Time for 9/11 fairytale to be officially challenged

by MelGibson Sun Oct 02, 2011 08:13

Of course they would pipe up to counter Ahmadinejad spreading the doubt about the official version of 9/11. Because..they work for the CIA. The CIA even put one of 'em in charge of the NTC in Libya fer chrissake!
They were CREATED by the CIA. Their name, al qaeda, is just the name of a CIA database (of mujahadeen assets)

I don't agree with I'mADinnerJacket's notions about what's ok to do in your bedroom, but I like the way he sticks it to the US government at every available opportunity.

by pat c Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:34

Not sure what to make of this.

Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

Terrorist organisation's magazine reportedly says it is 'ridiculous' for Iran's president to blame the attacks on the US government

Al-Qaida has sent a message to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking him to stop spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

Iranian media on Wednesday reported quotes from what appears to be an article published in the latest issue of the al-Qaida English language magazine, Inspire, which described Ahmadinejad's remarks over the 11 September attacks as "ridiculous".

In his UN general assembly speech last week, Ahmadinejad cast doubt over the official version of the 2001 attacks.

"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al-Qaida was behind 9/11 but rather, the US government," the article said, according to Iranian media. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

Ahmadinejad said in New York that the "mysterious September 11 incident" had been used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. He had also previously expressed scepticism at the US version of events.

"By using their imperialistic media network which is under the influence of colonialism, they threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the September 11 event with sanctions and military actions," said Ahmadinejad.

The al-Qaida article insisted it had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.

"For them, al-Qaida was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world," said the article published in the Inspire magazine. "Al-Qaida … succeeded in what Iran couldn't. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories."

Al-Qaida also accused Iran of hypocrisy over its "anti-Americanism".

The article said: "For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics. It is anti-America when it suits it and it is a collaborator with the US when it suits it, as we have seen in the shameful assistance Iran gave to the US in its invasion of Afghanistan and in the Shia of Iraq, backed by Iran, bringing the American forces into the country and welcoming them with open arms."

During his visit to New York, Ahmadinejad also changed his position on gay people in Iran. He had previously famously said: "We don't have homosexuals [in Iran] like you do in your country. This does not exist in our country."

But according to the American news website the Daily Beast, in a meeting with a number of journalists last week, he said: "In Iran, homosexuality is seen as an ugly act … There may be some people who are homosexuals who are in touch with you. But in Iranian society they're ashamed to announce it so they're not known. This is an act against God and his prophets. But we as the government can't go out and stop people."

by Osama Thu Sep 29, 2011 05:25

Actually not so cut and dried.
osama claimed he didn't do it:

Quote(wikipedia):

Osama bin Laden statements after 9/11
-------------------------------------------------------
Prior to his death on May 2, 2011, the FBI listed bin Laden as one of the "10 Most Wanted" in connection with several incidents including the USS Cole bombing and the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. The FBI's "FBI Most Wanted Terrorists" poster does not specifically hang responsibility for 9/11 on bin Laden, instead it only states "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."[56]
Messages issued by bin Laden after September 11, 2001 praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while at first denying any involvement.[57] On September 16, 2001, an Al Jazeera news presenter read a message purportedly signed by Osama bin Laden, in which the following words were stated:
"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.[58][59][60]
In an interview with Osama bin Laden, published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat Karachi on September 28, 2001, he stated:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act."

Also, osama bin laden needed regular kidney dialysis and some people believe he died way back in 2001 from renal failure.

by hard hat man Wed Sep 28, 2011 23:58

Two airplanes hit two (very large) towers. They collapsed. Debris showered down, some of it hitting a third, much smaller tower which suffered severe structural damage and fire. It later collapsed. No awesome physics necessary at all. Gravity and Occam's razor does the job just fine.

by Damien M - PW Wed Sep 28, 2011 09:31

"The planes hit the towers and they collapsed --- end of story"

Don't you mean, "2 planes hit 3 towers and they collapsed?

by Fred Wed Sep 28, 2011 01:04

Were you around and an adult 10 years ago ?

Dont you recall Osama Bin L

claiming credit for it on Al Jazeera ?

All this revisionist nonsense about how and why the TT collapsed

is a red herring and nonsense

The planes hit the towers and they collapsed --- end of story

by Serf Mon Sep 26, 2011 23:18

"...are you saying Silverstein got US and Israeli intelligence to blow up his building so he could claim the insurance?"

I never mentioned Israelis or US intelligence.

All I'M saying is that the collapse of building 7 needs a proper independent investigation with a full release of any material held on file relating to the matter and full access to any remaining physical evidence. in my opinion this has not happened. The nist report is certainly not adequate for purpose at all regarding building 7 (to say the least!!)

by Serf Mon Sep 26, 2011 23:05

regarding the rest of your post

I put inverted commas around the word "outlandish" to allude to your own description. sorry if that was unclear.

There are some "fringe" people who perhaps do merit this term in my own opinion but it is a common disinformation tactic to place deliberately exaggerated distorted versions of something embarrassing in the public domain so that you can discredit the kernel of truth in that information by associating those people talking about it with the "lunatic fringe" rather than having to disprove the information itself. much easier!

For example:

if I said " a group of very rich folk and government officials have an agenda to manipulate society for their own elite benefit and they meet in secret to discuss their plans" thats not out of the question is it?.

If another group is then set up saying that elites are meeting up to manipulate society because they are "lizard overlords who eat babies at rituals and want to harvest us all for some juices produced in our pineal glands" and then make associations consistently in high profile media between the first group and the second group describing both under the same umbrella of "conspiracy theories" then what is the likely result?

well, one result might be that otherwise open minded normal folk will shy away from the first groups statements because they are embarrassed to be linked with the second group. This chills discussion of the valid theory brought up by the first group.

You and people like you, mister hard hat, clever as you think you are, are the "useful idiots" (lenins term) helping to do that job for the people that would not like the genuine questions that need to be asked about 9/11 to receive widespread discussion.

If just open discussion and proof is all you want then fine, I'm all for that too, but by entering into discussions in the hostile mocking manner that you do you are acting as a tool of those who do NOT want open free discussion and perpetuating a free speech chilling tactic.

All I ask is that you are polite and respectful while entering discussions, even with "conspiraloons". If you are on the side of rationality, logic and reason then your arguments alone will win out without you being a "useful idiot"* acting as an unwitting tool of free speech oppression.

peace

S.

I do not mean the term "useful idiot" in a derogatory sense but as a description (look it up)

by hard hat man Mon Sep 26, 2011 23:03

...are you saying Silverstein got US and Israeli intelligence to blow up his building so he could claim the insurance?

by hard hat man Mon Sep 26, 2011 23:03

...are you saying Silverstein got US and Israeli intelligence to blow up his building so he could claim the insurance?

by Serf Mon Sep 26, 2011 22:32

"Anyway, what's the motive for deliberately blowing up WTC7 given that any plan to blow up towers one and two would almost inevitably damage it beyond use? "

well apparently the story goes that mr silverstien (he who is quoted on tv as saying "they pulled it") made a nice amount of money on some recently upgraded insurance policies that paid out double on buildings that would have otherwise cost him a pretty penny removing loads of asbestos from.

by hard hat man Mon Sep 26, 2011 21:55

But YOUR post gets to use adjectives like "outlandish" "isolated factoids" "conspiraloonacy" "bald statements" without providing any evidence whatsoever. Its just a typical rhetorical tactic used whereby you try to embarrass people

I hardly have to try to embarrass 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They do quite a good job of that themselves!

by linking them to certain groups that are villified in the media for discussing something they have every right to discuss, thereby chilling any further discussion

Far from trying to chill any further discussion - I think it should be encouraged. The truth will emerge from the normal scientific process of establishing facts, constructing hypotheses and testing for consistency. Conspiraloons work backwards, starting with their pet theory (The Yanks and the Jews done it) bigging up every piece of evidence that suits this theory and discarding evidence that doesn't.

"rhetoric 101" if you like!

You are really no better than the people you are claiming to debunk. Surely if you are going to throw out lots of high talk about evidence, then you should also in turn have to hold yourself to a higher standard of evidence. Instead your post is just a bunch of generalisations cheap rhetoric and smears designed to throw mud at the other person hoping some of it sticks and in doing so close down any other reasonable discussion or evidence that might also arise on the topic.

Not really. He who asserts must prove. It I say the moon is made of cheese it is really up to me to provide a basic modicum of proof for this. Declan has asserted that US/Israeli intelligence ran 9/11 as a false flag operation. I'm still waiting to see the evidence (or even a fully thought out hypothesis, for that matter.)

Not evidence in any sense I understand the word. Not even as good as declans youtube videos in my opinion.

Declan is free to express his reservations about 9/11. I don't expect a phd thesis on an internet forum, neither should you. It's just some food for thought and a few links to get people going in their own explorations.

Fair enough. No harm in that. I've done the explorations myself, watched the tedious youtube videos (some of these dudes make televangelists look honourable) and, in my opinion, found them to be absolutely unconvincing. To put it mildly.

Thats all. Its not for you to limit what ideas people are allowed to consider or explore by trying to associate them with villified groups if they venture outside their "thought prisons"

Absolutely! I agree entirely. Openness to consideration and exploration of ideas is invariably good. But Declan is doing more than "considering" or "exploring". He is asserting as absolute fact, without qualification, that the Americans/Israelis did 9/11 and the BBC is funded by MI5/6. I'm simply asking to see the proof and testt it.

Aristotle once said "an educated mind can entertain an idea without accepting it"

I think most people, while somewhat skeptical about some of the more outlandish

Uh, and you were criticising me for using the word "outlandish" without the requisite level of evidence :-)

theories are also not happy with the official report which left a lot out.

Still doesn't prove the Yanks and the Jews done it

Personally I'm not happy about the explanations for building 7 collapsing.

Fair enough, but don't you think getting direct hits from the falling chunks of the twin towers and subsequent fires breaking out might have had something to do with it? Anyway, what's the motive for deliberately blowing up WTC7 given that any plan to blow up towers one and two would almost inevitably damage it beyond use?

There are plenty of people including lots of architects and engineers who hold similar reservations.

Yep, there's about 1500 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. A tiny, tiny percentage of the engineers and architects in the US.

Link to your "high quality evidence" by all means but stop being such a bully. Anybody would think you were feeling threatened or something!! ;-)

Nope, just allergic to anti-intellectualism.

by Serf Mon Sep 26, 2011 20:24

But YOUR post gets to use adjectives like "outlandish" "isolated factoids" "conspiraloonacy" "bald statements" without providing any evidence whatsoever. Its just a typical rhetorical tactic used whereby you try to embarrass people by linking them to certain groups that are villified in the media for discussing something they have every right to discuss, thereby chilling any further discussion

"rhetoric 101" if you like!

You are really no better than the people you are claiming to debunk. Surely if you are going to throw out lots of high talk about evidence, then you should also in turn have to hold yourself to a higher standard of evidence. Instead your post is just a bunch of generalisations cheap rhetoric and smears designed to throw mud at the other person hoping some of it sticks and in doing so close down any other reasonable discussion or evidence that might also arise on the topic.

Not evidence in any sense I understand the word. Not even as good as declans youtube videos in my opinion.

Declan is free to express his reservations about 9/11. I don't expect a phd thesis on an internet forum, neither should you. It's just some food for thought and a few links to get people going in their own explorations. Thats all. Its not for you to limit what ideas people are allowed to consider or explore by trying to associate them with villified groups if they venture outside their "thought prisons"

Aristotle once said "an educated mind can entertain an idea without accepting it"

I think most people, while somewhat skeptical about some of the more "outlandish" theories are also not happy with the official report which left a lot out.

Personally I'm not happy about the explanations for building 7 collapsing. There are plenty of people including lots of architects and engineers who hold similar reservations.

Link to your "high quality evidence" by all means but stop being such a bully. Anybody would think you were feeling threatened or something!! ;-)

by hard hat man Mon Sep 26, 2011 18:57

Declan,

You are demonstrating a textbook example of Conspiraloonacy 101. The modus operandi is simple.

A) Put forward outlandish claims. eg 9/11 was a "false flag" operation carried out by US/Israeli intelligence, BBC is funded by MI5/6 etc etc.

B) Put forward absolutely no real evidence whatsoever for your claims. (Note: a few youtube videos do not constitute "evidence"

C) Find a few isolated factoids that, on first examination, are odd or possibly inconsistent with the "official narrative"

D) Studiously ignore overwhelming mountains of evidence that support the "official narrative" If challenged on this, resort to claiming that any evidence that doesn't suit your theory is the product of a massive disinformation/COINTELPRO/hasbara campaign.

E) Above all, avoid putting forward a clear outline of precisely what you are alleging. It is sufficient instead to rely on bald statements, ( such as 9/11 was a US/Israeli conspiracy) unsupported assertion and confident claims that the truth will out and that "soon" the whole world will know you're right.

F) For good measure, elevate yourself and co-believers into an elite who are intelligent/brave/principled enough to reject the orthodoxy and embrace the more challenging view. Of course the rest of us are then relegated to the status of Sheeple who follow blindly the party line rather than using common sense and logic like the cognoscenti.

It's a foolproof (well, almost!!) strategy. You allege a conspiracy on slim or no proof. Any counter arguments then can be written off as yet another manifestation of the conspiracy itself! Ingenious, really!!!

by Declan Cullen Mon Sep 26, 2011 17:18

Why is it that people that follow the official line always insult others for using their common sense, or that think differently?

Insults are the last refuge of a scoundrel, and they are not logic.

by hard hat man Mon Sep 26, 2011 16:55

So the BBC fucked up with a kindergarten level howler - thats far from proof that its a bought and paid for stooge of British Intelligence. If the India/Libya crowd thing was a serious attempt at propaganda don't you think it would have been done with at least a veneer of competence. After all you apparently believe that 9/11 was carried out by US/Israeli intelligence. If the competence exists to pull off a deception of that complexity, surely 'they' could manage to plant more convincing false propaganda on the BBC. [unnecessary insult hidden by moderator] dontcha think....

by Declan Cullen Mon Sep 26, 2011 16:16

The BBC was busted using footage of cheering crowds in India and claimed it was celebrations from Tripoli. Fact!.

Insulting people no longer works. Because people care more about the truth than they do about being berated.

by hard hat man Mon Sep 26, 2011 16:00

BBC is funded by the licence fee and a block grant from the uk government. This seems fairly obvious to me. But for conspiraloons the 'proof' of MI5/6 funding is of course its making of The Third Tower documentary (its on youtube) which showed how WTC7 could indeed have collapsed WITHOUT the assistance of thermite, controlled demolition charges, dancing Mossad agents, New World Order, Illuminati and other assorted exotica. Sometimes the truth is just plain, well, boring.

by Declan Cullen Mon Sep 26, 2011 09:53

Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC and Euronews are funded by the intelligence services of their country or region.

Al Jazeera was set up to convey to its muslim viewers and others that they were the there to tell the truth of what was going in the Muslim world. It is funded by the Pentagon as a 'Psy Ops' program, and being that it will by used in a full blown propaganda push when the next Muslim country in invaded.

Al Jazeera and CNN are funded by the Pentagon, the BBC by MI5 and MI6, and Euronews by NATO.

This is not speculation, its fact.

Controlling the news is the most deadly weapon these organisations have in their arsenal.

by Serf Sun Sep 25, 2011 18:11

most people any way in the know now agree that al jazeera has been compromised.
Its coverage of libyan debacle was totally biased.
Recently its head resigned over wikileaks allegations of CIA links
Here's an article outlining this all in more detail but anyone who knows whats what has noticed changed attitudes towards al jazeera from establishment mouthpieces such as fox news. Thats never a good sign! :-(

Quote:
---------

Al Jazeera's director general-CIA agent?

Foe to friend – changed US stance on Al Jazeera
Published: 22 September, 2011, 10:50
Edited: 22 September, 2011, 13:54

Al Jazeera's director general has resigned due to rumors he is linked to the CIA. Critics say that would explain the switching US attitude towards the Qatar-based news network.

Not all that long ago, the Al Jazeera news network was considered “evil” by Washington. However the White House has certainly changed its tune, recently praising the channel’s ground-breaking coverage.

That is little surprise, say critics, after WikiLeaks revelations exposed Wadah Khanfar, its director general, as having links to the CIA, prompting him to hurriedly quit. Stepping into the vacant chair is Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani, an executive at Qatargas and a member of the country's ruling dynasty. This has fueled fears that Doha’s voice will get louder.

Al Jazeera, or “The Island”, is not in isolation anymore. Right now Al Jazeera English is seen in 2 million American households.

The channel’s in-your-face coverage of the violent turmoil in the Middle East and Libya, has grabbed it a cozy place alongside other local news sources in the US. The recent WikiLeaks claim about Al Jazeera’s now-resigned director general, though, indicate a longer-term interest in the channel among certain sections of America.

"The reports say that the US government has been monitoring Al Jazeera Arabic before the English channel even started .Then Al Jazeera English as well,” Omar Chatriwala, a former Al Jazeera reporter told RT. “They went through the website, both English and Arabic, and kept the detailed list of things that they found inaccurate, inappropriate, journalistically questionable or simply that they didn't like. Then they would sit down with Wadah and would discuss these points."

Afshin Rattansi, author and journalist, told RT that “the Arabic service was dearly criticized for being partisan and seeming to reflect certain elements of Qatari policy.”

Hints of new angles came earlier this year when Arab regimes started to crumble.

Tahrir Square has become a pivotal landmark in the Arab world and a symbol of the spring uprising. The events in Tahrir also marked a turning point for Al Jazeera, a channel once vilified as anti-American and labeled extremist is now being called “real media”, while their coverage is just in line with US support of a series of regime changes in North Africa and the Middle East.

Qatar these days is interested in maintaining good relations with the US, media analyst Phil Rees told RT.

“Of course many of us know that Al Jazeera and the Qatari government have for some years worked quite closely with the United States government. Remember that Qatar depends [on] its security from the United States. It has anti-missile systems based there, it has a large US military base,” he said. “Certainly for about five or six years there have been contacts between the US government and Al Jazeera, but it suited Qatar and it suited Al Jazeera. [Channel’s] anti-America stance was known about on the Arab street because that gave Qatar and Al Jazeera itself a great deal of popularity. Unfortunately these cables revealed the reality that there have been some back-room negotiations.”

Following his resignation from the station, Wadah Khanfar issued a statement saying that: “the target that was set up from the beginning was to transcend Al Jazeera into an international news network,” and that they did.

Years ago the channel used to send messages from Osama to Obama and was dubbed “Al-Qaeda TV”, but in 2004 Al Jazeera started getting live shout-outs on local US networks.

”This is a situation where media has become a war zone in itself and who controls the media?” Danny Schechter, a blogger and media critic, told RT. “We see this with Fox news, we see this with other channels around the world – now we are seeing it with Al Jazeera. I think the US will try to pressure Al Jazeera even more.”

More pressure means more praise too. Not long ago United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that, “Al Jazeera has been the leader and are literally changing people’s minds and attitudes.”

Al Jazeera’s slogan claims that the channel “is setting the news agenda”. It seems now that this is with the help of an old foe.

America attempts to control propagand and press?

by Fred Sun Sep 25, 2011 01:11

I think the main thing they pointed out was that Osama B L was goading the USA all the time from the time of the SS Cole onwards to invade and try to catch him in Afgahan sistan and he prompted the 15 or 16 "pilots " to train in USA as the US had not realised how serious and near miss the earlier attempt to bomb the Towers in 1993 was.

Even Al Jezzz who used to broadcast his videos seemed to think he was to blame

Thats the way it is folks

and as the cartoon used to say

" Thats All Folks "

by Godot Fri Sep 23, 2011 22:29

Please enlighten us as to what the 'truth' of 911 is.

Who was behind it, and what were there motives? Simple questions.

by Donald Fri Sep 23, 2011 19:37

Was that you tube video disney, very funny.

by Declan Cullen Fri Sep 23, 2011 15:14

Pro 9/11 'Official Story' Scientists will be telling us next that Santa Claus caused the collapse because he bumped into a major support column last time he left presents in the Towers.

WTC Building 7 was not hit by a plane so why did it fall into its own footprint in seven seconds?

Will they be also telling us next that is was the aluminium Soft Drink cans in the vending machines that caused that collapse?

NORAD went asleep for over an hour while four planes flew around some of the most protected airspace in the world unchecked.

9 / 11 was carried out by the intelligence services of the US and Israel.

Time to wake up people. No more sleeping allowed.

Here is a link to a video of the destruction of WTC Building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM&feature=play...lpage

by pat c Fri Sep 23, 2011 13:12

I'm not endorsing this, just posting for info/discussion purposes. Got it at the Fortean Times.

Explosions caused by jet fuel and water sprinklers brought down Twin Towers on 9/11, scientists say
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 7:15 AM on 23rd September 2011

A team of Norwegian scientists claimed that an explosive chemical reaction may have been responsible for collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11.
They said molten aluminium from the aircraft flown by the terrorists combined with water from fire sprinklers and caused a powerful explosion.

The 9/11 Commission - the official probe into the outrage - concluded that the Twin Towers fell on September 11, 2001 because the planes flown by terrorists caused 'Total Progressive Collapse' in both.
While the Norwegians do not dispute that general picture, they do say it does not explain the whole story.

That another theory could emerge a decade after 9/11 will stoke the many conspiracy theories around the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Over the years some have suggested it was the work of the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq or even to allow traders to make a fortune by betting against the stock market.

Christian Simensen of the Norwegian Research Institute SINTEF, however, said that the terrorists' planes were to blame.
His theory, presented at a technology conference in San Diego, is that when the planes went into the towers, they were trapped between floors which created a kiln-like effect.
This would have quickly pushed temperatures well past the melting point of their aluminium shell.
The melted aluminium would have run down to the lower floors where it mixed with water and caused temperatures to spike to 2,700 degrees and fire off explosive hydrogen.
These hydrogen blasts would have been enough to blow out sections of the building whilst the high temperatures would have weakened the steel supports.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040657/Explosi...bAPm8

by Fred Sat Sep 17, 2011 22:52

Al Jeezera showed an one hour

programme tonight Sat 17 Sept between 9 and 10 pm Irish time

Called " Clash of Civilisations "

with an excellent analysis by - Bari Atwan ?
- the Arab newspaper man based in London
was one of the contributors as well as Michael Sheur ex CIA whistle blower

intriquing , informative programme

by Declan Cullen Fri Sep 16, 2011 14:09

Hi pat c

Here is the direct link to 'In Plane Sight' (Full length video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYltoH2iWls&feature=play...lpage

by pat c Fri Sep 16, 2011 13:36

Heres a lettter from the current Weekly Worker. I haven't had a chance to view all of the vid yet so posting it for info purposes.

Plane view

Just look at the video ‘In plane site’ ( www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/911-in-plane-site.html ). Stick with it. It lays the blame for 9/11 and the wars which followed on the US government, military and the arms industry and is pretty convincing.

I always thought this was a conspiracy too far, but the documentary is really mind-boggling. I won’t write any more - just watch it. It’s well-made and just over an hour long. I haven’t watched the other videos on this site, but this one alone was enough to convince me that something very big is being covered up.

Tony Papard

by pat c Thu Sep 15, 2011 19:20

I'm not the Pat above that T is clashing with.

by T Wed Sep 14, 2011 18:47

Pat, I think you are misrepresenting what Declan said here. He is not saying that Muslims can't fly planes nor he is saying they can't fly planes because they are of a certain religion.

Then you state: 'The fact they you don't believe that this is possible, but that a conspiracy involving several thousand is possible, is frankly both absurd and racist.'

This is also an absurd statement and conclusion by you. What you are doing is slinging mud. You are setting up either or choices that simply don't exist nor make any sense whatsoever.

To address the point made by Declan, it is that the official story states there were 19 hijackers and it was ultimately organised from Afghanistan. The stuff about a laptop and a cave is sarcasm. He is pointing out that subsequent to the attacks 7 of these people were shown to be alive. He is also indicating that none of these people were qualifed airliner pilots. The official story says an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Yet many pilots say this would be an extremely difficult feat to pull off even for a trained pilot. They have also said the same about hitting the towers too.

He is also referring to the fact that the vast commnications eaves-dropping network of the NSA, appeared according to the official story not to have picked up any communication amongst these so called hijackers. We could go on and on, but I don't think there is any point because you seem to be only interested in taking things out of context and implying that anyone who does not believe the official story is a nut and in your above comment, you have extended that to being a racist as well.

It is quite clear you made up your mind a long time ago and that is fine, but there is no need to sling mud and slurs against people who happen to have a different opinion.

by Pat Wed Sep 14, 2011 17:30

Delan stated: It was not 19, sorry!, I meant 12 (because 7 turned up alive since then) 'hijackers' controlled by a guy on a Laptop in a cave thats for sure."

I'll think you'll find that Muslims, like people from any other race or religion, can have the capacity to fly planes, and communicate with each other by electronic means.

The fact they you don't believe that this is possible, but that a conspiracy involving several thousand is possible, is frankly both absurd and racist.

by Godot Wed Sep 14, 2011 17:15

The truth of who was behind 9/11 is coming to the surface. It won't be long now before the facts go global, and mainstream.

In the original article it's stated that, "it is about time that the other side of the 9/11 story is told".

The article then fails to mention who, in the authors opinion, was behind 9-11, and what their motives were (NWO, the 'Jews', Reptilian lizard people?)

In the absence of these two vital ingredients, several factoids are then presented as proof that unnamed people, for unnamed reasons, were behind 9-11.

Since the world is going to end in 2012 - there's as much 'evidence' for this as their is a 9-11 conspiracy- it would be helpful if the author could tell us who was behind 9-11 (and what there motives were) now, ahead of the rapture.

by Chicago Bull Wed Sep 14, 2011 16:19

Jeez, you make me laugh, lots of things can an do go boom when a house is burning, a TV, a Gas Cooker, Air Conditioning etc.,etc., multiply that a few thousand times for when a skyscraper is burning and something is bound to blast.

Don't worry Mr Cullen I doubt if any FBI or CIA types are to worried about your ridiculous nonsense, I stumbled on this while looking for the Irish Independent (I must have upset God that day).

by Declan Cullen Tue Sep 13, 2011 23:45

Hi T. Thanks for posting the info.

In relation to your post. Yes, real, Military Grade, Anthrax was sent in letters to people who opposed the war, and fake Anthrax letters were sent to Politicians who wanted the war. This is the smoking gun in the whole affair.

The same people who carried out the 9/11 attacks, also sent those letters. No mystery there then.
9/11 was a false flag attack. It was not 19, sorry!, I meant 12 (because 7 turned up alive since then) 'hijackers' controlled by a guy on a Laptop in a cave thats for sure.

If Bin Laden was that good maybe Bill Gates should have asked him would he had liked a job developing software applications. Better still. Steve Jobs could have headhunted him from Bill to develope new high - tech hardware devices. Picture the commercial.
"The next generation IPhone, now with the 'How to control Planes and hijackers from a Cave' app."
They would have sold like hotcakes!

The truth of who was behind 9/11 is coming to the surface. It won't be long now before the facts go global, and mainstream.

by T Tue Sep 13, 2011 23:04

Not mentioned here and probably forgotten by most people were the anthrax attacks in the form of anthrax letters in the days following 9/11.

During this time, they were delivered the second punch and kept the climate of fear going thereby paving the way for the Patroit Act to go through.

In the podcast interview on Guns & Butter, an excellent account is made of the sequence of events around these and the narrative that was given and this is teased apart of by Dr. Graeme MacQueen.

This was already referenced on the story http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100490 but here is the audio player to it.

www.indymedia.ie/attachments/sep2011/guns_n_butter_anthrax_20110720wed1300.mp3

Connecting the Anthrax Attacks to September 11th

by Declan Cullen Tue Sep 13, 2011 23:04

Dear Chicago Bull.

I suppose the reaction of the firefighters in the first part of the video is someones imagination, and that the news reporter mentioning explosion is not real either?.

After your last comment I am even more convinced that 'official' story shills monitor 9/11 blogs and forums in order to try and discredit and ridicule anybody who does not agree with the 9/11 lie.

Thankfully this time you have only succeeded in destroying your own credibility.

by Chicago Bull Tue Sep 13, 2011 20:01

That you tube bit proves that there is an explosive noise on or added to the soundtrack of the movie NOT that anyone was going round NYC bombing buildings.

by Declan Cullen Tue Sep 13, 2011 16:56

The following video proves that bombs were being detonated on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM&feature=related

by pat c Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:45

Vid at link.

A former FBI agent has told the BBC that he is being prevented from telling the truth about the events of 9/11 and what has happened since.

Ali Soufan alleges that crucial intelligence was not passed on from the CIA before the attacks in 2001.

He has written a book detailing some of his claims and has been speaking to the BBC's Security Correspondent Gordon Corera in his first on camera interview on the subject.

In response to the allegations in this report the CIA issued a statement to the BBC that said: "Any suggestion that the CIA purposely refused to share critical lead information on the 9/11 plots with the FBI is baseless."

"The suggestion that the Central Intelligence Agency has requested redactions on this publication because it does not like the content is ridiculous."

The CIA decline to comment on the record about the accusations regarding waterboarding and interrogation.

by Serf Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:03

class! nice find rosenbud

by Rosenbud Tue Sep 13, 2011 08:01

Here follows a master class on how to succinctly demolish an Official Narrative, . . . . .

Caption: Video Id: yuC_4mGTs98 Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by Godot Mon Sep 12, 2011 18:54

WTC-7 collapsed as a result of fires within the building. Norad was ill prepared - it took them 76 minutes to reach a golfers jet in 99 (Payne Stewart).

Not that any of that matters when you can simply blame secret cabals of Jews, David Ickes lizard people, the illuminati, _insert hobby horse here_.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:54

..to all those mouning the loss of innocents in this criminal act commemorating the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and its uncounted civilian dead, maimed and displaced, with equal solemnity.

But they will probably be too busy with Operation Persian Storm.

by Financial terrorists Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:39

"Since this is the 10th Anniversary of one the most horrible events in recent history....."

just under 3000 people, mostly lawyers, bankers and hedge fund managers died in 9/11 and you call that one of the most horrible events of recent history?? At this stage, after the financial crisis, a lot of people probably think that not enough investment bankers died!! ;-)

Seriously, in terms of the ratio of actual loss of lives versus media coverage, whatever about being one of the most horrible events (get in line!) this has to be one of the most hyped and over emphasised tragedies ever in human history.

Personally I'm very sorry for any poor low paid clerical workers etc who died in 9/11. But those investment bankers cause untold misery indirectly through financial dealing and will never be held to account. I have little sympathy for them. Pity the planes didn't fly into goldman sachs on wall street and maybe the white house instead though. It would have been more appropriate.
Because in truth they are the real terrorists. The Financial Terrorists. And before they finish there will be far more deaths than 3000 due to their actions. Austerity measures don't kill quite as spectacularly as a building collapse but that death due to lack of medical care or food or a bed for the night is just as real. And they are always hiding in the shadows where decisions to invade other resource rich countries are made. All that oil, all those lucrative no bid contracts. Who cares who wins or loses. war is profitable either way to them.

by Chicago Bull Sun Sep 11, 2011 22:31

Seeing that its you thats making up the story, and no-one but you knows the ("correct") answer, tell us fools please and put us all in a good mood we could do with the laugh.

by Fred Sun Sep 11, 2011 22:26

Dont forget the articulate well educated and well funded Muslims

who went top pilot trining schools and

who flew the high jacked planes were SHAHIDS

and Bin lLden took the credit - he would hardly have done so if any one else

had done it

so lets stop demeaning the horror and stop excusing the horrible people who did it

by Declan Cullen Sun Sep 11, 2011 20:00

Since this is the 10th Anniversary of one the most horrible events in recent history, I thought I would post some photos of the WTC destruction.....
Since this is the 10th Anniversary of one the most horrible events in recent history, I thought I would post some photos of the WTC destruction (along with one of an erupting Volcano for comparison).

Observe the dense flows of material in the Volcano photo, then observe the high pressure, pyroclastic - like flows of concrete in the WTC photos and decide for yourself weather of not the destruction of the WTC was caused by a gravity collapse or a controlled demolition.

The Volcano expels a lot of explosive energy in order to create the pyroclastic flows it produces, so I hope the article and the photos help expand the ongoing debate about the destruction of WTC 1 & 2.

Remember all the innocent victims of 9/11 and its aftermath.

WTC Destruction Pic 1

WTC Destruction Pic 2

WTC Destruction Pic 3

WTC Destruction Pic 4

Volcano Pyroclastic Flow

by Declan Cullen Sun Sep 11, 2011 17:42

In relation to Godot's comment, and my previous comment, you can see what I meant about fools.

Answer the question about WTC - 7 and NORAD. Somebody PLEASE!!

by Godot Sun Sep 11, 2011 14:50

There is no proof, anywhere, that 9-11 was an inside job, or a conspiracy.

Operation Northwood: a rejected report that mentions blowing up an unmanned drone over the sea todrum up Anti-Cuba support. Hardly proof that 9-11 was a conspiracy.

It takes a pretty large - yet convenient- leap to go from that, to killing thousands of US citizens on their own soil

Why blame fundamentalist Muslims based on evidence, when you can blame Jews based on conjecture, paranoia and confirmation bias?

by Declan Cullen Sun Sep 11, 2011 13:55

Dear Chicago Bull

Nowhere in my article did I say anything about 'Makey Up' planes, so don't try that old distraction tactic.

WTC- 7 (Building 7 ) was not hit by a plane yet it fell in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.
4 planes flew around the most watched airspace in the world for over an hour, yet no jets were deployed until the the whole thing was over.

Only a fool would believe the 'official' story. And there are plenty of fools about.

by Para Sun Sep 11, 2011 13:48

While there are some disturbing people trying to scam the paranoics, i find it almost as disturbing that people with mental illness are getting together online and reinforcing each others delusions. There was recently a protest in toronto by a group of people who want the government to stop beaming messages into their skulls from space. What used to be a lone nut with a sandwhich board sign, is now a group of nutters. And anyone who tries to reason with them is part of the on going plot. They must pretty important to be watched 24/7, considering the police dont even watch gangsters all the time.

There are odd things about 9/11 like where were the interceptor jets? They are supposed to respond in minutes, it took 45 minutes for them to be up and ready. But don't give us the nonsense. It lets the questions about the Jets and FBI and CIA go unanswered.

by Chicago Bull Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:00

This article is rubbish. Real people from over 90 countries died 10 years ago today and in case you forget, the first known casualty was an Irish Priest.

The second plane was seen by millions on Sky news live on the day (or was that a makey uppy cartoon they had on).

A Real Plane Causing Real Death

by pat c Wed Sep 07, 2011 20:26

The USS Liberty saga is worth a story of its own.

Some discussion here: http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13319...berty

by Declan Cullen - None Wed Sep 07, 2011 20:13

Dear A Freeman:

Anwser three simple questions;

A: Was Israel involved in the 'Lavon Affair'?

B: Was the 'USS Liberty' attacked by Israeli Jets?

and

C: Were Israelis observed celebrating of the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11?

Three simple questions that have three simple anwsers. YES or NO

I await your response.

by A Freeman Wed Sep 07, 2011 19:51

"The second video 'War by Deception' further highlights not only the 9/11 fairytale sold to the public, but also examines the other operations carried out by the US and its ally Israel.
It also highlights the fake Muslim Al - Qaeda terrorists like Adam Gadam, who's real name is Adam Pearlman, who is not a Muslim but who is in fact Jewish, and had a Godfather who was a member of the ADL, the Jewish lobby group that has massive political power in America.

The second so - called Muslim 'Terrorist' who went by the name Yusuf Al Khattab is, surprise!, surprise!, in fact Jewish, who's real name is Joseph Coen, a New York City Taxi driver"

It must be the Jews wot did it, eh Declan? Those nefarious, scheming, blood-drinking Jews that you've been reading about in your copy of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', muslims are angels and have never been known to harm a fly, not since 632CE when the angelic Mohammed kicked the whole thing off! If only, those terrible infidels would accept their dhimmitude and pay the jizya to their muslim betters what a happy world we'd have, LOFL!!

by Declan Cullen - None Wed Sep 07, 2011 09:41

Hi Serf. In relation to the Counterpunch article, just look at the Charlie "Love Police" Veitch flip flop situation to understand how these polar opposite changes occur.

A Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) was set up on the day the events of 9/11 took place, and was in full swing the next day. The planners of the events knew that the process of propping up the bogus official story was a relentless 'cradle to grave' operation that could leave nothing to chance.

The thought that the US Government (with help from Mossad) had carried out the events of 9 / 11 would have been so horrific to the people of America would have left the perpatrators fearing that there would have been a revolution and outright anarchy, so they had to maintain the 'official' lie as all cost.

The door to the truth behind the events of 9/11 only opens from the inside. When some of the people involved realise what they have done, then, and only then, will the truth officially emerge.

Please remember the victims of 9/11, not only in America, but in Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan.

by Serf Wed Sep 07, 2011 07:04

Hey Declan, do you reckon Alexander Cockburn of counterpunch has been got to, bribed or is misinformed?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911-conspira...ears/