, at first, we should find examples of such countries... :roll:
 
Analis said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
Are examples of such attacks being carried out in countries with a free media so common though? Countries where access to information itself is not restricted by distance, military embedding, censorship and so on? Also, are there examples where so many civilians would be required to assist or at least turn a blind eye?
Click to expand...

Well, at first, we should find examples of such countries... :roll:
Click to expand...

Ok, then - a free enough media. You know, the kind which allows individuals to propound The Truth happening before their own eyes and across various uncensored formats?
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
Ok, then - a free enough media. You know, the kind which allows individuals to propound The Truth happening before their own eyes and across various uncensored formats?
Click to expand...

You set a number of conditions, or more exactely restrictions, probably with a disqualifying purpose when it comes to the lessons to be learned from the examples I had mentioned. But these lessons are relevant to our discussion. The restriction on distance does not rule out former Yugoslavia, Lybia and Syria as irrelevant. They may be far away, but the scale of the deceptions linked to them evidences the existence of censorship in our countries (because our countries are those you suppose to have a 'free or free enough' press...). Censorship on a massive scale, as we see with Syria (and Lebanon) now. Where the western 'journalists' know that the official reports are at best disputable, but who instead of questioning them in their newspapers are willfully and deliberately choosing to be involved in a propaganda operation, with only a few exceptions.

The press may be relatively free when it comes to minor matters. But currently there are no more countries with a free enough press when it comes to such big crucial matters. The media have lost any ability to inform and protect us. In France, recently, the media could not avoid a new episode of the controversy on the role of police infiltrators acting as rioting demonstrators. Their comments were farcical : there were maybe some during the 70s and 80s, but now there were no more because there could be no more. 20 years in the future, they will probably say that there probably were in the 2010s, but now there are no more...
 
Perhaps the TSA are being a tad presumptuous...

U.S. Spies Probably Won’t Blow Up Our Airplanes, TSA Concludes
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07 ... shoes-tsa/
By Noah ShachtmanEmail Author July 27, 2012 | 8:43 pm | Categories: Miscellaneous

TV spy Maxwell Smart holding his shoe phone. Photo: Wikimedia

ASPEN, Colorado — For years, America’s spies had to take off their shoes before they got on planes, just like the rest of us. No more. The Transportation Security Administration has quietly enrolled government employees at three of the nation’s intelligence agencies in a program that allows them to pass through airport security with less hassle.

It’s part of a larger push by TSA chief John Pistole to move away from the brain-dead, one-size-fits-all mindset that treats all passengers as equally likely terror risks. That effort is still very much a work in progress; just last month, for example, a female flier was groped by a TSA screener — so she groped back, and was promptly arrested.

Still, there are signs of sanity emerging. Kids are no longer subject to pat-downs. And certain elite members of frequent flier programs from American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Alaska Airlines can keep their shoes on and their laptops inside their bags at 19 airports. Two million passengers have now gone through the so-called “pre check” program, since it was begun last year. The logic is that these people fly all the time, and have given their personal information to the airlines. That makes them rather unlikely terrorists.

Same goes for the more than 800,000 people who hold top secret clearances in this country. They’ve already gone through all kinds of background checks. So, intelligence community consultant Jim Carlson asked Pistole at Friday’s session of the Aspen Security Forum, why not let them sign up for this “pre check,” too.

Well actually, Pistole told the group, somewhat sheepish, we are.

“We haven’t advertised that,” he said, but the TSA signed an agreement with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in February to do include members of the intelligence community in “pre check.”

It’s a voluntary program, Pistole added. “So, if for example you have a NOC [a "non official cover," or spy without any open connection to the government] who doesn’t want to be identified in any way, it’s optional.”

“The beauty of it from my perspective is that the information that the person is a known and trusted traveler is embedded in a bar code [in the passport]. And it doesn’t distinguish between a member of the intel community [and a] frequent flier,” Pistole told the Forum (where, full disclosure, I’m serving as a panel moderator). ” So the security officer at the checkpoint doesn’t know whoever you are.”

The increased security measures at American airports have become a substantial burden for undercover agents, as Danger Room reported in April. The use of eye-scanners and biometricallly-enhanced passports have made it tough for a spy to assume another identity. But if that spy is willing to use her own name, well, she can go right ahead keep her heels on. In the bizarre world of post-9/11 security, that counts as a small sign of progress.
Click to expand...
 
More evidence that the Bush Administration ignored plenty of warnings before 9/11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/o...deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share

The Deafness Before the Storm

New York Times. By Kurt Eichenwald. September 10, 2012

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars."
Click to expand...
 
oooooooooo beat me to it !!!!!!!

anyway

did you know that less than 24 hours after the attack the FBI took 12 photos in a folder to the airline check in clerks and asked them to confirm the identity of the people they booked into planes that day ????

no that efficient for you :)

all 12 hijackers with photos in a folder in front of clerks to confirm their identity

impressive !!!!
 
Atta's luggageThe doctored passport of hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari was found in Mohamed Atta’s left-behind luggage.[8]

When examining Mohamed Atta's left-behind luggage, the FBI found important clues about the hijackers and their plans. His luggage contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, and provided information about their plans, motives, and backgrounds.[9] The FBI was able to determine details such as dates of birth, known and/or possible residences, visa status, and specific identity of the suspected pilots. None of these documents have been scrutinized by independent legal experts.[10]

[edit] Linking the hijackers to al QaedaThe investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

they knew lots about these folk well before the attacks....lots and lots it owuld appear
Click to expand...
 
The reason that any real investigation, prevention, etc was "botched" is that they had their fake story written in advance. The truth doesn't fit into it, so it is ignored.
 
As it happens, Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn't make the flight, American sources confirm
Click to expand...

i like coincedences :)
 
"It was about three minutes before departure," he said. "They had it locked up, and it was ready to go."

The bags were brought back and tagged for rerouting to the 11 a.m. flight to LAX, he says.

When it became clear that Flight 11 had been hijacked, the crew chief called the Massachusetts State Police, which dispatched a state trooper to the baggage rerouting area with a bomb-sniffing dog, says the American source, who assisted the trooper and other authorities.

After the dog cleared the bags for explosives, the trooper had the small locks on Atta's bags cut off and the bags opened.

Then the FBI got involved.
Click to expand...

on the ball or what !!!!!!!!! only his luggage was left behind and they sent a bomb sniffing dog and then called the FBI, that was before the explosion or just after ?

LIHOP maybe ?
 
Jonfairway said:
on the ball or what !!!!!!!!! only his luggage was left behind and they sent a bomb sniffing dog and then called the FBI, that was before the explosion or just after ?

LIHOP maybe ?
Click to expand...

Which explosion are you referring to?

If it was LIHOP then the plot would presumably have to have included at least one team of baggage-handlers. It hardly seems plausible to extend the plot so far for so little gain - the level of risk-taking would need to have been extraordinary.

It's also worth pointing out that Atta was misidentified in the immediate aftermath of the attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_At ... n_identity
 
hey hi Ted !!!

apparently Atta was identified by CAPPS that was why his luggage was held back, as were 5 others of the terrorists, all the others had no luggage to hold back.

just Atta and his complete works of confession held within :)

very kind of him to make life so easy for the fbi.

now if that bag had been destroyed........

such luck in finding out who did the deed and so much unluckiness in stopping it happening.... given all the inteligence that was presented to Bush and co months before !!!!
 
Jonfairway said:
hey hi Ted !!!

apparently Atta was identified by CAPPS that was why his luggage was held back, as were 5 others of the terrorists, all the others had no luggage to hold back.

just Atta and his complete works of confession held within :)

very kind of him to make life so easy for the fbi.

now if that bag had been destroyed........

such luck in finding out who did the deed and so much unluckiness in stopping it happening.... given all the inteligence that was presented to Bush and co months before !!!!
Click to expand...

His luggage was held back because it was delivered late from his preceding flight. He was only allowed to board with one piece of hand-luggage. The article you cut and pasted from earlier explains all this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disin ... asuit.html

This would require the baggage staff dispatching and handling his luggage between the two airports to be part of the plot. Do you really think this plausible? It certainly seems absurd given that identification was entirely possible without his luggage.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Ident ... _Hijackers

It's also presuming that the LIHOP conspirators would find it neccessary to identify all the perpetrators in order to execute their plans. That's hardly the case since the identification of only a few (and the leader of the group especially) would have given them enough cause to wage war against Al Qaeda.
 
Atta was selected by CAPPS !

September 11, 2001, attacksOn the morning of the September 11, 2001 attacks, several of the hijackers were selected by CAPPS. Wail al-Shehri, and Satam al-Suqami were selected for extra screening of their checked bags, before they boarded American Airlines Flight 11 at Logan International Airport. Waleed al-Shehri was also selected, but since he had checked no bags, CAPPS selection had no effect on him.[2] Mohamed Atta was selected by CAPPS when he checked in at Portland International Jetport.[3]

All five of the hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 were CAPPS selectees, with Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed chosen by the CAPPS criteria. Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were selected because they did not provide adequate identification, and had their checked bags held until they boarded the aircraft.[2]

Ahmad al-Haznawi was the only hijacker selected of those on United Airlines Flight 93, and none of the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175 were selected by CAPPS.[2]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_A ... ing_System

that was why his baggage was held up....

they then said the baggage hold was locked and it was too late. so it would follow the next day.

all i am saying is isnt that convenient !!!!!! especially given its contents ????
they then have all the details of all hijackers within 24 hours with piccys to identify by booking in staff.

let me do a quick leap out of the box here.....
they already knew who they were ? as they were on the high terrorist profile list the FBI had already showed to the US governement saying a terrorist strike was planned !!!!

Its odd the person who booked Attas luggage in has never been named ?
rumour has it he commited suicide soon after.
 
France’s Louvre museum shut down one of its galleries Friday after a woman vandalised an iconic painting by Delacroix by writing on it with a black marker.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/08/woman-vandalises-famed-delacroix-painting-in-louvre/

So what does that have to do with 9/11?

"The 28-year-old woman was apprehended by an attendant late Thursday after scrawling “AE911? on “Liberty Leading the People”, which was on show in the Louvre’s recently-opened satellite branch in the northern former mining town of Lens.

It was not immediately clear what the slogan meant."

Actually it's pretty clear, since this is the first result of googling “AE911? is Architects and Engineers for 911 truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
 
F&*$ing nutjob. I'm sickened at the idea of that inspirational painting being vandalised.
 
New York police find 'part of 9/11 plane landing gear'

New York Police have found part of the landing gear of what is believed to be one of jets flown into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
The five-foot piece of metal, including a clearly visible Boeing identification number, was found wedged between two New York City buildings, police said.
It was found on Wednesday by surveyors inspecting a lower Manhattan building.

Nearly 3,000 people died in the terror attacks as planes were brought down in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Five suspected al-Qaeda militants are awaiting trial for the attacks at a military tribunal at the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The New York Police Department has secured the area behind 51 Park Place and 50 Murray Street as a crime scene.
The location is at the site where a mosque and community centre has been proposed, three streets away from "Ground Zero" - the site of the twin towers.

Police have taken photographs and are keeping it off-limits until a health assessment has been made by the medical examiner's office.
After that, NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said "a decision will be made concerning sifting the soil for possible human remains". :shock:

NYPD said the landing gear was found after surveyors hired by the property owner inspecting the rear of 51 Park Place called police on Wednesday.
Analysts suggest a full exploration of the site may require some demolition work on the two buildings.

At 08:46 on 11 September 2001, American Airlines flight 11 hit the World Trade Center's north tower. Seventeen minutes later, United Flight 175 hit the south tower.
Although rubble from the attack was cleared in 2002, other debris has been found scattered across the local areas in the years since.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is accused of masterminding the attacks while the other four men being held at Guantanamo Bay are implicated for providing support for the co-ordinated hijacking.
They are charged with conspiring with al-Qaeda, terrorism, and one count of murder for each known victim of the 11 September attacks at the time the charges were filed - 2,976 in total.
The five face a possible death penalty sentence if convicted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22319253
 
Noam Chomsky slams 9/11 truthers (VIDEO)
Published time: November 26, 2013 19:21 Get short URL
http://rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

U.S. linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky.(Reuters / Jorge Dan)U.S. linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky.(Reuters / Jorge Dan)

MIT professor Noam Chomsky may not know exactly how or why World Trade Center 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, but the one thing he’s sure of is that there’s no federal conspiracy behind it.

Speaking at the University of Florida a few weeks ago, Chomsky – a well-known and often outspoken scholar and political commentator – was asked by “9/11 truther” Bob Tuskin if he was ready to join activists in their belief that the government played a hand in the destruction of WTC 7, also known as Building 7, and that its role was covered up by the media.

Tuskin pointed to a group of construction experts who claim Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition, but Chomsky dismissed the assertion. He acknowledged that “a minuscule number of architects and engineers” agree on this issue, but said they’re not doing what scientists should do after making a new discovery.

“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something,” he said, according to Raw Story.



“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

Chomsky also said that publishing an article in an academic journal was one of the least risky things an individual could do, rejecting claims that 9/11 truthers have refrained from doing so due to fear of the government.

Building 7 collapsed several hours after the twin towers (WTC 1 and 2) did in 2001. It wasn’t struck by an airplane, but a study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the combination of structural damage by intense fires and debris from the collapse of the twin towers ultimately resulted in the building’s downfall.

Critics of this explanation believe that heat could not have caused enough damage to topple Building 7, and that explosives were placed throughout the building and detonated.

During his explanation, Chomsky also dismissed claims that the government was responsible for bringing the towers down.

“There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved,” he said. “Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.”

Chomsky said that even though the Bush administration clearly wanted to invade Iraq, it blamed 9/11 on Saudi hijackers. He said it could have easily blamed the attacks on Iraqi hijackers instead of presenting claims about Al- Qaeda connections to Saddam Hussein and Iraq amassing weapons of mass destruction.

Chomsky first entered the public sphere in the late 1960s with his criticism of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He has since made waves for criticizing American foreign policy and other western governments as he did the Soviet Union. He has equated interventionist policies by the U.S. with terrorism, and has called U.S. presidents “guilty of horrendous terrorist acts.” He also said that the diplomatic cables leaked to WikiLeaks in 2010 revealed a “profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership.”
Click to expand...
 
"9/11 truther: How I sneaked into Super Bowl XLVIII -- and hijacked the postgame show"
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index....uther_says_he_snuck_into_metlefe_stadium.html

to paraphrase from elsewhere:
"His presence there actually kind of debunks his own theory, as it shows how easily a place with more security than any of the 9/11 staging grounds was compromised by a total dumbass with no planning. The 9/11 hijackers spent years training for that"
 
John Lear at it again...
Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers
US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.

No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued by Morgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York.

In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.

Although the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, after scientific and rational analysis, it has become a widely accepted explanation of the evidence collected.

Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted. It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point. If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will by ommisssion be allowing that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.
Click to expand...
More at:
http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-p ... win-towers
 
Well Sherbet. That's very interesting. It sounds totally crazy, it goes without saying. But I'm in the Conspiracy Forum here, so I'm giving it a go. I've just watched the first 15 minutes of that 'September Clues' video, on youtube. And although I find the stuff about 'the tip of the nose' a bit dubious - there's definitely something weird going on with the various news footage.

Namely, that much of it does seem to be taken from the same angle, because the size and angles of the building do match in several of the films. But they're not quite the same because the planes come in at different levels. So it can't be that actual same piece of film, being used simultaneously by different companies, because they are different, they appear to be shot from the same angle and from a different angle.

The implication (as drawn on the video) is that all the films would have to be shot from the same direction? Which seems a bit unlikely doesn't it. Why would they be? I suppose they could all have been shot from different floors of a tall building (although that seems a tad coincidental). Tis a bit weird really.

Even if you acknowlege there could be a different perspective created by zooms or something, it's rather hard to see why certain angles would be very much the same (such as the shape of the top of the tower, which is the same in all the shots).

(watching further does make you think it's all rather crazy, because how many people in the city saw those planes. Surely a lot of them. Surely it'd be very obvious in no time at all if no-one you knew had seen a plane.)

But I think it doesn't hurt to be a little cynical about the subject in general, particularly as the US and UK then used it as justification for various anti=terrorist changes in legislation, not to mention warmongering. There is room to look for conspiracy even if you acknowlege terrorism and that many people died.

If it is true, the way the person shrieking (at 30.05) is apparently the same noise in two apparently unrelated videos, shot from entirely different places = well that certainly deserves closer thought. Maybe one 'waagh!' is like another. Or maybe not.
 
Eponastill said:
If it is true, the way the person shrieking (at 30.05) is apparently the same noise in two apparently unrelated videos, shot from entirely different places = well that certainly deserves closer thought. Maybe one 'waagh!' is like another. Or maybe not.
Click to expand...

Like a Wilhelm Scream? Weird.
 
Agree those screams sounds suspicious. They should be looked at with some equipment to see if they really are the same.
 
Three 9/11 firefighters die of cancer in one day
More than 2,500 New York police, firefighters, ambulance and sanitation workers now have the disease
By Agencies
12:05AM BST 26 Sep 2014

Three retired firefighters who worked at ground zero have died on the same day from cancer, an illness that many fear might be connected to toxic World Trade Center dust released on Sept. 11.

Lt. Howard Bischoff, 58, and firefighters Robert Leaver, 56, and Daniel Heglund, 58, died within hours of one another Monday.
Their deaths are "a painful reminder that 13 years later we continue to pay a terrible price for the department's heroic efforts," Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro said in a statement.

Thousands of people who aided in the rescue and recovery effort were diagnosed with respiratory ailments and other health problems in the years after the attacks. Cancer, though, remains the biggest fear for people exposed to the gritty soot at the site.

Hundreds of first responders have been diagnosed with cancer in the 13 years since the attacks, but doctors and researchers are still uncertain whether there is any link between those illnesses and 9/11. Cancer is the leading cause of death for Americans in their mid-40s to mid-60s, making it hard to tell which deaths, if any, might be related.
Most medical studies have not found evidence of a substantial surge in cancer rates, though researchers have spotted some worrisome trends.

Congress has set aside $2.78 billion to compensate people with illnesses that might be related to the attacks. Administrators of the fund have included the most common types of cancer as qualifying illnesses.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... e-day.html
 
An usually overlooked side of the US parlamentiary report on the use of torture by the CIA :


http://www.voltairenet.org/article186204.html

The Congressional report on torture confirms that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attacks of September 11

by Thierry Meyssan

Publicly released excerpts of the report of the Senate Committee on the CIA’s secret torture program reveal a vast criminal organization. Thierry Meyssan has read for you the 525 pages of this document. He found evidence of what he has been saying for years.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 15 DECEMBER 2014
Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on December 9, 2014, released an extract of her classified report on the secret program of torture by the CIA. [1]

Presentation of the report

The declassified portion corresponds to only one-twelfth of the initial report.

The report itself does not address the vast removal and sequestration system that the US Navy had put in place during the terms of President George W. Bush; a program that has led to worldwide kidnapping and sequestration of more than 80 000 people aboard 17 flat-bottomed boats stationed in international waters (these ships are: USS Bataan, USS Peleliu, USS Ashland, USNS Stockham, USNS Watson, USNS Watkins, USNS Sister, USNS Charlton, USNS Pomeroy, USNS Red Cloud, USNS Soderman, USNS Dahl MV PFC William B Baugh, Alex Bonnyman MV, MV Franklin J Phillips, MV Huage Louis J Jr, James Anderson Jr. MV). It is content to study 119 cases of human guinea pigs subjected to psychological experiments in Guantánamo and fifty secret prisons from 2002 to late 2009, a year after the election of Barack Obama.

[…...]
The content of the report

[…...]
Conditioning sessions were performed in fifty secret prisons under the responsibility of "Alec Station", the unit of the CIA in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden. Infrastructure, staff and transport were the responsibility of the CIA’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Group. The sessions were designed and carried out under the supervision of two contracting psychologists who established a firm in 2005. The conditioning techniques employed were authorized at the highest level, without specifying that these tortures were intended to condition and not to extract information.

Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Justice John Ashcroft, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet attended meetings on this subject at the White House. They attended simulations at the White House and watched recordings of some sessions; records that were subsequently illegally destroyed. These meetings were obviously designed to implicate these personalities, but it is not possible to determine which of them knew for what these techniques had been used.

However, in June 2007, Condoleezza Rice was personally briefed by the CIA contractor who supervised the experiments. The National Security Advisor authorized the continuation of the experiments, but diminished the number of authorized tortures.

[…...]
The experiments of Professor Martin Seligman

The public extract from the report confirms that the CIA conducted experiments based on the work of Professor Martin Seligman (theory of "learned helplessness"). They were not intended to obtain a confession or information, but to inculcate a narrative or behavior in the subjects.

Most of the quotes that the press has extracted from the report are confusing. Indeed, the CIA speaks of "conditioning methods" under the name of “non-standard means of interrogation”). Out of context, we can assume that the term "interrogation" means the search for information while it actually denotes conditioning sessions undergone by the subjects.

All the names of the torturers were censored in the declassified extracts. However, we recognize Bruce Jessen under the pseudonym "Grayson Swigert" and James Mitchell as that of "Hammond Dunbar." From April 12, 2002, the two men oversaw the program. They were physically present in secret prisons. In 2005, they organized themselves into a commercial company, Mitchell Jessen & Associates (referred to as "Company Y" in the report). From 2005 to 2010, their firm was paid $ 81 million. Subsequently, they were used by the Army to conduct a behavioral program on 1.1 million US soldiers.

In May of 2003, a senior CIA officer informed the Inspector General of the Agency that the work of Professor Seligman was based on torture practiced by North Vietnam to obtain "confessions for propaganda purposes”. The officer put the conditioning program into question. His information was not followed up on. Moreover, he made a small mistake by citing North Vietnam; Seligman’s research was based, like the North Vietnamese practices, on Korean work.

[…...]
"Confessions" fabricated

Let’s be clear: the Senate Committee does not say that the confessions of CIA detainees are legally incorrect because they were obtained under torture, it states that the CIA did not question the detainees, but it conditioned them to confess to acts of which they knew nothing. The Commission states that the CIA agents did not even look to see what the detainees had confessed during previous interrogations with the authorities who arrested them. In other words not only has the CIA not investigated whether al Qaeda was involved in the attacks or not, but its action had no other purpose than to generate false evidence attesting to the involvement of al-Qaeda in the attacks of September 11.

The Senate Committee did not discuss whether the confessions of the human guinea pigs were extorted or inculcated, but after explaining that supervisors were conditioning experts and not interrogators, the Committee explains at length the fact that none of these "confessions" has allowed us to anticipate anything. It demonstrates that the CIA lied by claiming that they had helped prevent further attacks. The Commission does not write that information on al-Qaeda in these confessions is fabricated, but notes that it all was verifiably false. In doing so, the Commission explicitly refutes the arguments that were used to justify torture and implicitly cancels the testimonies which were used to link al-Qaeda to the attacks of Sept. 11.

This report confirms, officially, several items of information we presented to our readers and that contradict and invalidate the work of Atlanticist think tanks, universities and the media since September 11, both in regard to the 2001 attacks themselves and with regard to al-Qaeda.

Following the publication of excerpts from this report, it appears that all the evidence cited in the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the September 11 attacks connecting these to al-Qaeda is false. There no longer exists to date a shred of evidence for attributing the attacks to Al Qaeda: There is no evidence that the 19 people accused of being airline pirates could have been found that day in one of the four planes, and none of the former members of Al Qaeda’s testimonials confessing to the attacks is genuine [2].
Click to expand...
...................................
 
..........................................
The report confirms what we revealed in 2009

In October 2009, I published a study on this subject in the Russian magazine Odnako [3]. I argued that Guantanamo was not an interrogation center, but a conditioning centre. Also I was putting personally calling Professor Seligman to task. A year later, the article having been translated into English,US psychologists led a campaign to ask Martin Seligman for an explanation. In response, he denied his role as a torturer and launched legal proceedings against myself and the Voltaire Network in both France and Lebanon where I lived. Ultimately, Professor Seligman instructed his lawyers to stop the procedures after we published one of his letters followed by an explanatory text. [4] Martin Seligman sued all those who treated this subject, such as Bryant Weich of the Huffington Post [5].

And now

Senator Diane Feinstein bravely managed to publish part of her report, despite the opposition of the current CIA director, John Brennan, formerly in charge of controlling the torture program.

President Barack Obama announced that he would not pursue any of the perpetrators of these crimes, while defenders of human rights are fighting to have the perpetrators brought to justice. It’s the least we can do.

However, the real issues are elsewhere: Why did the CIA committed such crimes? Why did it fabricate confessions to link al-Qaeda artificially to the attacks of September 11? And therefore, al-Qaeda being unrelated to the attacks of Sept. 11, who has the CIA therefore sought to protect?

Finally, the CIA program involved only 119 human guinea pigs, what do we know about the 80,000 secret prisoners of the US Navy?

Thierry Meyssan
Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] “Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program - Foreword, Findings and Conclusions, and Executive Summary”, US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, December 9, 2014.
[2] 9/11: The Big Lie, by Thierry Meyssan, Carnot 2002.
[3] “The secret behind Guantánamo”, by Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako (Russia), Voltaire Network, 20 May 2010.
[4] “A letter to the editor by Martin Seligman”, by Martin Seligman, Voltaire Network, 20 June 2010.
[5] “Fort Hood: A Harbinger of Things to Come?,” Bryant Welch, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010. And the right to reply: “A Response to Bryant Welch,” Martin Seligman.
Click to expand...

While virtually nothing remains of the offical version, this topic asks too disturbing questions about what appears to be an ongoing conducting of the old MKUltra researches on mind control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top