Five years.

Wtc

Discuss.

Comments

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Where's Osama?

  • (Show?)

    Does anyone buy the official myth/story still?

    If so, please read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert and the "Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson. See http://www.septembereleventh.org for many high quality links. Please put pressure on the Left and the media to start telling the truth. The events of 9/11 were pre-arranged to occur with help from the inside. How else could a highly fortified 47 story steel frame building (WTC 7) fall to the ground in the style of a controlled demolition when no plane or debris from the towers even hit it? Did you know there is barely a mention of this in the 9/11 Report? What does that say about the Commission?

    9/11 is the Bush Reichstag, and it is high time we all looked directly into the face of it. The entire War on Terror is a contrivance! Let's not allow the D party regain power on the premise that they will "do a better job" on this FAKE war. Let's demand that they expose, investigate, and prosecute the REAL culprits of the false flag events. There's a platform we should be supporting.

    Get involved locally at: http://www.pdx911truth.blogspot.com

    GR

  • Andy from Beaverton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Ginny,

    Why don't you just go piss on the graves of everyone who died on 9/11? How stupid can you be to believe the crap you are spreading?

    Here's two links for you: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html and one you need to read here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm If you can't read, watch this video of WTC7 http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

    I can only imagine the lies and propagnda you are telling friends and family. You need to get fired like Mike Malloy because people in the real world aren't listening to you.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't know what's worse: a bunch of ragheads intent on converting us to Islam or killing us (choose one), or a bunch of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists who refuse to give the rag-heads the credit they deserve?

  • Greg Diamond (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not the first person around to say this, but I'm not mourning September 11th. To be sure, it was a horrible day, and the people who were directly involved will never be the same. For the rest of us, it's just emotional porn.

    No, what I'm crying over today is September 12th. The way everyone stood up before the dust had even settled and asked, "What can I do?" Even out in Oregon, people were walking around with nervous ticks thinking that they needed to do something, anything, to help. I'm in tears thinking about the Queen's Foot Guards playing the Star Spangled Banner in England.

    What I'm mourning today is how this administration took that sense of civic duty and all that goodwill and not only squandered it, but actively flushed it down the crapper. Having spent most of the time since 2001 living abroad, I can tell you that's what our erstwhile allies are mourning as well.

  • James Caird (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mister Pee,

    Thanks for the graphic demonstration of how a racist moron's mind works.

    Fascinating.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Andy from Beaverton, Bush admitted to secret prisons after denying them.

    Be careful what you claim to be an authority.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Andy from Beaverton, Bush admitted to secret prisons after denying them.

    Be careful what you claim to be an authority.

  • jami (unverified)
    (Show?)

    if al gore were serving his second term, perhaps i'd be thinking, that's the day it all turned around, the day we asked the muslim world to help us bring terrorists to justice, and seeing that we had been hurt and we needed help, they agreed.

    instead, tens of thousands of people have been killed by bush's bully-child notions of foreign policy, and we have thousands more radicalized terrorists to show for it.

    this is a sad day indeed.

  • Phil Jones (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't feel any safer now than I did on September 10th. I think the Bush Administration has created a lot more hatred of the U.S. worldwide and that worries me.

  • Kristi (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Greg - Thanks you for writing exactly what I'm feeling today but couldn't find the words. Well said. Phil - Just to add to what you've already said, not only is there more hatred but the Bush administration has sucked our resources dry with this ridiculous war in Iraq, resources that could have been used in a real defense of our nation in homeland security. Funny they talk about wanting to "defend the homeland" but fail to do what the 9/11 commission suggests - and then makes up a movie about it and puts in on ABC. I'm so depressed today.

  • (Show?)

    On the conspiracy, I did watch some of Ginny's stuff. But I remain utterly unconvinced. The problem isn't just that there are completely reasonable explanations for what happened, it's really the assumptions you have to make other side that makes it impossible. These people are saying that, not only did a bunch of Democrats in New York agree to bomb their own building, they're also proposing a world in which Bush, Cheney, et al, are all amazingly smart?!?

    I'm sorry. That's just insane. My God, Bush can't eat a friggen pretzil without nearly dying. I'm now supposed to believe the Screw-up in Chief is an incredible genius who managed to create an airtight conspiracy, consisting of thousands of people, and pulled it off flawlessly? Or Cheney? Mr. Firearm safety? Quite honestly, I can't think of a single person in the entire cabenet who - in any kind of a sane world - could get a job as a shoe shiner. They're that incompetent.

    p.s. Mr. Tee, how is that any different from Anne Coulter, of the "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" fame? I mean, I'll grant you that if the "Rapture" came tomorrow, and all Conservative Christians, Conservative Muslims, and Conservative Jews, were lifted up to the heaveans by God (to slowly strangle to death in the upper Mezosphere) the world would be an instantly better place. Wars all over the world would stop, including in Palestine and Israel. But given that dream isn't exactly likely, why are Muslims more responsible for their asshole religious conservatives who think they speak for God than Christian Americans are for our asshole religious conservatives who think they speak for God?

  • yak (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Chris, good point. Think Andy is listening? I can't say I buy all that Ginny states - and I HAVE read Crossing the Rubicon, and I HAVE read the Popular Mechanics article. You really DO have to wonder though. Sorry Andy, I am not entirely convinced. I would love to be though.

    The Pentagon - the only evidence the Popular Mechanics article sites is the contractor that "holds pieces of flesh in his hands." There did not have to be a plane for their to be bodies. The amout of inconsistencies is simply mind-numbing Andy. I suggest YOU not "piss on the graves" of those who died and START THINKING instead of spewing venom.

    I was one of those Americans overseas on 9/11/01. The immediate response was not always what people say: everyone being behind us and all. Not everyone was, but most were. I won't forgot how it changed over the next year.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It doesn't take any conspiracy theory to convict the Bush Administration. One simply has to consider that the 'resident is so closely bound to his friends/business partners in the Bin Laden family that he could not move against Osama. That probably explains why Osama is free today and probably at ease in Pakistan where he has been welcomed to stay as long as he has "peaceful intentions."

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    if al gore were serving his second term, perhaps i'd be thinking, that's the day it all turned around, the day we asked the muslim world to help us bring terrorists to justice, and seeing that we had been hurt and we needed help, they agreed.

    Wow..."perhaps" indeed...

    One would think that should go with saying. "Perhaps" the "Muslim world" would take it upon themselves to slap the terrorists down for hijacking their religion. But alas, we havent seen that happen either. Based on the way anti-religion folk here in this country treat Christianity, I guess we have to assume they are all the same, with the same agenda, right?

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    that should read "go without saying", sorry.

  • jami (unverified)
    (Show?)

    jon, it doesn't go without saying that other countries will work with ours. not all countries deserve co-operation. since bush's response after 9/11 was "which middle eastern children do we bomb (graphic) next? and then (horrifying)? and then? and then?", of course even moderate muslims regard us with suspicion.

    a smarter president would have offered countries the law enforcement resources they needed to catch and prosecute terrorists. our very dumb president instead killed a bunch of innocent civilians and said it was our "freedom" they hate.

    i agree with you that painting members of any religion with a broad brush, as republicans like mister tee do to muslims, is stupid, pointless, and annoying. i don't engage in it, but i know some educated people consider it a real badge of honor to call all christians names. they're just as stupid as mister tee.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lets face it. Bin Laden won. He accomplished more than he could have hoped for.

    The United States is busy marginalizing every moderate Arab in the middle east. We invaded Iraq, overthrew its secular leader, abolished its secular government and are now in the process of creating a fundamentalist Islamic state closely allied with Iran. The growing power shiite power will force Sunni governments to confront that threat, making cooperation to contain fundamentalist Islam that much more difficult. The possibility that Arab moderates will make peace with Israel is at an all time low.

    Bin Laden himself is now a legend. He wanders around the mountains of Pakistan issuing empty fatwahs that we fill up with the menace he could only hope they actually had. He went from a marginalized extremist in the backwater country of Afghanistan to a world leader whose every word demands headlines in the world press.

    The United States has sent hundreds of thousands of troops into his backyard where his newly inspired followers can attack them at will. And in the process we create new martyrs and new converts from the friends and family of those martyrs. Bin Laden gloats as he watches us stir the pot in the middle east in ways he never could. He has been branded a "dangerous enemy" of the United States, what higher honor could their be. What more useful title for mobilizing and claiming leadership of the discontented arab street.

    Herbert Hoover once called Mother Jones "the most dangerous woman in America". He said it once, Mother Jones repeated it at almost every rally she spoke at for the rest of her life. It was a label she wore as a badge of honor and it made her into a very popular leader of the disenfranchised. The opposite, no doubt, of what Hoover intended.

    We lost this battle with bin Laden a long time ago. Its time to start over with something new.

  • (Show?)

    It's been five years. We need to quit picking our scabs. I'm sorry about the Twin Towers, I really am. But when exactly did grief become a hobby or a public theme park? There's a time to cry and a time for war. Guess what it's time for now?

    Focus on actually winning the war in Afganistan instead of celebrating our losses. Our retaliation against the Taliban in Afganistan has been going on almost as long as the American Revolution, and that was fought at an 18th-century pace.

    Newsflash: we're NOT winning in that theater of operations. This is a war, not the World Cup, and we need to stop playing for a tie. We can start by packing in the tears.

  • raul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Impressive how angry some of you get when someone questions the 9-11 table of events. How could this have happened? We have never been lied to by shady people in our government, have we?

    If nothing else, some 9-11 conspiracy theories merely prove that we have been lied to so many times, we don't believe these people anymore.

    Urinating on the graves of the people who died on 9-11? I think that would apply to any politician who tries to use this national tragedy to their advantage.

    My wife is from Yugoslavia. They had a whole pile of WTC size disasters, several a day. We delivered the flying bombs that time.

    Quit feeling sorry for yourselves. The world didn't change on 9-11, we just realized that it existed.

  • YoungOregonVoter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ha! I knew that within 5 posts there would be a conspiracy theorist. I am not going to delve into debating merit with a conspiracy theorist because it is tiring and pointless. The point is, it has been 5 years and the fact that the U.S. has picked itself off its knees and kept going is a wonder to behold. However, I am sure that there are some here on Blue Oregon who wish that we would have switched governments like Spain did after the 2004 Madrid train bombings. That chance is in November, until then I am and will always be proud to have been blessed with being born in the freest, greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

  • CE (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yak - get real. You're right, pieces of flesh and body parts don't necessarily make a plane crash at the Pentagon ... but "marks on the plane wing" and pieces of crew uniforms? Sure, that information as it stands is single-threaded, but what about a freakin' photo of chunks of fuselage on the lawn, not to mention every other bit of evidence?

    I swear, it's like some horrendously Pynchonian nightmare around here sometimes.

    And if you're going to have a conspiracy theory, at least get the story straight and unify it. Moreover, all these theories seem to involve so many people and groups such that, if I believed in them, I'd be shocked that I didn't get a heads up from Dick Cheney himself.

  • raul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bankrolled by the freest, greatest nation on the face of the Earth. And remember- Hizbullah and the Lebanese government are not the same. If you pay attention to all of the 911s we helped to create, you will know " why they hate us."

    Poisonous clouds of pollution spread after Israel air strike Lebanese minister says damage was deliberate, causing 'an even bigger disaster than the war itself' By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Published: 10 September 2006 More people will die as a result of pollution unleashed by Israel's bombing of the Lebanon than perished in the month-long war itself, the Lebanese government believes.

    Yacoub Sarraf, its Environment Minister, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said last week that a highly poisonous cloud spread over a third of the country - an area that is home to half its people - from a fire in a bombed fuel tank that burned for 12 days.

    The same bombing released about four million gallons of oil into the sea, in the largest ever spill in the eastern Mediterranean. He insists that the environmental damage was "deliberately" caused. Experts say that, if this was so, it would constitute a war crime, in breach of both the Geneva Convention and the statute of the International Criminal Court. Israel retorts that any such suggestion is "very ridiculous".

    The damage began on 13 July, when Israeli rockets hit a fuel storage tank at the Jiyyeh power station 18 miles south of Beirut. The government managed to repair the damage and prevent an oil spill. But two days later, he continued, the rockets returned, not merely hitting the same tank again - just 25 metres from the sea - but fatally damaging its protective burm, a concrete and earth barrier designed to stop any oil spilling from the tank from reaching the Mediterranean.

    "It was definitely deliberate.," he said. "They did not hit the power station, just the fuel storage, and this was the tank that was closest to the sea."

    He expects the greatest "catastrophe" from the toxic cloud that was blown by the prevailing wind over Beirut and one-third of the country. Tests have shown, he says, that it contains high levels of poisonous lead and mercury, and highly dangerous PCBs.

    "Not only have we been breathing this for a month, but all the agricultural produce has been subjected to it. Even worse, all these poisons will come down with the rain, and some will seep through the soil and give us a polluted water table.

    "Then in a couple of years every single citizen in Lebanon will definitely be subjected to poisonous matter in his drinking water." He expected more Lebanese to die from the pollution than the 1,300, overwhelmingly civilians, killed in the war. He added that studies have shown there would be decreased fertility and higher rates of cancer. "This is a bigger disaster even than the war itself," Mr Sarraf said.

    A spokesman for the Israeli government said: "We deny the minister's accusations. They seem to be very ridiculous.

    "We never deliberately targeted any civilian capacity or place, we only targeted places or facilities relevant to Hizbollah."

    More people will die as a result of pollution unleashed by Israel's bombing of the Lebanon than perished in the month-long war itself, the Lebanese government believes.

    Yacoub Sarraf, its Environment Minister, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said last week that a highly poisonous cloud spread over a third of the country - an area that is home to half its people - from a fire in a bombed fuel tank that burned for 12 days.

    The same bombing released about four million gallons of oil into the sea, in the largest ever spill in the eastern Mediterranean. He insists that the environmental damage was "deliberately" caused. Experts say that, if this was so, it would constitute a war crime, in breach of both the Geneva Convention and the statute of the International Criminal Court. Israel retorts that any such suggestion is "very ridiculous".

    The damage began on 13 July, when Israeli rockets hit a fuel storage tank at the Jiyyeh power station 18 miles south of Beirut. The government managed to repair the damage and prevent an oil spill. But two days later, he continued, the rockets returned, not merely hitting the same tank again - just 25 metres from the sea - but fatally damaging its protective burm, a concrete and earth barrier designed to stop any oil spilling from the tank from reaching the Mediterranean.

    "It was definitely deliberate.," he said. "They did not hit the power station, just the fuel storage, and this was the tank that was closest to the sea." He expects the greatest "catastrophe" from the toxic cloud that was blown by the prevailing wind over Beirut and one-third of the country. Tests have shown, he says, that it contains high levels of poisonous lead and mercury, and highly dangerous PCBs.

    "Not only have we been breathing this for a month, but all the agricultural produce has been subjected to it. Even worse, all these poisons will come down with the rain, and some will seep through the soil and give us a polluted water table.

    "Then in a couple of years every single citizen in Lebanon will definitely be subjected to poisonous matter in his drinking water." He expected more Lebanese to die from the pollution than the 1,300, overwhelmingly civilians, killed in the war. He added that studies have shown there would be decreased fertility and higher rates of cancer. "This is a bigger disaster even than the war itself," Mr Sarraf said.

    A spokesman for the Israeli government said: "We deny the minister's accusations. They seem to be very ridiculous.

    "We never deliberately targeted any civilian capacity or place, we only targeted places or facilities relevant to Hizbollah."

  • AQ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mmmm ... off topic. Delicious.

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ..if this were so, it would constitute a war crime

    Raul,

    I've heard that Charlie, the Starkist Tuna will be bringing suit in the World Court against Israel for the environmental damage.

    The ACLU will be representing him of course.

    Dick Cheney told me about all of this in a private, Oregonian reporters excluded, secret society podcast.

    More hard hitting fantasy discussions here at Blue Oregon!!!!

    Dems take back the house (their parent's house that is) in '06!!!!!

  • YoungOregonVoter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Got to love freedom of speech.

  • Bob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan, you made my day. Thank you.

    I think the Miami Dolphin might be interested in that lawsuit as well.

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Greg Diamond. I've been thinking that for a while now. We were united. For a moment, we weren't Democrats, Republicans...or anything else. In that moment, I was proud to be an American (if not a little scared).

    I am so pissed at Bush for squandering that opportunity of unity and magnanimity. That tipping point could have been used for so much good, improving diplomatic relations, starting a national volunteer program, just imagine...

    Who knows (if) when we will ever have that same atmosphere of good will and unity.

    I was hopeful in that day and the next week...not so hopeful anymore.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Zak J:

    Please tell me you're joking.

    3,000 dead Americans aren't "scabs"....To suggest we should simply forget about them and move on is insensitive and delusional.

    We're not talking about a grade school bully: ignore him and maybe he'll leave is not much of strategy for confronting Al Qaeda.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    3,000 dead Americans aren't "scabs"....To suggest we should simply forget about them and move on is insensitive and delusional.

    Why? How much time are you spending fighting to reduce the nearly 50,000 auto related fatalities every year? And haven't we lost more people than that in Iraq already? What are you doing about that? We have many more kids than that who die every year from preventable disease because they lack proper medical care. Are you standing up to change that?

    What makes the 3000 killed on 911 so special to you?

    The answer, I think, is that they are useful tools for Republicans' partisan political warfare.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    3,000 dead Americans aren't "scabs"....To suggest we should simply forget about them and move on is insensitive and delusional.

    Why? How much time are you spending fighting to reduce the nearly 50,000 auto related fatalities every year? And haven't we lost more people than that in Iraq already? What are you doing about that? We have many more kids than that who die every year from preventable disease because they lack proper medical care. Are you standing up to change that?

    What makes the 3000 killed on 911 so special to you?

    The answer, I think, is that they are useful tools for Republicans' partisan political warfare.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just for parity's sake, Ross, they're apparently useful tools for the political fighting of many, not just Republicans.

    And accidental deaths and disease?

    Anyone care for a delightful fruit salad of apples and oranges?

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ross:

    If they murder 50,000 Americans in the next attack, would you be willing to acknowledge that Al Qaeda poses a larger threat than automobile accidents?

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Beautiful ... and nothing says "constructive discussion" like a sudden swerve to the hypothetical.

    I'm opening my beer (Mirror Pond, of course) and popping my popcorn ... this'll be a good show, for sure!

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Tee, I think Greg Diamond's comment above about 9/11 having been reduced to "emotional porn" is spot on. David Sedaris made a similar comment about feeling a little bit cheaper every time the networks queue the theme music by Barber. That about sums it up for me. Public grieving is always going to run the risk cheapening events through staged theatrics. The use and abuse of the dead of 9/11 for political advantage has turned once pure sorrow into histrionics and crocodile tears. Let the dead rest in peace without suffering these final indignities.

    And for the record, I didn't call the dead themselves scabs. I said the rest of us--most especially our political leaders--should stop intentionally re-opening our wounds for their own purposes instead of getting on with completing the business 9/11 called to our attention.

    I recommend Ecclesiastes (ch. III, v. 1-8) if you need a better authority than me.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh, and Tee, your comment, We're not talking about a grade school bully: ignore him and maybe he'll leave is not much of strategy for confronting Al Qaeda had nothing to do with my post.

    I said This is a war, not the World Cup, and we need to stop playing for a tie.

    But I meant the real 9/11 war--the one in Afganistan.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    networks queue the theme music by Barber.

    Interesting music--I think the name of the piece is Adagio for Strings.

    Reputed to be one of JFK's favorite pieces of music. Then the themesong for one of the hard hitting Vietnam movies--I think it was Platoon. Now they use it for the end of 9/11 specials.

    At some point it loses effectiveness.

  • Karl Smiley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I wish people would stop saying that 3,000 Americans died on 911. It is not irrelevant that 1,000 of them were foreign nationals. I also wish that we had taken the Taliban up on their offer to turn Ben Laden over if we could show them some proof that he was involved. I'd also like to hear an official explaination of why the Ben Ladens and other Saudis were flown out of the country when everyone else was grounded and Bush was sitting in the school room with that "Oh shit it really happened" look on his face.

    "If wishes were fishes, We'd all cast nets in the sea."

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If they murder 50,000 Americans in the next attack, would you be willing to acknowledge that Al Qaeda poses a larger threat than automobile accidents?

    Sure, if I'm not one of the victims. But there is no evidence that Al Qaeda has the capability to kill that many Americans or is even remotely likely to ever have that capability.

    The real threat is that we create a political climate in the world that helps a far larger and more resourceful organization than Al Qaeda to grow to where it can develope that capability. We certainly have made great strides in that direction when we see signs at demonstrations in Britain have gone from "We are all Americans" to "We are all Hezzbollah".

    We cannot win the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic moderates need to do that. And virtually everything we have done has alienated them from us and, more importantly, weakened and marginalized them in their own communities.

    As the Conservative leader in Britain said:

    "The danger is that by positing a single source of terrorism - a global jihad - and opposing it with a single global response - American-backed force - we will simply fulfil our own prophecy."

  • raul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan, Young Oregon Voter, Bob,

    The point of my post was to illustrate the fact that people in other countries are suffering 9-11 type disasters, and sometimes it is with weapons we either fire or provide. As someone who is pro life ( I hate to tear apart your straw man ) I feel that all human life should be allowed to flourish, and civilian casualties in any conflict is horrendous. An American life does not hold more value than any other life. A border is an artificial construct. If you can compare a innocent human life to a tuna, what does that say about you? Pretty funny, eh? As a retired member of the military I have never found killing an enemy, let alone an innocent, remotely amusing. As you mourn your 9-11, other people are mourning theirs. Get it? Probably not.

  • William (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Karl Smiley:

    The September 11 victims website details 209 foreign nationals who died on September 11th. That would put the number of American victims at just below 2,800. Clearly, it's still a large number of homicide victims whether it's 2,800 or 3,000. Their nationality or citizenship is of trifling importance to me.

    Where led you to believe there were 1,000 foreigners?

    Also: whatleads you to believe the Taliban were negotiating in good faith? Osama was arguably more powerful than they were, what makes you believe the Taliban had either the willingness or the power to cough him up.

  • yak (unverified)
    (Show?)

    to CE:

    I am more than willing to listen and learn. i have seen no pictures of crew or clothing. the pics i have seen of the lawn and "the plane" are not conclusive. I'd love to see where the plane rubbish went. i would be more than willing to investigate if you are able to provide links to pics or other info. thanks, yak

  • Karl Smiley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    William:

    Thank you for the lesson in checking sources. I stand corrected about the number of foreigners killed. Since the towers were the center and symbol of world corporate power, I believed that number when I heard it. My bad.

    As to the Taliban, It wasn't relevant whether they were "negotiating in good faith". The whole world was looking at them aghast. They had sent condolences. They had admitted it was a crime. We could have held their feet to the fire with the moral backing of every country in the world and (at that time) almost all their populations too. Even if we had never gotten Ossama (and we never have), he would have remained a nutcase criminal in the eyes of the world. What we did do was elevate him to and equal stature and give him a platform to proclaim his moral superiority. In his wildest dreams he couldn't have expected a response more to his liking.

    I believe the administration was thinking more about getting their pipeline through on the cheap and getting their oil man Karzai in charge, than they were thinking about Ossama.

  • JJ Ark (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My thoughts:

    I was immensely grateful that nothing else happened. It was a quiet, calm day for terrorism here in the USA. Given that our borders are still about as open as one could make them and still have a governance, and that we are fighting (and dying) in a place that has nothing to do with 911, and that we STILL haven't availed upon ourselves the greatest security resource available to us: our own population, I am amazed that we haven't had another attack on our soil.

    Oh, sure, you can't bring a slurpy on a plane. Wow. I am suddenly feeling so much more secure! Oh, sure, you get to be tagged and indexed by the gubbermint to be able to cash checks, drive, and do what we used to take for granted! Again, I am awash in security! It feels like a nice, warm fuzzy blanket that Uncle Dick put on me while I was sleeping.

    OTOH, Osama has already won, and he hasn't had to do much of anything. He just lets the Bush Crime Family carry the water.

    Now y'all can carp and moan and come up with a Million Little Consipiracy theories. Some of them might even be true. But it doesn't change what happened, and what our response should have been.

    We OUGHT to have looked to the democratic countries that have experience with Islamic-based terrorism. Oh, well.

    I never liked slurpies anyway.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JJ ARK:

    Who asked you for a fingerprint to cash a check or drive? How is that George Bush's fault?

    I know there are banks that may ask for a fingerprint if they doubt your identity, but you don't have to do business with them if you choose not to. Maybe you ought to get an account at the local credit union.

  • YoungOregonVoter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Raul,

    I get your point of view, yet I apologize if my heart is not pouring blood. Fact is, my mind is set on getting a career and paying for your retirement. After all, them Baby Boomers make up a good quarter to a third of the U.S. population and someone has to be working 50-80 hours a week to fund someone else's retirement. Then we have the illegals to oh how dare me! Hispanic Migrant Workers to support via Federal Grants to non-profits such as the Northwest Seasonal Workers Association. Life is fun for us Generation Yers because nobody in the past 2 generations had the balls to tackle Social Security or Illegal Immigration.
    
  • (Show?)

    I'd just like to add a quick follow up. It appears not many of you (regardless to what degree you agree with the official coincidence theory contained in the 9/11 Commission Report) cares to address the actual key questions.

    If you are new to 9/11 fact inquiries I would like to provide some resources for you. First I offer some key questions to focus on, and below I offer some resources for further research (arranged in a "Best of" format since there is such a floodtide of important information out there). The key (real) questions about 9/11 are: 1) What is the connection between the 5 to 15 pre-arranged war games and disaster drills (including live fly hijacking drills complete with interceptor radar blips and for which R. Cheney was head official for planning) and the responses of our trillion dollar air defenses that allowed 4 hijacked planes (known to be real hijacks) to freely roam the skies for upwards of 60 to 90 minutes? 2) Why did an ultra-secure 47 story steel frame building fall into its own footprint by controlled demolition more than 5 hours after the towers fell when it suffered NO plane strike, NO debris damage, and had only minor containable fires on three separate floors? and 3) MOST IMPORTANT: Why did the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission go OUT OF THEIR WAYS to keep information and answers to these questions from becoming available to the public and to use all of their power to hide, destroy or classify information pertaining to these issues? (There is no mention of WTC 7's demolition in the 9/11 Report.)

    Whenever one of you (especially those who believe that by merely insulting or impugning me or others who seek answers to these important questions serves you have provided a defense of the official myth) wishes to provide credible answers to any of these questions, please post them here so we can all discuss the actual facts and evidence. This in turn might lead to a theory worthy of a thinking, modern, fact-based society and people, not an appalling, disgraceful, insult-to-our-intelligence such as the deeply conflicted, purposely incomplete propaganda piece known as the 9/11 Commission Report.

    Thank you in advance to anyone who posts actual information or answers pertaining to the questions above. Also, below are further resources for your own investigation.

    Sincerely,

    Ginny Ross

    RESOURCES FOR INVESTIGATING THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11 (Credit to Mark Rabinowitz for his excellent research at www.oilempire.us)

    Best books about 9/11 Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert www.fromthewilderness.com

    The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute, by Paul Thompson www.cooperativeresearch.org

    The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed

    Best movies about 9/11 The Truth and Lies of 9/11: Michael Ruppert's first speech after 9/11, still accurate after all these years.

    Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and Beyond Updated presentation from Michael Ruppert (2005), good summary of 9/11 wargames and the context of Peak Oil (a bit choppy in the production, but excellent information that is mandatory viewing for everyone interested in 9/11 truth).

    9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City, September 9, 2004) Best single video presentation on 9/11 complicity, from a forum with Cynthia McKinney, John Judge, Michael Ruppert, Indira Singh, Barrie Zwicker, Nicholas Levis, Jenna Orkin and others. Probably the least promoted 9/11 truth video, perhaps because it avoids the "no plane" hoaxes and it is extremely compelling and credible. A similar, much more flawed event called "Confronting the Evidence" was held in New York City on September 11, 2004 which did focus on the hoaxes (a mix of good information and nonsense) and has received much more publicity.

    The Great Deception: First video to raise issues of 9/11 complicity - published by Barrie Zwicker in January and February 2002.

    The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw Barrie Zwicker's 2004 sequel to The Great Deception. It is a full length documentary that updates the earlier work. A very good production (for the most part), but the finale includes Thierry Meyssan's "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax.

    The Power of Nightmares: A BBC documentary on the rise of the American neo-conservatives and the rise of the radical Islamists, accepts the official story of 9/11 (supposedly a surprise attack) but otherwise is the best history of the circumstances that led to 9/11.

    Press for Truth: 2006 documentary about Paul Thompson (author of the Complete 9/11 Timeline) and the "Jersey Girls" (widows who demanded a real investigation, which they did not get)

    Best 9/11 truth websites 911research.com 911review.com cooperativeresearch.org fromthewilderness.com oilempire.us ratical.org

    Best 9/11 "blog" (web-log) Rigorous Intuition - http://rigint.blogspot.com - written by Jeff Wells (in Toronto, Canada)

    Best research guides The Complete 9/11 Timeline from the Center for Cooperative Research From the Wilderness

    Best "physical evidence" website Jim Hoffman's websites at 911review.com and http://911research.wtc7.net are the most credible, carefully documented websites focused on the physical evidence issues of 9/11. They are part of the best efforts to separate the real from the fake claims on 9/11.

    Best analysis of al-Qaeda's role in 9/11 "Peeling the Onion," written by an intelligence insider on the evening of 9/11/2001 - archived at www.oilempire.us/qaeda.html

    Best article about Israel's role in 9/11 Journalist Wayne Madsen's article "Waking Up From Our Global Nightmare" published just before the 2004 "election" is the best and most credible article about Israeli involvement in 9/11.

    Best documentation of Pakistan's involvement in 9/11 The Complete 9/11 Timeline from the Center for Cooperative Research has a good section about Pakistan's roles.

    Best 9/11 whistleblowers (most credible) FBI agents investigating the flight schools and al-Qaeda connected money laundering before 9/11:

    Coleen Rowley - coleenrowley.com - her Congressional campaign website (running as a Democrat in Minnesota), would be interesting to see the hearings that would happen if she is elected and the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in November 2006. Kenneth Williams Robert Wright Sibel Edmonds (FBI translator muzzled for trying to expose foreknowledge) www.justacitizen.org Indira Singh (employee of Ptech) www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler, vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California -- a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.

    "Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain." Able Danger officers

    The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistleblowers, and the Cover-up, by Sander Hicks www.sanderhicks.com (Randy Glass, Delmart Vreeland,

    Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida, by Daniel Hopsicker www.madcowprod.com (best - and only - investigation of the Florida flight schools used by some of the 9/11 plotters)

    Indira Singh's testimony to the 9/11 Citizens Commission, New York City, September 9, 2004

    Best explanation of why 9/11 was allowed (and assisted) 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance to make sure it happened) as part of a covert plan to prepare the US empire for Peak Oil. 9/11 provided the excuse for the war to seize the Iraqi oil fields (part of a larger scheme to dominate the remaining oil supplies). 9/11 also enabled passage of the USA Patriot Act and other repressive policies that are part of the long-planned Homeland Security surveillance society. 9/11 was the pretext for the "War on Terror," which its supporters claim is a "war that will not end in our lifetime." The neo-conservatives call this conflict World War IV.

    Best documented evidence The failure to follow standard operating procedures (suppressed warnings, blocked investigations, Bush reading "the Pet Goat" instead of being Commander-in-Chief, the Air Force failure to intercept hijacked jets)

    Wargames simulating the actual events simultaneously that seem to have confused the air defenses.

    WHERE Flight 77 hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector WHAT hit the Pentagon - Flight 77, probably electronically hijacked HOW the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon, even after the towers had been hit WHO scheduled multiple war game exercises on 9/11, including a "plane into building" scenario WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance): Peak Oil and Homeland Security

    Best theory of how 9/11 happened The most likely scenario, which fits the known evidence, is "hijack the hijackers with remote control. "In this view, the hijackers were allowed to finish their preparations, board the planes, hijack the controls but then remote control technology was used to ensure that the planes not only completed their missions but also did not strike targets that would have caused even more damage. Flight 11, the first hijacked plane, flew over Indian Point nuclear power station, just north of New York City (an attack there would have been much, much worse than 9/11). And if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, thousands of people could have been killed. This hybrid scenario is speculative, but remote control flight technology is commercially available. One of the manufacturers of this equipment is System Planning corporation, whose former director, Dov Zakheim, was a signer of the "PNAC" report stating a New Pearl Harbor would enable their global domination goals. Mr Zakheim was Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001 through early 2004 (in charge of the money).

    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/skinny-on-osama.html I've long thought that if we assume a decision had been taken to let it happen, then we should expect that measures were be taken to ensure it happened precisely as desired, and spectacularly so. With so much at stake, nothing would be left to the skill and luck of the 19 hijackers. Flight 77's 270 degree turn to hit the ground floor of the virtually unoccupied side of the Pentagon, while supposedly piloted by the grossly incompetent Hani Hanjour, is the most striking example. The recent report that the WTC black boxes were recovered after all, is suggestive of the same: that the data conflicted somehow with the received fiction. Perhaps the hijackers were themselves hijacked.

    from Nicholas Levis, summeroftruth.org: "Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.

    "The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)

    "The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11 all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had done it."

    Best evidence for remote control planes Some coincidence theorists claim that it was a one-in-five chance that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit, even though the flight maneuvers were world class precision flying and it is impossible to believe that a terrorist intent on causing as much damage as possible would have flown around the Pentagon to ensure that the one area with the fewest victims would be hit.

    It is likely, but unprovable, that some form of remote control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon. Even an expert pilot substituted for flight school dropout and alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour would not have made the amazing flight pattern to minimize casualties on the ground by hitting the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

    The data on the black boxes (supposedly found from all four planes) would refute or confirm the remote control hypothesis, but this information has not been made public. Few 9/11 "truth" activists have focused their attention on this secret data, preferring instead to desire the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (which would not tell us anything we don't already know).

    Best historical precedent The 1933 Reichstag Fire, which was allowed to happen (the lone arsonist had been overheard boasting that he wanted to burn the building) and given technical assistance (SS goons were in the basement with barrels of fuel while the patsy was upstairs trying to set fires) to make sure it happened.

    Other historical precedents (similar but not exactly the same) are described at www.oilempire.us/parallels.html and include Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods.

    Best "physical evidence" (for remote control) Flight 77 was steered into the mostly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon. This fact is accepted by the mainstream media - but it is rarely focused upon. It is strong evidence (but not proof) that some form of remote control was used to ensure that the planes caused enough havoc and destruction for the "shock and awe" but not uncontrollable damage (if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, the recovery would have been far more difficult).

    Best areas for further investigation (an unlikely scenario) Able Danger - military intelligence program that was tracking the hijackers before 9/11. The Center for Cooperative Research has the best public database about this scandal.

    The data on the "black boxes" (which were supposedly recovered from all four planes) would refute or confirm the remote control theory.

    Best politician who dares to ask inconvenient questions Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia)

    Best questions from 9/11 family members 911independentcommission.org

    Smears in the media against 9/11 skepticism Two of the best (most subtle) smears about 9/11 "truth" were an April 29, 2006 USA Today front page review of Loose Change and Mark Morford's promotion of Loose Change in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 29, 2006. Several USA Today reporters saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while they were driving to work (their offices are not far from the Pentagon). Therefore, the fact this publication chose to highlight a film claiming Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is not a compliment - presumably USA Today (like other media publications) understands that this is one of the fake claims about complicity. While one of the 9/11 war games is known due (in part) to a USA Today story in 2004, this newspaper does not dare list all of the 9/11 war games that are publicly known nor the implication of the simultaneous exercises that day, especially those that resembled real world events. Morford's articles on 9/11 complicity issues are more subtle still - they seem to support the grassroots efforts to investigate yet steer the reader toward the "no plane" claims, away from the real evidence.

    Best hoax: Rumsfeld's "Pentagon missile" hoax is the most important disinformation masquerading as 9/11 truth

    purpose: alienate those in DC and discredit the skeptics an introduction to the "no plane" claims

    State Department "Identifying Misinformation" website: a Rosetta Stone to understand 9/11 disinformation politics and psychology of disinformation

    history of "no planes on 9/11" - hoaxes about all four crashes

    Pentagon Truth: 9/11 activists debunk the missile hoax media focus on the hoaxes, ignore best evidence

    fake debate: no plane or no complicity? neither is true similar sabotage against the JFK Truth Movement

    TV Minds Propagandized by Photos - electronic hypnosis Karl Rove uses fake evidence to discredit real scandals

    reverse psychology: "new" Pentagon video released May 16, 2006, hiding images fuels hoaxes - it is bait

    the 757-sized hole and photos of Boeing parts

    suppressed evidence: Flight 77 black boxes found

    Eyewitnesses: hundreds of people saw Flight 77, no one saw a missile or small plane hit the building

    photos of Pentagon area for those unfamiliar with Washington, D.C.

    jokes hidden in plain sight: Pentagate, In Plane Site, Popular Mechanics

    In Plane Site, Pentagon Strike, Loose Change ("no plane" hoax films)

    no-plane hoax promoters (some are sincere, some are not)

    the "pod" plane (a hoax about the WTC plane crashes, 9/11 "pod people")

    BEST ARTICLES http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html "This war on terrorism is bogus - The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination" Michael Meacher Saturday September 6, 2003 The Guardian (environment minister for Tony Blair from 1997 to 2003, Member of the British Parliament)

    The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

    9/11 Evidence - Smoking Gun ... by Cheryl Seal www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm also at www.unknownnews.net/cdd052002.html one of the best articles describing the evidence and the motivations, warnings, the curious nature of the Pentagon attack (on the mostly empty part of the building), the Bush administration's interference with the FBI investigation of al-Qaeda, and much more. One of the best articles pointing out the likelihood of remote control of the four planes (hijacking the hijackers).

    At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. ... . why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue.

    www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/6/2088660.html

    The miraculous timing of the 9/11 skyjackers, Part 1 by margieburns on Thu 06 Jul 2006 www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/8/2093537.html

    "The Fog of War Games" -- the miraculous timing of the skyjackers, part 2 by margieburns on Sat Jul 8 18:23 2006 www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480940,00.html

    The war on paperclips: I worry that I'm turning into a conspiracy theorist AL Kennedy / Wednesday May 11, 2005 / The Guardian OK, I'm paranoid and depressed. My new government of troglodytes, murderers and spivs barely elongates the customary scream I give upon waking. What troubles me more is our rulers' inevitable recommencement of the war on terror bollocks. To begin at what we're told is the beginning, we have 9/11 - the one in the US, not the earlier one in Chile when covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. Now if 9/11/2001 is so important, why is it so hard to find out what happened?

    The FBI, as we know, blocked all manner of investigations into the plot in the run up to its execution, whether these involved highly specific warnings from its own agents or from government sources in Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, the Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco and Russia.

    Meanwhile, I worry why the nearest military aircraft weren't scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked flights when this is standard procedure and why, when more distant jets were finally aloft, they flew at less than half speed, thus failing to prevent the impacts at the twin towers and then, it would seem, managing to shoot down Flight 93 when its passengers may already have overcome its hijackers.

    It would, of course, be easier to know what happened to Flight 93 if there weren't - according to educated estimates - three minutes of the cockpit recording missing. It would, equally, be handy to have access to the black boxes from the other crashes. Firefighters at Ground Zero have repeatedly stated that three of the four possible black boxes there were found and taken away by government agents.

    And these worries are maybe less important than the ones about clear links between the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and the men named as the 9/11 hijackers. Or the mysterious inability of anyone to capture Osama bin Laden, who fled from Tora Bora, possibly being evacuated by helicopter, and then escaped to Pakistan unhindered.

    So while Chinese paperclips are now made out of vital 9/11 evidence and almost every implicated party goes free, we and our controlling US interests continue fearlessly to terrorise countries unconnected with the attacks, to place permanent military bases near oil reserves and pipeline routes, to harass and murder Muslims anywhere we can, and to foment terrorist resistance at every opportunity. The UK unmasks non-existent ricin plots and threatens us with ID cards, but we can't supply our troops in Iraq with working radios or a legal causus belli.

    But you'd never want to think that on 9/11/2001 covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents and handed the country, if not the world, to a commerce-friendly, torture-loving, far-right junta. That would make you a paranoid, depressed conspiracy theorist. And, take it from me, that just wouldn't be comfortable.

    www.sanderhicks.com/hopsickerinterview.html

    HOPSICKER: See the basic story is and I need to tell you in just 30 seconds is [that] the government’s story is that I call the Magic Dutch Boy theory. Remember the Kennedy assassination when the "magic bullet" has passed thru three people, the only way they could make a story of one lone gunman even remotely logically possible?

    HICKS Most of the people never bought that and still don’t.

    HOPSICKER: Similarly, in 9/11, it’s only through the Magic Dutch Boy theory that you can believe these people came over here without the knowledge and consent of the U.S. government. The government’s story is that the year before the terrorists began to arrive in force, two separate Dutch nationals purchased separately the two flight schools at the Venice, Florida, airport, that, eight or nine months afterward, began training terrorists how to fly.

    HICKS: Right. But when it all sort of fell apart, both Dutch nationals happened to have two separate aircraft accidents.

    HOPSICKER: That’s correct. They are inconvenient people at this point, because if either one of them ever talked, it could bring down the government of the current administration.

    Making a Case for 9/11 Skepticism / by John A. McCurdy www.globalresearch.ca 20 November 2003 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MCC311A.html

    www.counterpunch.org/weiner0601.html / The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies by Bernard Weiner June 1, 2002

    A very good introductory article that points out the likelihood that Bush's notorious month-long "vacation" at his so-called ranch near Crawford, Texas was probably a long planning meeting for the post-9/11 political environment.

    www.narconews.com/goff1.html "The So-Called Evidence Is a Farce" By Stan Goff: written shortly after 9/11, this is still one of the best articles explaining the political context and the phony evidence for the official story

    www.attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm -- MSNBC article on the standdown by a (now deceased) mainstream journalist

    Sander Hicks interviews John Judge / http://sanderhicks.com/judge.html

    http://wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/sept-j24.shtml
    Why is there no investigation of what happened?

    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/sibels-way.html If I had to choose just four links to show your average joe and jane, and pique their interest in the possibility of a 9/11 coverup, these would be my top picks right now:

    1. The wargames acknowledgement AP report. The SF Chronicle is the only paper I know of that still has the original AP report available in their archives.

    2. Senator Dayton's declaration that NORAD and the FAA lied. He announced it during the week of the Dem's National Convention last year. He's got a pair.

    3. This in depth timeline of the event of that day certainly points toward high-level government deception. It's long, but fascinating and crucial to understanding just what Senator Dayton was talking about.

    4. And then finally This gem of a report on the destruction of the FAA controller tapes. No coverup is complete without the destruction of evidence.

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ginny,

    thanks for making it brief.

    There's a rally at mid-night (consult Monday's astrology chart for location) to meet the aliens that have taken control of GW. Make sure to say the secret code. See you there.

  • Ginny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    William,

    I noticed you didn't even attempt to answer the questions or refute the evidence. Nor did you give any email address or link to for further inquiry or debate. Who's paranoid? Give some of those links a read and let me know your theory that takes the facts into account. The 9/11 Report certainly doesn't, so please let us know your choice of conspiracy theory. (By the way, the 9/11 Report is a consipracy theory. But it is one of those "outrageous" conspiracy theories that Bush warned us not to believe in, remember? So please come up with one that is not outrageous and state it here.)

    Dan -- Sorry. I did get a bit carried away. But there is so much the corporate koolaid dispenser is not telling us, it is very difficult to summarize it briefly. I do apologize for the length but I hope now that you have satisfied yourself with a good round of insulting me, that you get to it and read some of the facts. Either face the facts and explain them or take your sophomoric sarcasm and leave this discussion to those few here who prefer to come to conclusions based on facts and evidence rather than what they are told to believe by the petulant, psychotic, unelected troglodyte inhabiting our White House and his insipid synchophants controlling our airwaves.

    Thank you,

    Ginny

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't want to get caught in the crossfire but here is a link to some interesting reading that debunks the conspiracy theories.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The 9/11 Comission Report (avaliable at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf was prepared by a diverse and competent group of people that had access to virtually every witness and piece of evidence available (including 2 million pages of documents).

    I believe page 480 (the speech of President Clinton to the Long Island Association) is the single most damning piece of evidence. Assuming you don't quibble over what the meaning of the word "is" is.

    If you want to be taken seriously, you need to pick one or two conspiracy theories, and then work to develop a chronology of events that explain away the multitude of contradictions with the 9/11 Commission Report.

    You diminish your own credibility with the shotgun approach ("The Government Lied about September 11") and links to dozens of distinct conspiracy theories available on the web.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ginny -

    It's impossible to have any sort of real discussion - on your terms - about the so-called facts you cite. You can take that grocery list of websites as gospel, but when each of them (supposedly reputable) proffers "facts" that are in direct contradiction with each other (e.g. AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon vs. there was no AA 77), a reasonable person has to wonder about the quality and credibility of information.

    What you have is a pile of self-contradiction, conjecture, hearsay, and a lot of other jibbery-joo masquerading as fact.

    I, for one, know that there was no AA 77 that hit the Pentagon. The folks who were supposedly on the plane are lying low in my basement - we're about to watch some re-runs of House.

    Don't believe me? I'm about to publish an expose about it on the Internet, that magical realm where everything is true.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    At first I thought Ginny was suffering from Paranoid delusion along the lines of Bev Harris, then I found a website that convinced me that the entire world is being controlled by a small covert group of powerful people.

    These “people” follow a serpent cult belief that dates back thousands of years. Rituals are being carried out to this day; sadly this includes the sexual abuse and murder of young children. I point out at this early stage that I do not want you to believe what I say out of hand. I want you to carry out your own research.

    Remember the movie "Snakes on a Plane"? This link has nothing to do with it, or with the Federal Agent in Charge of the 9/11 Plot. That said, I'm pretty sure they used snakes to kill the pilots and crew of three of the 9/11 planes. Why? Because snakes have no skeleton, so there would be no evidence once the planes were incinerated. Need more proof: do a Google search on "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"...1.6 million results can't all be wrong, right? Well then add the word "+Snakes" to the above search: 9,666 hits. The 9 stands for September, and 666 stands for...he who has no name. I even found a picture of George Bush trying to infiltrate the truth seeker meetings.

    To all the skeptics: once you have read all 9,666 websites, then come back here and we can have an informed debate. Peace be with you.

  • JJ Ark (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ginny: you post a monster batch o links that would take any thorough person YEARS to fully research, document and rebut.

    Impossible.

    So I guess she who posts the most wins?

    The simple truth is that this is an exercise in irrelevance. If EITHER the government story OR a conspiracy is to be believed, the net result is the same: the only people you can rely on are your fellow citizens. Period.

    If the Government story is correct, and the events of September 11th were caused by Osama’s acolytes, we can examine the actions of that same government and come to the logical conclusion that they are inept and incapable of protecting us.

    If a conspiracy has been perpetrated, then we have no choice but to trust and rely on our fellow citizens.

    I would love to see someone move past the how and to the “what now”. I am not seeing anything like that at the moment.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JJ:

    IRONICALLY, I firmly believe that is precisely what the Bush Administration has been doing since September 12, 2001. They knew that our intelligence community and "law enforcement" approach to Al Qaeda suffered a series of deadly shut-outs in the years leading up to 9/11. They decided that a new, more aggressive, posture would be necessary to prevent future attacks. Scanning the horizon of anti-Americanism around the globe, he decided early on that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the stability of the region and proliferation of WMDs.

    Five years later, there have been no additional attacks on U.S. soil (excepting the follow on Anthrax Attacks which began the week after 9/11) and any "violation" of my civil liberties remain undetected.

    I am dumbfounded that anybody (least of all a U.S. Congressman) would see any reason to extend U.S. Constitutional protections to foreign fighters picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan or the IED factories in Baghdad. I understand that we must respect the Geneva Conventions in order to maintain our moral compass. That said, I am under no illusion that Al Qaeda will quit beheading their hostages, killing civilians by the dozens, or exploiting the weaknesses inherent in an open and free society.

    Given our recent experience with the North Vietnamese and (previously) the Imperial Japanese Army, it seems unlikely that America's respect for the rules of war (including the Geneva Conventions) will encourage our adversaries to do the same.

  • (Show?)

    Gents,

    I did apologize for the long post, but there is just so much research that people need to start delving into. It is not conflicting or confusing, but it is detailed. It is no more "jibbery-joo" than the bizarre non-answers and silly sarcasm espoused by you and other coincidence theorists for years now.

    We've had 5 years and the debate has barely begun. Why? The proponents of the official myth haven't provided evidence that withstands even the most elemental scrutiny. They have engaged in a massive cover up, and only created their highly conflicted and virtually worthless 9/11 Omission Report when forced to do so --- getting started 441 days after the events in question.

    There's plenty to debate, so let's do that. It's highly 'possible'. How about my simple 3 questions that I posted upstream in this thread somewhere? It's possible to discuss those questions isn't it. Why indeed did a 47 story steel frame building, WTC 7, collapse into its footprint without even being hit by a plane and suffering only minor isolated fires on 3 separate floors? Are you afraid to say? Why is there no explanation of this in the 9/11 Commission Report?

    My theory is that pre-set explosives and a controlled demolition caused the collapse. This theory is supported by, oh, say Newton and Galileo. The 9/11 Report fails to even mention this collapse. Maybe they think alien terrorists did it with a ray gun? How about the major simultaneous war games and drills on 9/11? Let's debate those. Do you deny they happened? Do you know they are barely mentioned in the 9/11 Report? This idea that debate is impossible is just a pathetic cop-out among you Coincidence Theorists. You're not afraid are you? Just like Pitts in today's Oregonian. What a spineless, illogical cop out that was. He claims the Truth movement engages in "rote rejection" and does it himself in practically every sentence.

    Frankly, I have yet to see the real debate even begin -- the mainstream gatekeepers are just too afraid of it. Many of you who have flamed me (and perhaps other regular Blue Oregon bloggers?) are perhaps just still too afraid to begin the debate. If so, the terrorists have indeed won. Inquiry may lead to a horrible place, but nevertheless, the facts await you. FACTS (not theory) that have been WHOLLY DISREGARDED by the official narrative and the 9/11 Omission Report. Three massive steel frame buildings were demolished into dust by explosives in broad daylight in the middle of our biggest urban center. There is no possible way, unless you believe in magical, supranatural powers, that "fire from plane collisions" brought these buildings down. The Bush crime syndicate can break every law we have, desecrate and defile our Constitution as they have done for five years now, but I'm sorry, they can not violate the laws of physics. They just can't. So what's the explanation?

    I posted the long selection of various links and arguments to help demonstrate how woefully inadequate is the official Coincidence Theory and to provide resources for those who are interested. It is not required to read it in order to debate. And the answers to be sought are NOT irrelevant. False flag terrorism must end. Secret national "security" agencies and military industrial networks awash in trillions of dollars of off-budget US taxpayer funds, illegal arms and drug money, and vast plunder from the developing world must end. That we are the pawns in the grotesque charade of 9/11 and its trumped up, CIA-ISI connected patsies and boogey men like Bin Laden and Atta is a dispicable reality in America. The BIG LIE must end.

    It's time to start the real debate. If you can't debate the facts and have to dismiss all discussion a priori using the infantile "all of it is lunacy" approach (such as Leonard Pitts) then you are either still too afraid to look under the rock and are ruled by that fear (understandable perhaps), or you do not respect honest, thoughtful, fact-based inquiries and genuine quests for understanding. If the former, I want to invite you to look into these issues in an open, scholarly and collegial atmosphere at such links as www.st911.org and watch the carefully researched and well presented videos at http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html. Truth can set you free from the fear. If you fall into the latter category, I can't help you because you have chosen to join the 'faith-based' community that has cast off the rigorous fact and science-based rationality that is and should remain the hallmark of our society.

    As a simple, two step challenge, I ask anyone reading this comment, to watch this one video: http://blip.tv/file/72781

    Come back here and let me know your theory of the attacks, and also explain how Building 7 fell down without pre-planning and why it wasn't mentioned in the Omission Report.

    Thanks for seeking truth and good luck,

    Ginny

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h1/>

    Well-worded bogosity, Mr.TeeVee -- 'V' for Vapid -- agit-denying the anthrax was traitorous CIA-grade and traitorous CIA-sourced, (while agit-lying on its timing), and sweeping under your rug of ignorance for all, one single mention of the lawyer kidnapped from his home in Hillsboro at the 2:00 a.m. Gestapo hour, slandered and defamed in false reports to a fear Press who then published the unsubstantiated hype gnosis, illegally incarcerated and questioned without counsel present, and unconstitutionally held unarraigned and incommunicado, whose name (both is forgotten on purpose, and does not deserve dishonored of being in the same breath of a sentence with your name on it), is signed now on a false arrest and sedition lawsuit against F.B.I. impatriotics whose 8-figure malfeasance-charged fines could be your tax dollars at despot's work; sweeping stupidly bellicose one single mention of fascist Republican war criminalities to avoid entering the list of thousands of them (www.WayneMadsenReport.com), decent and innocent souls extraordinarily and illegally renditioned -- your tax dollars and taxing self-disparagement toadiness, at work, again -- in the human rights crimes of military-industrial proxy-mercenary torture murderings (which just like Adolf Hitler, Mr.TeeVee endorses) until, now, only the 14 surviving victims are claimed -- without evidentiary proof, again -- to have been transferred, illegally, to and set to be finished off at the atrocity arena you battily bloodthirst to Git mo' of.

    But I want to go back to something you said earlier, (Sep 11, 2006 6:08:26 AM), or somebody like you, and advise whoever heeds the heads-up: that you could "just go piss" as you say, and also could put shit in your mouth to chew on before you speak again to get an idea what your words make you -- war crimes collaborator. Someone should be around to check on you after Nuremberg-going impeachments dishabiles the skirts you hide and harbor inhuman hate behind today. People are beautiful and bright, people -- that would be us -- are all and everything, but by all appearances you congenitally hate when that happens for some probable comparative disadvantage in a milieu making you loser. Pity, you spell and wordwork so well in your infamy of temper infidelius, as much as all experience has seen in those who fooled the intelligence community of mistaken qualification before being rumped and dumped back in civil ordered society you never came out of identified with in the first place -- that origin being dispiritingly viable birth.

    JJArk -- you got the exack fack jack: Security for me is thee and for thee is me, and mutual, too, for common threat and danger. When you go on like TeeVee dismissing what is truth's importance -- Decide: Theory A. Osamaboys did it; Theory B. Bushboys did it -- how can you have our backs until you know what threatening you are warding? You're right, it's up to you, and me. And you're right, "what now?" to be matters more. I said what I see on a later thread, (Jeff Alworth's "9/11 - Violence and Other Lessons"), but here, in short, what now is: They strike again. They'll be ba-a-ack. Very like they threaten. So you may see it is important to know, what the first ones looked like in order to recognize the same ones a second time, approaching. (Psst! Hint: They look bush-league Ivy league.)

    Ginny -- thanks for the links and honeyed toast. I found and read half your list, (it only takes a week or two of study halls), and, Props!, Big up!, am down with your surmise. However, except, I don't see your objections in some 'remote' possibilities, I don't see the Boeing hunted for you say you see, and I do see days-old new information on the case we could share. Not here, the TeeVee's always on. That's what's wrong with this place, auteurs quoting status quo Democrat brandbrain and anti-Democrat blankbrain.

    We could meet up over at BlogForOregon.com and kick around some new information.

    <h1/>
  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ginny:

    Here's another 102 links for your review... To reiterate: I believe you are pissing on the graves of the dead when you suggest that "Da Gummint" was the true perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. Your tin-foil hat needs another layer: you're making the Sasquatch hunters and the UFOlogists look respectable, by way of comparison.

    While I am not a structural enginner, those who are believe that falling debris from WTC 1 (see page 5-16) ignited a fire at 7 World Trade Center ("WTC 7") that was accelerated by large diesel storage tanks (with more than 30,000 gallons of capacity) that fueled the fires. There was also a 10 story "gash" on the south side of the building, presumably resulting from falling WTC 1 debris. WTC 7's "cantilevered" design (especially floor 5 and 7) likely compromised the entire structure.

    Sadly, given the close proximity of two 112 story towers that had just collapsed, the smoke and debris made it difficult to document the extent of damage to WTC 7 before it also collapsed. The firefighting capacity was severely diminished in lower Manhattan, and there was no "manual" water deployed on 7 WTC (the duration of automatic sprinkler deployment is also unknown, but the consensus is that the sprinkler pipes were compromised). Did I mention there was an electrical substation in the basement?

    Given that both the US Secret Service and the NY City Mayor's Office of Emergency Management were located in 7 WTC, it sure was some conspiracy to make certain they never found out about it. Cause they would be pissed.

    Never demand a conspiracy when sheer bureacratic malaise and political correctness can explain how September 11th occurred without a hitch.

    95% of these conspiracy theories are baseless horseshit that use innuendo and/or bad camera angles to suggest that 4 airplanes simply vanished without a trace. To paraphrase an old joke: who would you like us to believe Ginny, YOU, or our lying eyes?

    NEVER FORGET the brave souls on UAL Flight 93 who sacrificed their own lives in order to spare the U.S. Congress or the White House from destruction (much to Tenskey's dismay).

    They are the only ones who proactively defeated the terrorists of 9/11, and we owe them an eternal debt of gratitude.

    http://www.serendipity.li/wot/7wtc.html

  • (Show?)

    Mr. Tee --- The FEMA report!!!! ROTFLMAO! If it weren't so sad.

    "95% of these conspiracy theories are baseless horseshit that use innuendo and/or bad camera angles to suggest that 4 airplanes simply vanished without a trace."

    This comment is, itself, the baseless waste matter with no foundation. I do not espouse no-plane theories, nor do any of the dozens of quality research sites I visit. We demand tapes, blackboxes and other evidence that has been purposely SUPRESSED. Why do you contort and twist so to defend the "baseless HS" of the Commission Report? It uses 10 times worse science than these theories you invent in my comments which are not there, and then deride. The Omission Report forgot to include 40+ massive steel core columns in each of the towers. WTF! If they can't get a simple thing like that right, why are you so determined to cover their lying HS producing regions! I don't get it. Unless you are one of the many provocatuers out there trying to waste our time. Well unless you can come up with some kind of reality based assessment using actual science I will just rest my case on WTC 7 with Steven Jones' excellent paper. Have fun with your insipid sarcasm and insults of me, they mean less than squat. The Popular Mechanics and FEMA reports are nonsense when you look at them. There is no possible way a diesel explosion could produce the result you see with your eyes.

    "To paraphrase an old joke: who would you like us to believe Ginny, YOU, or our lying eyes?"

    <h2>Don't believe me, do the research yourself. Believe your eyes, but only after you open them. They are currently slammed shut due to your a priori acceptance of the official myth instead of an open investigation of the all the facts. Go here, http://www.st911.org, scroll down on the right and read the debunking of the NIST and Popular Mechanics pieces. Another illuminating piece on the whole Popular Mechanics fiasco is here. Also, I bolded the paragraph that characterizes much of the debate. Faith or Bush based believers in the myth pick the most absurd thing they can find in the truth movement and think they've solved it all if they can debunk the most absurd, fringe, ridiculous claim they can find.</h2>

    9/11 Op/Eds: One Great Big Stupid Lie After Another Hacks Scribble While the Official Conspiracy Theory Burns! http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3428 Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

    I don't know whether you've noticed, but I have: billions and billions of op/ed pieces coming out every day lately, purportedly "debunking" the so-called "conspiracy theorists" on the subject of 9/11. A glutton for punishment, I read as many of them as I can get my grubby little hands on.

    <h2>One thing they do — one thing they all do — is fasten onto one or a few of the least plausible suggestions ever advanced by anyone who didn't believe the official story of 9/11, shred them (yes, very easy to do!) and then act as if such shredding nullifies every question raised by every person who does not believe the “official conspiracy theory" of 9/11.</h2>

    And I would just add, they have a hard time honestly looking at independent evidence because they are too busy trying to insult those of us who are.

    Enjoy your truthseeking.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ginny:

    You need help.

    Even if you've never heard that suggestion before, let me assure you that you are going to hear it again from friends and family members that listen to your conspiracy theories. These friends and family members aren't trying to insult you or diminish your capacity for reason: they are trying to help you understand that people who disagree with your beliefs have based their opinions on reasonable data, and they are not parties to the conspiracy that resulted (in your opinion) in the attack on 9/11.

    Speak with your doctor, or call your EAP/Insurance provider and tell them you would like a referral for a psychiatric consultation.

    Let me assure you that I'm not with the FBI, the CIA, FEMA, DoD, the Insurance Lobby, AIPAC, Mossad, the White House, or any of the other perpetrators or investigators of the 9/11 attacks.

    I am a staunch defender of the truth, and I'm frustrated with the large body of unreliable and misleading data that is available on the web. There is no accountability, and anybody can make up anything and then post it as "truthiness".

    The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, including the recent videotape released by Usama Bin Laden. I understand that you disagree with this simple thesis. If you reject this explanation, then please indicate who you believe to be responsible, and how they managed to destroy several high-rise buildings in Manhattan, 4 planes, and damage the Pentagon. Don't give me any more links: tell me what you believe to be the truth.

    Here's a 294 page report from the National Institute on Standards and Technology at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf. The specific discussion of WTC 7 begins on page 108 (there's a great photo of a burned out fire truck next to WTC 7 taken soon after the collapse of WTC 1): this was the "pumper" that would have supplied water pressure to the risers inside of WTC 7, if it hadn't been destroyed. Effective firefighting capability was compromised by this (and other) FDNY equipment and personnel losses. If you don't successfully combat the fire, and there is sufficient fuel to raise the maximum temperatures, just about any steel building will be destroyed.

    More information is available at http://wtc.nist.gov/

  • (Show?)

    Mr. Tee,

    <h2>It is you who needs help, and urgently. It appears you have bought the Big Lie, lock, stock and barrel. I have done more than enough to point you to reliable sources. Note that the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports are riddled with scientific impossibilities, lies, highly conflicted oversight, massive redactions, and the omission of vast areas of documented facts and relevant information from Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh (PTech) and Michael Ruppert (War Games and Drills). The Osama video you site is like a very bad joke. If you believe Bin Ladin is in the tape, the help you need may be out of reach no matter what link or assistance I provide. Good luck in your quest for understanding. I tried.</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon