Re: [POLITICS] Conspiracy theories - evidence-based vs. non evidence-based (was: immunologist whistleblower on vaccines)

[Guest guest]

I've commented here myself, multiple times, that

1. that it is probable that we don't have the full story about what

happened on 9/11

2. that this in itself is a long, long way from providing any kind of

evidence that the Bush government itself plotted and carried out the

events of 9/11.

3. I have also commented that I certainly think that a truly

independent investigation into the events is warranted.

I was curious that you listed Ralph Nader in your 'lengthy' list of

believers below. All I could find online was that he supports an

investigation.

I note that you again have provided no evidence whatsoever that this

actually occurred, and that you again (deliberately?) distort my own

views in order to advance your own paranoia.

>

> > There is quite a large gap between the acceptance that there are

> unscrupulous

> > business people and corporations, and even that the system is

> corrupt, and

> people

> > being murdered left and right in all sorts of contexts - 9/11

> planned by

> the Bush

> > govt, scientists being killed systematically, AIDS unleashed on

> the world

> by the

> > U.S. etc. Most of these have appeared on this list at one point or

> another

> (along

> > with other ones) and the attitude seems to be - the only evidence

> that's

> actually

> > needed to make these views plausible is skepticism about the

> motives of

> our

> > current government. No real evidence ever needs to be provided. All

> paranoia

> > immediately accepted here.

>

> I cannot speak to any of the other issues you raised here other than

> rogue

> elements in the current Bushco regime playing a role in the 9/11

> attacks.

> This is something that *I* wrote about on this list recently. And so

> I find

> it extremely ironic that you would say " No real evidence ever needs

> to be

> provided. All paranoia immediately accepted here " in regards to

> 9/11. The

> irony here is largely that the official Bushco conspiracy theory

> (that a

> ragtag band of 19 Arabs carried it out under the guidance of the

> cave-dwelling (CIA asset bin Laden), successfully attacked not only

> the most

> securely guarded building on the planet (Pentagon) but also the Twin

> Towers.

> (Never mind, among other things, that 5 or so of the accused who

> supposedly

> perished in the fiery plane crashes have turned up alive in other

> countries.)The official fable of the attacks is so full of holes it's

> inconceivable that it was ever believed. It is the poster child on the

> grandest scale in modern history of the statement " No real evidence

> ever

> needs to be provided " .

>

> Of course, these days, only about 16% of Americans still believe it.

> Or

> they did according to a NY Times poll in 2006. Since the number has

> been

> steadily declining, it's likely lower than that now. According to

> that same

> poll about 1 in 3 Americans believe the Bush regime is lying. Well

> duh....once you actually spend some time looking at the evidence.

>

> While that doesn't necessarily mean they believe that rogue elements

> within

> the gov't were complicit, there are many, MANY reputable figures

> around the

> world who do. However, due to the fact that most Americans get their

> information from the propaganda-pushing corporate-controlled

> mainstream

> media, they aren't typically tuned in to reality or to what the rest

> of the

> world is thinking. And when someone says they believe the evidence

> strongly

> points toward elements within the government being complicit, they are

> ridiculed as " paranoid conspiracy theorists " , typically by those who

> have

> NOT examined the evidence either at all or as thoroughly as they

> have. After

> all, Dubya told us from the get-go not to believe crazy conspiracy

> theories

> about 9/11 and mainstream media figures ridiculed anyone with an

> alternative

> theory regardless of the fact that the alternative theory actually

> matched

> the evidence while the official theory did not. Of course, they are

> the

> creators of truth so we shouldn't bother thinking for ourselves.

>

> It is getting harder and harder for the Bush regime, mainstream

> media and

> the other peddlers of a fictitious, outrageous conspiracy theory (the

> regime's official 9/11 conspiracy theory) to convince the world that

> their

> fable is reality as more people, including experts in the fields of

> physics,

> intelligence, politics, architects, engineers, pilots and many more

> have

> examined the evidence and come to reject the official fable.

>

> Here is a partial list of these " paranoid conspiracy theorists " -

> some of

> whom have stated clearly that they believe elements of the Bush

> regime were

> involved. Several have not only thoroughly examined the evidence but

> have

> also written books, documentary films and/or research papers on the

> evidence.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Lt. Col. Dr. Bowman

> -Director of the secret Star Wars program under two presidents

> -Vietnam fighter bomber

> -Authority on national security

> -VP of space communications company

> -PhD in aeronautics and nuclear engineering from Caltech

>

> Dr. Bowman comes right out and says 9/11 was an inside job. Listen

> to

> interviewing him here:

> <http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/030406bowman.htm>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

>

> s von Bulow, former German Defense Minister

> Author of " 9/11 and the CIA "

>

> Audio interview:

> <http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/200406vonbuelow.htm>

>

> He has written a book called The CIA and September 11 (German: Die

> CIA und

> der 11. September), in which he implies US government complicity in

> the

> September 11, 2001 attacks.

>

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/s_von_B%C3%BClow>

>

> " Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and

> organizational

> terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly

> them into

> targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight

> routes! That

> is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state

> and

> industry. " Tagesspiegel, 13. Jan. 2002 [1]

> He told The Daily Telegraph at his home in Bonn.

>

> " If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up

> behind bars "

> and " They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the

> evidence -

> that they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin

> Laden's

> al-Qa'eda - in order to hide the truth of their own covert

> operation " [2].

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Guilietto Chiesa

> - Member of the European Parliament

> - Just released his new film in 2008 " ZERO: An Investigation into

> 9/11 "

> < http://zero911movie.com>

>

> " On Tuesday 26th February [2008], Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa

> invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and

> debate of

> the Italian-produced documentary named 'ZERO, an investigation into

> the

> events of 9/11'. Object of the screening was to create political

> awareness

> of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11

> Commission. "

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

>

> Yukihisa Fujita

> Member of the Japanese Parliament

>

> Participated in the panel discussion after the airing of " Zero, an

> investigation into the events of 9/11 " .

>

> " Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the

> basis

> for the so-called war on terror--this basis being the official

> interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has

> equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war

> on the

> cover-up, Ray has revealed dozens of omissions,

> distortions,

> and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides

> undeniable

> evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a

> powerful

> exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream

> political

> agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists

> around the

> world to expose this truth to our peoples. " -- --Yukihisa Fujita,

> member of

> the House of Councilors, the Diet of Japan

> <http://tinyurl.com/4vfgcb>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

>

> Ray McGovern

> - Former CIA analyst

> - Federal employee under seven U.S. presidents over 27 years

> - Says 9/11 Commission was massive cover up

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Bill Christison

> - Former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's

> Office

> of Regional and Political Analysis

> - 28 years with the CIA

>

> " Let’s give Webster Tarpley and other mistakenly labeled

> conspiracists who

> have labored in the wilderness for so long three cheers. "

> <http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm>

>

> (Tarpley wrote " 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA " and is

> outspoken

> about 9/11 being an inside job.)

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

>

> Ralph Nader,

> - 2008 Independent candidate for US Presidency

> - calls for a new truly independent investigation of 9/11

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> McKinney

> - 2008 Green Party Presidential Candidate

> - calls for a new truly independent investigation of 9/11

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Arizona Sen.

> Calls for a new investigation of 9/11

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Hamburg

> Former Congressman from CA

>

> Stated he believes that the 9/11 terrorists had help from inside the

> US

> gov't.

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Congressman Dennis Kucinich

> - Initiated investigation into insider trading that took place

> immediately

> before 9/11 and resulted in windfalls for those who placed put

> options on

> the airlines that were hijacked

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

>

> 500 architects and engineers calling for a new and truly independent

> investigation. See Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

> <http://www.ae911truth.org/>

>

> " We are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and

> affiliates,

> who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths

> about

> the “collapses” of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01.

>

> We call upon Congress for a truly independent investigation with

> subpoena

> power. We believe that there may be sufficient evidence to conclude

> that the

> World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and

> #7 (the

> 47 story high-rise across Vessey St.) were destroyed not by jet

> impact and

> fires but by controlled demolition with explosives.

>

> We believe that this website, as well as the other referenced sites,

> contains the information necessary to demonstrate to all with an

> open mind

> that this is the case, and that such an investigation is warranted and

> overdue. We believe that the available relevant evidence casts grave

> doubt

> on the government's official story of these “collapses”. "

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> , Physicist

> <http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm>

> Is convinced (as are many other scientists) that the WTC came down

> as a

> result of controlled demolitions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> Dr. Ray

> - Director of the Center for Process Studies

> - Lecturer and author of " The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the

> Cover-Up, and the Exposé " , " The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and

> Distortions (2005) " and several other books.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

> A few celebrities who want a new investigation:

>

> Ventura, Former Governer of MN

>

> Mark Stepnoski, lineman with the Dallas Cowboys

>

> Willie

>

> Rosie O'Donnell

>

> Charlie Sheen

>

> Sheen

>

> Carlin

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ------

>

> What a bunch of " paranoid conspiracy theorists " ! My god.

> And this list is only the tip of the iceberg....

>

> But of course our government would never attack its own citizens,

> right?

> Wrong.

>

> There is more than one precedent of the US government planning and/or

> implementing a False Flag attack. Here, for instance, is the original

> declassified government document regarding Operation Northwoods in

> which the

> Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested attacking our own military base,

> ships,

> civilian airliners and other targets in order to blame it on Cuba in

> order

> to justify attacking Cuba.

>

> Operation Northwoods:

> <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf>

>

> For those of you that don't know, a " False Flag " event is when a

> government

> attacks it's own military or citizenry and blames it on a third

> party in

> order to justify an attack on that third party. It's a tactic that's

> been

> used by governments since time immemorial. And it was recently

> revealed, by

> the free press first, that Cheney considered a false flag event as

> an excuse

> to attack Iran. The plan was to build an Iranian ship in our own US

> shipyards, dress up our own American Navy Seals as Iranians, and

> have them

> attack one of our own ships to justify our attacking

> back...attacking our

> own Navy Seals, and then Iran. This was recently revealed by

> Pulitzer Prize

> winning journalist for New Yorker Magazine, Sy Hersh.

>

> What??? You mean the highest level of the CURRENT gov't considered a

> plan to

> attack OUR OWN navy seals? Americans who risk their lives for our

> country??

> Nah, they would NEVER do such a thing, would they?

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> --------------------------------------

> >

> >

> > It seems to me that over the last couple of years, this lists has

> degenerated more

> > and more into repeated posts about this kind of nonsense, with

> less and

> less real

> > nutritional information being provided. After all, the most

> important

> thing is that this

> > is all an occult conspiracy by the real, hidden, government, right?

>

> No, whether or not there is mold on your kombucha is FAR more

> important than

> who is really responsible for the mass murder of 3,000 Americans on

> 9/11/2001 - an event which was used to justify every subsequent

> revocation

> of our civil liberties since then, which is used to justify the

> increasingly

> stifling tyranny of our current gov't, and which was the

> justification for

> invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 where thousand

> of US

> military personnel have been brutally killed and hundreds of

> thousands of

> innocent Iraqis have been brutally murdered. An event which is also

> the

> justification for sucking a trillion dollars out of US taxpayers in

> order to

> fund our growing Imperial Mobilization. An event which has caused

> massive

> global blowback as America becomes an increasingly hated entity.

>

> So, by all means, lets get back to the discussion on moldy kombucha.

>

> Suze Fisher

>

> " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the

> sight. "

> ~Albert Schweitzer

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> I cannot speak to any of the other issues you raised here other than

> rogue

> elements in the current Bushco regime playing a role in the 9/11

> attacks.

> This is something that *I* wrote about on this list recently. And so

> I find

> it extremely ironic that you would say " No real evidence ever needs

> to be

> provided. All paranoia immediately accepted here " in regards to

> 9/11. The

> irony here is largely that the official Bushco conspiracy theory

> (that a

> ragtag band of 19 Arabs carried it out under the guidance of the

> cave-dwelling (CIA asset bin Laden), successfully attacked not only

> the most

> securely guarded building on the planet (Pentagon) but also the Twin

> Towers.

So what if he dwells in caves? He is, as you point out, a former CIA

asset, so factions in the US military-security complex doubtless

trained him in all sorts of nefarious tactics and techniques, and

modern information technology enables people to remain connected and

informed in even the most remote and inhospitable of locations. And

so what if the alleged perpetrators were Arabs? Do you think there

aren't Arabs in the world with military, guerrilla, and other sorts of

training? Nor do I see why people think the 9/11 attacks would be so

overwhelmingly difficult to pull off. All that was needed was a group

of people with the ability to hijack a few planes and to successfully

steer those planes in chosen directions. How hard would that really

be to learn? Hijacking couldn't have been meaningfully more difficult

than fighting in a war, and many people learn to fly planes every

day. Nor would the selection of planes be difficult, as some have

suggested -- plane schedules aren't exactly state secrets.

Furthermore, the security surrounding the Pentagon would largely be

irrelevant, because the vast majority of it is surely oriented towards

ground vehicles and pedestrians. The *only* relevant security would

be any anti-air installations the Pentagon might have, and it's not

clear what if any such installations were present at the time.

Note, BTW, that I'm not endorsing the official story about 9/11 by

making these points. No satisfactory explanation has ever been

provided for the seemingly controlled demolition of Building 7, for

example, and there are plenty of other questions require addressing

too. It's important, however, to remain calm, rational and logical

when trying to discern the truth, and not to fall prey to emotions and

prejudices.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> So what if he dwells in caves? He is, as you point out, a former CIA

> asset, so factions in the US military-security complex doubtless

> trained him in all sorts of nefarious tactics and techniques, and

> modern information technology enables people to remain connected and

> informed in even the most remote and inhospitable of locations.

What is the evidence that he is no longer a CIA asset?

> And

> so what if the alleged perpetrators were Arabs? Do you think there

> aren't Arabs in the world with military, guerrilla, and other sorts of

> training? Nor do I see why people think the 9/11 attacks would be so

> overwhelmingly difficult to pull off. All that was needed was a group

> of people with the ability to hijack a few planes and to successfully

> steer those planes in chosen directions. How hard would that really

> be to learn? Hijacking couldn't have been meaningfully more difficult

> than fighting in a war, and many people learn to fly planes every

> day. Nor would the selection of planes be difficult, as some have

> suggested -- plane schedules aren't exactly state secrets.

Like you I'm not really convinced that it would be difficult for Arabs

to hijack and navigate a few planes, but the most significant problem

in the story is not this part of it; the most significant problem in

the story is the evidence that at least Building 7, and possibly the

Towers, were blown up with explosives. This is dependent on physical

evidence and eye/earwitness accounts that are at least in large part

confirmable or refutable. It is further corroborated by lots of

slips, such as Silverstein saying they " pulled " building 7 because

they knew it would fall otherwise, Giuliani saying he was told the

buildings collapse before they did, and a BBC reporter reporting that

building 7 had collapsed 15 minutes before it did, with building 7

standing right behind her in the background. If the evidence pans

out, this posits a much larger question: how people without inside

access to building security could have rigged the buildings with

explosives.

If the official story blaming the collapses on jet fuel is true, this

is not a problem. But it still leaves open the question of why we

should believe these Arabs are no longer CIA assets.

So the evidence seems to range from possible inside job to probable

inside job, depending on whether the buildings were blown up with

explosives.

> Furthermore, the security surrounding the Pentagon would largely be

> irrelevant, because the vast majority of it is surely oriented towards

> ground vehicles and pedestrians. The *only* relevant security would

> be any anti-air installations the Pentagon might have, and it's not

> clear what if any such installations were present at the time.

Maybe the pentagon should release the videos claiming that an airplane

struck the building so we can put all the claims that the hole the

plane left was only large enough for a missile to rest. If they

refuse, we should consider the organization suspect based on its

refusal to cooperate.

> Note, BTW, that I'm not endorsing the official story about 9/11 by

> making these points. No satisfactory explanation has ever been

> provided for the seemingly controlled demolition of Building 7, for

> example, and there are plenty of other questions require addressing

> too. It's important, however, to remain calm, rational and logical

> when trying to discern the truth, and not to fall prey to emotions and

> prejudices.

Right. We shouldn't claim we have conclusive evidence of an inside

job. We have motive, and we have evidence that suggests something

between a possible inside job and a probable inside job, and evidence

certain elements within the gov't are lying. We have a clearly

railroaded investigation, and a fake one conducted by people with

long-standing reputations as coverup artists for the US gov't. I

think that clearly justifies a real investigation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> What is the evidence that he is no longer a CIA asset?

I suppose it's theoretically possible he is. At any rate, I don't

have the time to investigate the matter, and I doubt conclusive

evidence would be publicly available anyway.

> Like you I'm not really convinced that it would be difficult for Arabs

> to hijack and navigate a few planes, but the most significant problem

> in the story is not this part of it;

I didn't mean to suggest that that was the most significant problem

with the official story. However, the way Suze phrased her post

suggested that she found it highly improbable that a group of Arabs

could hijack and navigate a handful of planes. I think that many

people with experience in terrorism, insurgency, guerrilla warfare,

anti-insurgency, and/or the military could pull it off. Heck, you and

I and Suze could probably pull something like that off if we were so

deranged and evil as to want to! (Note to security and intelligence

types: I am very clearly NOT suggesting that I or anyone on this list

would ever, EVER do such a thing; I am merely pointing out that this

portion, at least, of the official story about 9/11 is entirely

plausible. <g>)

> the most significant problem in

> the story is the evidence that at least Building 7, and possibly the

> Towers, were blown up with explosives. This is dependent on physical

> evidence and eye/earwitness accounts that are at least in large part

> confirmable or refutable. It is further corroborated by lots of

> slips, such as Silverstein saying they " pulled " building 7 because

> they knew it would fall otherwise, Giuliani saying he was told the

> buildings collapse before they did, and a BBC reporter reporting that

> building 7 had collapsed 15 minutes before it did, with building 7

> standing right behind her in the background. If the evidence pans

> out, this posits a much larger question: how people without inside

> access to building security could have rigged the buildings with

> explosives.

Yes, as I mentioned later in my post, Building 7 is a massive hole in

the official story, and by far the biggest single reason to be sure

that whatever the truth of 9/11 is, the official story is at the very

best grossly incomplete.

> If the official story blaming the collapses on jet fuel is true, this

> is not a problem. But it still leaves open the question of why we

> should believe these Arabs are no longer CIA assets.

Jet fuel could explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. Very possibly

it does. But I don't see how either jet fuel or seismic disturbances

caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers could conceivably have

caused the collapse of Building 7.

> Maybe the pentagon should release the videos claiming that an airplane

> struck the building so we can put all the claims that the hole the

> plane left was only large enough for a missile to rest. If they

> refuse, we should consider the organization suspect based on its

> refusal to cooperate.

ly, I think the hole-size argument is likely to be spurious. A

missile explodes, and so does far more damage than mere kinetic

impact. And a plane is practically a gossamer construction; it's

designed to be as light and thin as possible in order to reduce fuel

requirements.

> Right. We shouldn't claim we have conclusive evidence of an inside

> job. We have motive, and we have evidence that suggests something

> between a possible inside job and a probable inside job, and evidence

> certain elements within the gov't are lying. We have a clearly

> railroaded investigation, and a fake one conducted by people with

> long-standing reputations as coverup artists for the US gov't. I

> think that clearly justifies a real investigation.

Oh, absolutely. But refusing to believe the official story because of

its deficiencies and calling for a real investigation is rather

different from saying something to the effect of " oh, come on, a bunch

of Arabs couldn't possibly have pulled this off, obviously it was Team

Bush " .

-

[Guest guest]

> Oh, absolutely. But refusing to believe the official story because of

> its deficiencies and calling for a real investigation is rather

> different from saying something to the effect of " oh, come on, a bunch

> of Arabs couldn't possibly have pulled this off, obviously it was Team

> Bush " .

This is a COMPLETE mischaracterization of my post, but I will have to

address it in more detail when I have time, which unfortunately, ain't now.

Stay tuned...<g>

Suze

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> > Oh, absolutely. But refusing to believe the official story because

> of

> > its deficiencies and calling for a real investigation is rather

> > different from saying something to the effect of " oh, come on, a

> bunch

> > of Arabs couldn't possibly have pulled this off, obviously it was

> Team

> > Bush " .

>

> This is a COMPLETE mischaracterization of my post, but I will have to

> address it in more detail when I have time, which unfortunately,

> ain't now.

> Stay tuned...<g>

I don't see how it's a mischaracterization at all, let alone a

dramatic one. Here again is what you said:

> The irony here is largely that the official Bushco conspiracy theory

> (that a

> ragtag band of 19 Arabs carried it out under the guidance of the

> cave-dwelling (CIA asset bin Laden), successfully attacked not only

> the most

> securely guarded building on the planet (Pentagon) but also the Twin

> Towers.

> (Never mind, among other things, that 5 or so of the accused who

> supposedly

> perished in the fiery plane crashes have turned up alive in other

> countries.)The official fable of the attacks is so full of holes it's

> inconceivable that it was ever believed. It is the poster child on the

> grandest scale in modern history of the statement " No real evidence

> ever

> needs to be provided " .

Leaving aside for the moment the point that some of the accused may

have turned up alive in other countries, as that's arguable and

certainly has never been publicized widely, it seems that you're

suggesting that it's ridiculous to believe that a " ragtag band of 19

Arabs " could have pulled off the attacks under the guidance of a cave-

dwelling former (or, just conceivably, present) CIA asset Arab.

Elsewhere in your post you suggested repeatedly that the Bush

administration was behind 9/11. So where's the distortion?

-

[Guest guest]

,

>> What is the evidence that he is no longer a CIA asset?

>

> I suppose it's theoretically possible he is. At any rate, I don't

> have the time to investigate the matter, and I doubt conclusive

> evidence would be publicly available anyway.

I agree. Since the CIA has generated the doctrine of " plausible

deniability " whereby responsibility for the person or agency directing

on operation is displaced onto a third party through a loose and

informal command network in order to give the appearance of

plausibility to the denial of involvement by the directing agency or

individual, I don't see any reason to trust the CIA's claim of having

dissociated itself from bin Laden, particularly in light of the

special treatment the bin Laden family received circa 9/11, and in any

case I see every reason to treat the CIA with skepticism on the issue.

>> Like you I'm not really convinced that it would be difficult for Arabs

>> to hijack and navigate a few planes, but the most significant problem

>> in the story is not this part of it;

> I didn't mean to suggest that that was the most significant problem

> with the official story. However, the way Suze phrased her post

> suggested that she found it highly improbable that a group of Arabs

> could hijack and navigate a handful of planes. I think that many

> people with experience in terrorism, insurgency, guerrilla warfare,

> anti-insurgency, and/or the military could pull it off.

Probably, although my understanding is that the intelligence had

singled Mohammed Atta as terribly incompetent at flying.

> Heck, you and

> I and Suze could probably pull something like that off if we were so

> deranged and evil as to want to! (Note to security and intelligence

> types: I am very clearly NOT suggesting that I or anyone on this list

> would ever, EVER do such a thing; I am merely pointing out that this

> portion, at least, of the official story about 9/11 is entirely

> plausible. <g>)

I think you might be slightly exaggerating the ease with which this

could be done. I don't remember the details, but there was more

involved than simply navigating the plane into a building, like

escaping tracking and so on.

> Yes, as I mentioned later in my post, Building 7 is a massive hole in

> the official story, and by far the biggest single reason to be sure

> that whatever the truth of 9/11 is, the official story is at the very

> best grossly incomplete.

Agreed.

>> If the official story blaming the collapses on jet fuel is true, this

>> is not a problem. But it still leaves open the question of why we

>> should believe these Arabs are no longer CIA assets.

> Jet fuel could explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. Very possibly

> it does. But I don't see how either jet fuel or seismic disturbances

> caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers could conceivably have

> caused the collapse of Building 7.

I think B7 is more obvious in calling for that explosive explanation,

but I think there is some evidence for explosives in the Towers as

well. There is also some evidence against jet fuel. For example the

guy who worked for Underwriters Laboratory and got fired over this

issue claimed UL did relevant testing of the steel and verified its

tolerance for the temperatures it would reach with jet fuel. (I'm not

sure if he has hard evidence of his position, such as copies of the

document he claimed to have access to).

>> Maybe the pentagon should release the videos claiming that an airplane

>> struck the building so we can put all the claims that the hole the

>> plane left was only large enough for a missile to rest. If they

>> refuse, we should consider the organization suspect based on its

>> refusal to cooperate.

> ly, I think the hole-size argument is likely to be spurious. A

> missile explodes, and so does far more damage than mere kinetic

> impact. And a plane is practically a gossamer construction; it's

> designed to be as light and thin as possible in order to reduce fuel

> requirements.

I don't think it's as strong as some of the other arguments, but I

don't see why the pentagon has all these video tapes of the incident

and has refused to release any that clearly show a plane flying into

the building.

>> Right. We shouldn't claim we have conclusive evidence of an inside

>> job. We have motive, and we have evidence that suggests something

>> between a possible inside job and a probable inside job, and evidence

>> certain elements within the gov't are lying. We have a clearly

>> railroaded investigation, and a fake one conducted by people with

>> long-standing reputations as coverup artists for the US gov't. I

>> think that clearly justifies a real investigation.

> Oh, absolutely. But refusing to believe the official story because of

> its deficiencies and calling for a real investigation is rather

> different from saying something to the effect of " oh, come on, a bunch

> of Arabs couldn't possibly have pulled this off, obviously it was Team

> Bush " .

That's true. However, the counter-argument is also true ( " oh, that's

a wacko conspiracy theory and obivously Team Bush couldn't have pulled

it off, so it must be a bunch of Arabs). I don't think the official

story is any less bizzarre than some of the conspiracy theories (or, I

should say, some of the *other* conspiracy theories).

Chris

[Guest guest]

Has anyone here actually said that because blaming the Bush Administrating for

planning this is a " wacko conspiracy theory " , therefore the official version is

true?

I don't think so.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> ,

>

> >> What is the evidence that he is no longer a CIA asset?

> >

> > I suppose it's theoretically possible he is. At any rate, I don't

> > have the time to investigate the matter, and I doubt conclusive

> > evidence would be publicly available anyway.

>

> I agree. Since the CIA has generated the doctrine of " plausible

> deniability " whereby responsibility for the person or agency directing

> on operation is displaced onto a third party through a loose and

> informal command network in order to give the appearance of

> plausibility to the denial of involvement by the directing agency or

> individual, I don't see any reason to trust the CIA's claim of having

> dissociated itself from bin Laden, particularly in light of the

> special treatment the bin Laden family received circa 9/11, and in any

> case I see every reason to treat the CIA with skepticism on the issue.

>

> >> Like you I'm not really convinced that it would be difficult for Arabs

> >> to hijack and navigate a few planes, but the most significant problem

> >> in the story is not this part of it;

>

> > I didn't mean to suggest that that was the most significant problem

> > with the official story. However, the way Suze phrased her post

> > suggested that she found it highly improbable that a group of Arabs

> > could hijack and navigate a handful of planes. I think that many

> > people with experience in terrorism, insurgency, guerrilla warfare,

> > anti-insurgency, and/or the military could pull it off.

>

> Probably, although my understanding is that the intelligence had

> singled Mohammed Atta as terribly incompetent at flying.

>

> > Heck, you and

> > I and Suze could probably pull something like that off if we were so

> > deranged and evil as to want to! (Note to security and intelligence

> > types: I am very clearly NOT suggesting that I or anyone on this list

> > would ever, EVER do such a thing; I am merely pointing out that this

> > portion, at least, of the official story about 9/11 is entirely

> > plausible. <g>)

>

> I think you might be slightly exaggerating the ease with which this

> could be done. I don't remember the details, but there was more

> involved than simply navigating the plane into a building, like

> escaping tracking and so on.

>

> > Yes, as I mentioned later in my post, Building 7 is a massive hole in

> > the official story, and by far the biggest single reason to be sure

> > that whatever the truth of 9/11 is, the official story is at the very

> > best grossly incomplete.

>

> Agreed.

>

> >> If the official story blaming the collapses on jet fuel is true, this

> >> is not a problem. But it still leaves open the question of why we

> >> should believe these Arabs are no longer CIA assets.

>

> > Jet fuel could explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. Very possibly

> > it does. But I don't see how either jet fuel or seismic disturbances

> > caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers could conceivably have

> > caused the collapse of Building 7.

>

> I think B7 is more obvious in calling for that explosive explanation,

> but I think there is some evidence for explosives in the Towers as

> well. There is also some evidence against jet fuel. For example the

> guy who worked for Underwriters Laboratory and got fired over this

> issue claimed UL did relevant testing of the steel and verified its

> tolerance for the temperatures it would reach with jet fuel. (I'm not

> sure if he has hard evidence of his position, such as copies of the

> document he claimed to have access to).

>

> >> Maybe the pentagon should release the videos claiming that an airplane

> >> struck the building so we can put all the claims that the hole the

> >> plane left was only large enough for a missile to rest. If they

> >> refuse, we should consider the organization suspect based on its

> >> refusal to cooperate.

>

> > ly, I think the hole-size argument is likely to be spurious. A

> > missile explodes, and so does far more damage than mere kinetic

> > impact. And a plane is practically a gossamer construction; it's

> > designed to be as light and thin as possible in order to reduce fuel

> > requirements.

>

> I don't think it's as strong as some of the other arguments, but I

> don't see why the pentagon has all these video tapes of the incident

> and has refused to release any that clearly show a plane flying into

> the building.

>

> >> Right. We shouldn't claim we have conclusive evidence of an inside

> >> job. We have motive, and we have evidence that suggests something

> >> between a possible inside job and a probable inside job, and evidence

> >> certain elements within the gov't are lying. We have a clearly

> >> railroaded investigation, and a fake one conducted by people with

> >> long-standing reputations as coverup artists for the US gov't. I

> >> think that clearly justifies a real investigation.

>

> > Oh, absolutely. But refusing to believe the official story because of

> > its deficiencies and calling for a real investigation is rather

> > different from saying something to the effect of " oh, come on, a bunch

> > of Arabs couldn't possibly have pulled this off, obviously it was Team

> > Bush " .

>

> That's true. However, the counter-argument is also true ( " oh, that's

> a wacko conspiracy theory and obivously Team Bush couldn't have pulled

> it off, so it must be a bunch of Arabs). I don't think the official

> story is any less bizzarre than some of the conspiracy theories (or, I

> should say, some of the *other* conspiracy theories).

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> Jet fuel could explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. Very possibly

> it does.

Except that jet fuel cannot burn above 1700F and steel doesn't begin to melt

until 2300 F.

But I don't see how either jet fuel or seismic disturbances

> caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers could conceivably have

> caused the collapse of Building 7.

Free fall into it's own footprint in under 10 secs, just like the Twin

Towers. No resistance from floors below whatsoever.

I think Larry Silverstein's comment that they decided to " pull " Building 7

might explain how it collapsed better than a few small erratic fires on a

few floors. That clip is readily available on the internet if you want to

see it.

In fact, if any of the steel structure WTC buildings came down by fire,

which would be the first in recorded human history, then demolition

companies would no longer need to perform controlled demolitions, all they'd

need to take down steel skyscrapers would be a bic lighter. The official

conspiracy theory holds that the jet fuel burned out within 10 mins (which

is quite likely) but that the other stuff in the buildings is what caused

them to keep burning, and, assumedly, collapse. You know....stuff like

filing cabinets, post-its, carpeting, etc.

However, other steel structure skyscrapers have burned for MUCH longer

periods and not collapsed at all, much less at free fall speed into their

own footprints. So maybe bic lighters would only work with buildings that

Larry Silverstein holds the lease on, or ones that might help create " The

New Pearl Harbor " as articulated by the NeoCons prior to their new Pearl

Harbor - 9/11.

Way over my time limit now, more later.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> I've commented here myself, multiple times, that

> 1. that it is probable that we don't have the full story about what

> happened on 9/11

This is the understatement of the millennium.

> 2. that this in itself is a long, long way from providing any kind of

> evidence that the Bush government itself plotted and carried out the

> events of 9/11.

Absolutely agreed. What we disagree on is the mountain of evidence

indicating that some elements of the gov't were complicit in the attacks. I

think that most people probably aren't aware of this evidence simply because

they haven't spent much time looking at it.

For anyone that wants to look at the evidence, here is a list of resources

that provides a good starting point:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURES

<http://tinyurl.com/4s3nq5>

9/11 The Myth and the Reality: Dr. Ray

" ...exposes the official story of 9/11 for what it truly is: a sacred

myth. Throughout this incredible video, enhanced with forceful images and

video segments, details nine of the most commonly held myths and

misconceptions about the events surrounding 9/11 and with logical precision

proves the fallacies of each one. "

This lecture is, IMO, the best intro to the problems with the official

conspiracy theory. It's a good starting point for those wanting to probe

this issue deeper.

BTW, several sites (including this one http://tinyurl.com/4o9kby ) are

reporting that Dr. and the 9/11 Truth Movement are being considered

for the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. I don't know if that's true but they are

supposed to announce the winner on Friday so we'll find out soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11

<http://tinyurl.com/4425f7>

Excellent expose by former LAPD narcotics office Rupport, wherein he

ties drugs and oil into the Neocon motive for 9/11. He himself was

unsuccessfully recruited by the CIA to be involved in their drug running

from South America to the US.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCUMENTARY FILMS

ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11

<http://tinyurl.com/3gb2en>

(By European Parliamentarian Guilietto Chiesa.)

Loose Change Final Cut

<http://tinyurl.com/54wk3y>

(The most famous 9/11 documentary, reportedly seen by millions. A good

overview of some of the problems with the official fable.)

Fabled Enemies

<http://tinyurl.com/5t4hoz>

(Gets into int'l intelligence agencies and connections to 9/11, shows

entire interview with deputy director of the Emergency Services Department

of the New York City Housing Authority, Barry Jennings wherein he describes

the explosions BELOW the 8th floor in WTC 7 and the dead bodies BEFORE the

other towers collapsed)

9/11 Chronicles Truth Rising

<http://tinyurl.com/5h22dq>

(Shows how the first responders are suffering from the toxic clouds of 9/11

and are being ignored by the gov't. Many confrontations with politicians.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOOKS

These are just a few....

9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA

By Webster Tarpley

<http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311>

" Can't stop reading; 9/11 Synthetic Terror is brilliantly written. Delivers

a devastating judgment. Congratulations! I endorse it wholeheartedly. --

s von Buelow [Former German Defense Minister], Author of The CIA and

9/11. "

I'm reading this now and learning many new details I still wasn't aware of

despite having listened to dozens of hours of interviews, lectures, news

reports and documentary films on the subject.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debunking 9/11 Debunking

An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official

Conspiracy Theory

By Ray

<http://tinyurl.com/4w63m2>

" Ray 's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the

strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what

happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of

lies. Tragically, the entire course of US foreign and domestic policies

since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This

single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations

International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body

(independent of the US) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly

report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the US

government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the

US, caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.

-- Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA "

Just to reiterate this reviewer's credentials:

Bill Christison

- Former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office

of Regional and Political Analysis

- 28 years with the CIA

> 3. I have also commented that I certainly think that a truly

> independent investigation into the events is warranted.

Great! It is not only warranted though, I think it is critical to the future

of this country and the world that we identify and prosecute the real

perpetrators of 9/11.

>

> I was curious that you listed Ralph Nader in your 'lengthy' list of

> believers below. All I could find online was that he supports an

> investigation.

You misunderstood then - the list includes not only outspoken believers that

elements within the US gov't were involved but also those who have stated

they do not believe the official fable and are calling for a new truly

independent investigation. I identified the ones that have publicly stated

they believe elements within the US gov't were involved in the attacks.

>

> I note that you again have provided no evidence whatsoever that this

> actually occurred, and that you again (deliberately?) distort my own

> views in order to advance your own paranoia.

I find it interesting that you consistently resort to ad hominem insults.

Makes one wonder if you have any response of value to the substance of my

post. Do you have no comment on the fact that not only former high level CIA

insiders as well as gov't officials of friendly nations, as well as

scientists and the former director of the Star Wars program have thoroughly

examined the evidence and conclude that 9/11 was carried out with the

complicity of elements within the US gov't?

Do you think that YOU have done a more thorough investigation than they

have? Or that YOU have more inside knowledge of the CIA and covert gov't

operations than Bowman, Ray McGovern, Bill Christison, s Von

Bulow, etc? if not, do you think these folks have an ulterior motive for

saying their gov't was complicit in the attacks?

Do you realize that many of the people who've publicly spoken out about this

fear for their lives? While it may be possible to find a person here or

there with ulterior motives, most of those who've spoken out, written books,

made documentaries, etc. have a lot to lose by doing so and some have indeed

lost their jobs and others have lost their lives under mysterious

circumstances.

In regard to evidence, the intent of my email was not to present evidence so

it hardly makes sense to criticize it for not doing what it was not intended

to do.

You want to discuss the evidence? I'm all for it. I have very, very little

time these days to spend on discussion forums, but will gladly respond to

posts as time allows.

Where do you want to begin?

The apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7? If so, where to start? Barry

Jennings (recently deceased, cause of death being withheld) testimony that

the floor below him blew out from under him BEFORE either Twin Tower fell?

The dead bodies in WTC 7 he mentions? How about the WTC leaseholder Larry

Silverstein saying on camera that they decided to " pull " building 7? This

is, BTW, the commonly used demolition term for a controlled demolition. How

about the billions on insurance that Silverstein made from the collapse of

the towers?

Or would you rather start with Cheney's bunker orders, presumably to either

stand down or shoot down, as Norman Minetta's testimony describes? Or the

timing of Cheney arriving in the bunker and how even his own testimony

contradicts that of the 9/11 Omission's report? Or about the extreme time

lapses from when they knew there were civilian planes off course and not

responding (normal response is to scramble fighter jets, which had been done

67 times already between Jan 2001 and Sept. 10, 2001) and the time the plane

was reported to have hit the Pentagon?

Or would you rather start with the official fable's proclamation that the

motive of these so-called Islamic Jihadist where that they hated our

freedom? These puritanical fundamentalists hated our freedom so much...so

let's discuss why their purported ring leader, Mohammed Atta, was heavily

into booze, cocaine and topless clubs and lap dances? Oh and pork? Or his

penchant for cocaine. Or maybe his live-in call-girl girlfriend. Want to

talk about that?

Or why don't we discuss why the US Consulate director in Jeddah Saudi

Arabia, Springmann, was told by higher ups to issue US passports to

11 of the accused hijackers as well as about 100 others, even though he'd

rejected them as unqualified? Why don't we discuss his claims that the CIA

was so involved in the running of the Jeddah consulate office?

Or should we talk about the numerous ear witness accounts of explosions in

the lower floors of the WTC right before they fell?

Or the put options placed on the two airlines involved right before the

attack?

Or the molten steel?

Or the Israeli company that broke it's lease and relocated its staff shortly

before 9/11?

Or the dozes of countries claiming they provided the US intelligence about

the attack before it happened?

Or the military exercises that were going on DURING the attack that

simulated the very same scenario as well as the other exercises at the same

time that conveniently took some of our air defenses away from the area?

Or that Bush and Rice both famously stating that they could never have

envisioned such an attack when NORAD had not only envisioned it, but had run

maneuvers using it as a possible scenario (hijacked airliners flying into

key buildings) And that the face of the " fake " hijacker mastermind on the

cover of the NORAD maneuver pamphlet was...Osama bin Laden.

Or the proximity of s Air force Base to the Pentagon and their

squadrons of fighter jets that would normally be scrambled in a situation

like 9/11.

Or the stark discrepancies in the time tables when it was known we were

under attack and the time the jets actually WERE scrambled?

Or the Grandpre seminar of military and civilian pilots held to determine

whether the hijackers were capable of flying the planes into the WTC and the

Pentagon and the fact that they expressed " grave doubt " that the purported

hijacker pilots (all of whom had been described as inadequate at flying

small Cessna's by their trainers, and the one who supposedly flew into the

Pentagon - a 270 downward spiral which by all accounts takes incredible

experience and precision - was the worst pilot of them all) could've carried

it out.

There are so many points we could start with...so where do you want to

start?

Suze

[Guest guest]

So, pray tell - which of the links that you provide below actually

provide EVIDENCE that the Bush administration planned and carried out

9/11?

You have posted time and time and time again, but never provided any,

and I'm quite disinclined to spend more time looking at this stuff

unless you can actually provide evidence- not that the story that we

have isn't the full or true story - but actual evidence that Bush &

Co. was involved. Or do you not know what evidence means?

> > I've commented here myself, multiple times, that

> > 1. that it is probable that we don't have the full story about what

> > happened on 9/11

>

> This is the understatement of the millennium.

>

> > 2. that this in itself is a long, long way from providing any kind

> of

> > evidence that the Bush government itself plotted and carried out the

> > events of 9/11.

>

> Absolutely agreed. What we disagree on is the mountain of evidence

> indicating that some elements of the gov't were complicit in the

> attacks. I

> think that most people probably aren't aware of this evidence simply

> because

> they haven't spent much time looking at it.

>

> For anyone that wants to look at the evidence, here is a list of

> resources

> that provides a good starting point:

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

> LECTURES

>

> <http://tinyurl.com/4s3nq5>

> 9/11 The Myth and the Reality: Dr. Ray

>

> " ...exposes the official story of 9/11 for what it truly is:

> a sacred

> myth. Throughout this incredible video, enhanced with forceful

> images and

> video segments, details nine of the most commonly held myths

> and

> misconceptions about the events surrounding 9/11 and with logical

> precision

> proves the fallacies of each one. "

>

> This lecture is, IMO, the best intro to the problems with the official

> conspiracy theory. It's a good starting point for those wanting to

> probe

> this issue deeper.

>

> BTW, several sites (including this one http://tinyurl.com/4o9kby ) are

> reporting that Dr. and the 9/11 Truth Movement are being

> considered

> for the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. I don't know if that's true but they

> are

> supposed to announce the winner on Friday so we'll find out soon.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

> THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11

> <http://tinyurl.com/4425f7>

> Excellent expose by former LAPD narcotics office Rupport,

> wherein he

> ties drugs and oil into the Neocon motive for 9/11. He himself was

> unsuccessfully recruited by the CIA to be involved in their drug

> running

> from South America to the US.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

> DOCUMENTARY FILMS

>

> ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11

> <http://tinyurl.com/3gb2en>

> (By European Parliamentarian Guilietto Chiesa.)

>

> Loose Change Final Cut

> <http://tinyurl.com/54wk3y>

> (The most famous 9/11 documentary, reportedly seen by millions. A good

> overview of some of the problems with the official fable.)

>

> Fabled Enemies

> <http://tinyurl.com/5t4hoz>

> (Gets into int'l intelligence agencies and connections to 9/11, shows

> entire interview with deputy director of the Emergency Services

> Department

> of the New York City Housing Authority, Barry Jennings wherein he

> describes

> the explosions BELOW the 8th floor in WTC 7 and the dead bodies

> BEFORE the

> other towers collapsed)

>

> 9/11 Chronicles Truth Rising

> <http://tinyurl.com/5h22dq>

> (Shows how the first responders are suffering from the toxic clouds

> of 9/11

> and are being ignored by the gov't. Many confrontations with

> politicians.)

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

> BOOKS

>

> These are just a few....

>

> 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA

> By Webster Tarpley

>

> <http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311>

> " Can't stop reading; 9/11 Synthetic Terror is brilliantly written.

> Delivers

> a devastating judgment. Congratulations! I endorse it

> wholeheartedly. --

> s von Buelow [Former German Defense Minister], Author of The

> CIA and

> 9/11. "

>

> I'm reading this now and learning many new details I still wasn't

> aware of

> despite having listened to dozens of hours of interviews, lectures,

> news

> reports and documentary films on the subject.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> Debunking 9/11 Debunking

> An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official

> Conspiracy Theory

> By Ray

>

> <http://tinyurl.com/4w63m2>

> " Ray 's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium

> of the

> strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of

> what

> happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous

> series of

> lies. Tragically, the entire course of US foreign and domestic

> policies

> since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This

> single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United

> Nations

> International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global

> body

> (independent of the US) to investigate with highest priority, and

> publicly

> report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within

> the US

> government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied

> to the

> US, caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to

> happen.

> -- Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA "

>

> Just to reiterate this reviewer's credentials:

>

> Bill Christison

> - Former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's

> Office

> of Regional and Political Analysis

> - 28 years with the CIA

>

> > 3. I have also commented that I certainly think that a truly

> > independent investigation into the events is warranted.

>

> Great! It is not only warranted though, I think it is critical to

> the future

> of this country and the world that we identify and prosecute the real

> perpetrators of 9/11.

>

> >

> > I was curious that you listed Ralph Nader in your 'lengthy' list of

> > believers below. All I could find online was that he supports an

> > investigation.

>

> You misunderstood then - the list includes not only outspoken

> believers that

> elements within the US gov't were involved but also those who have

> stated

> they do not believe the official fable and are calling for a new truly

> independent investigation. I identified the ones that have publicly

> stated

> they believe elements within the US gov't were involved in the

> attacks.

>

> >

> > I note that you again have provided no evidence whatsoever that this

> > actually occurred, and that you again (deliberately?) distort my own

> > views in order to advance your own paranoia.

>

> I find it interesting that you consistently resort to ad hominem

> insults.

>

> Makes one wonder if you have any response of value to the substance

> of my

> post. Do you have no comment on the fact that not only former high

> level CIA

> insiders as well as gov't officials of friendly nations, as well as

> scientists and the former director of the Star Wars program have

> thoroughly

> examined the evidence and conclude that 9/11 was carried out with the

> complicity of elements within the US gov't?

>

> Do you think that YOU have done a more thorough investigation than

> they

> have? Or that YOU have more inside knowledge of the CIA and covert

> gov't

> operations than Bowman, Ray McGovern, Bill Christison,

> s Von

> Bulow, etc? if not, do you think these folks have an ulterior motive

> for

> saying their gov't was complicit in the attacks?

>

> Do you realize that many of the people who've publicly spoken out

> about this

> fear for their lives? While it may be possible to find a person here

> or

> there with ulterior motives, most of those who've spoken out,

> written books,

> made documentaries, etc. have a lot to lose by doing so and some

> have indeed

> lost their jobs and others have lost their lives under mysterious

> circumstances.

>

> In regard to evidence, the intent of my email was not to present

> evidence so

> it hardly makes sense to criticize it for not doing what it was not

> intended

> to do.

>

> You want to discuss the evidence? I'm all for it. I have very, very

> little

> time these days to spend on discussion forums, but will gladly

> respond to

> posts as time allows.

>

> Where do you want to begin?

>

> The apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7? If so, where to start?

> Barry

> Jennings (recently deceased, cause of death being withheld)

> testimony that

> the floor below him blew out from under him BEFORE either Twin Tower

> fell?

> The dead bodies in WTC 7 he mentions? How about the WTC leaseholder

> Larry

> Silverstein saying on camera that they decided to " pull " building 7?

> This

> is, BTW, the commonly used demolition term for a controlled

> demolition. How

> about the billions on insurance that Silverstein made from the

> collapse of

> the towers?

>

> Or would you rather start with Cheney's bunker orders, presumably to

> either

> stand down or shoot down, as Norman Minetta's testimony describes?

> Or the

> timing of Cheney arriving in the bunker and how even his own testimony

> contradicts that of the 9/11 Omission's report? Or about the extreme

> time

> lapses from when they knew there were civilian planes off course and

> not

> responding (normal response is to scramble fighter jets, which had

> been done

> 67 times already between Jan 2001 and Sept. 10, 2001) and the time

> the plane

> was reported to have hit the Pentagon?

>

> Or would you rather start with the official fable's proclamation

> that the

> motive of these so-called Islamic Jihadist where that they hated our

> freedom? These puritanical fundamentalists hated our freedom so

> much...so

> let's discuss why their purported ring leader, Mohammed Atta, was

> heavily

> into booze, cocaine and topless clubs and lap dances? Oh and pork?

> Or his

> penchant for cocaine. Or maybe his live-in call-girl girlfriend.

> Want to

> talk about that?

>

> Or why don't we discuss why the US Consulate director in Jeddah Saudi

> Arabia, Springmann, was told by higher ups to issue US

> passports to

> 11 of the accused hijackers as well as about 100 others, even though

> he'd

> rejected them as unqualified? Why don't we discuss his claims that

> the CIA

> was so involved in the running of the Jeddah consulate office?

>

> Or should we talk about the numerous ear witness accounts of

> explosions in

> the lower floors of the WTC right before they fell?

>

> Or the put options placed on the two airlines involved right before

> the

> attack?

>

> Or the molten steel?

>

> Or the Israeli company that broke it's lease and relocated its staff

> shortly

> before 9/11?

>

> Or the dozes of countries claiming they provided the US intelligence

> about

> the attack before it happened?

>

> Or the military exercises that were going on DURING the attack that

> simulated the very same scenario as well as the other exercises at

> the same

> time that conveniently took some of our air defenses away from the

> area?

>

> Or that Bush and Rice both famously stating that they could never have

> envisioned such an attack when NORAD had not only envisioned it, but

> had run

> maneuvers using it as a possible scenario (hijacked airliners flying

> into

> key buildings) And that the face of the " fake " hijacker mastermind

> on the

> cover of the NORAD maneuver pamphlet was...Osama bin Laden.

>

> Or the proximity of s Air force Base to the Pentagon and their

> squadrons of fighter jets that would normally be scrambled in a

> situation

> like 9/11.

>

> Or the stark discrepancies in the time tables when it was known we

> were

> under attack and the time the jets actually WERE scrambled?

>

> Or the Grandpre seminar of military and civilian pilots held to

> determine

> whether the hijackers were capable of flying the planes into the WTC

> and the

> Pentagon and the fact that they expressed " grave doubt " that the

> purported

> hijacker pilots (all of whom had been described as inadequate at

> flying

> small Cessna's by their trainers, and the one who supposedly flew

> into the

> Pentagon - a 270 downward spiral which by all accounts takes

> incredible

> experience and precision - was the worst pilot of them all) could've

> carried

> it out.

>

> There are so many points we could start with...so where do you want to

> start?

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 8, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> > I note that you again have provided no evidence whatsoever that this

> > actually occurred, and that you again (deliberately?) distort my own

> > views in order to advance your own paranoia.

>

> I find it interesting that you consistently resort to ad hominem

> insults.

>

I didn't see that you continued after your links.

No ad hominem insults. You haven't yet provided any evidence that the

Bush administration actually planned and carried out the attacks, and

you repeatedly have implied in your responses that I accept the

official explanations of what happened.

>

> Makes one wonder if you have any response of value to the substance

> of my

> post. Do you have no comment on the fact that not only former high

> level CIA

> insiders as well as gov't officials of friendly nations, as well as

> scientists and the former director of the Star Wars program have

> thoroughly

> examined the evidence and conclude that 9/11 was carried out with the

> complicity of elements within the US gov't?

>

Is this the same thing as evidence? You'll find supporters of

practically any theory. I find the accusation that the Bush

administration orchestrated this as entirely implausible. Please just

state the evidence, not just stuff in the official explanation that

doesn't add up, or the names of people who agree with you, etc. And -

it is not the same thing to say that there was some complicity by

'elements' of the government, than it is to say that it was entirely

planned and executed by the U.S. government. And it is not the same

thing to say that there might have been foreknowledge, etc....

I've spent enough time watching videos and reading articles about the

flaws to the 9/11 theory. Just tell us what the actual evidence is

that the Bush administration did it.

>

>

> Do you think that YOU have done a more thorough investigation than

> they

> have? Or that YOU have more inside knowledge of the CIA and covert

> gov't

> operations than Bowman, Ray McGovern, Bill Christison,

> s Von

> Bulow, etc? if not, do you think these folks have an ulterior motive

> for

> saying their gov't was complicit in the attacks?

>

This is crazy. I do not have to spend hours researching every crackpot

theory that comes along to challenge them as crackpot theories. You

thus far have presented NO evidence whatsoever. Just lots of posturing.

>

>

> Do you realize that many of the people who've publicly spoken out

> about this

> fear for their lives?

>

Well, that's sure evidence.....

> While it may be possible to find a person here or

> there with ulterior motives, most of those who've spoken out,

> written books,

> made documentaries, etc. have a lot to lose by doing so and some

> have indeed

> lost their jobs and others have lost their lives under mysterious

> circumstances.

>

> In regard to evidence, the intent of my email was not to present

> evidence so

> it hardly makes sense to criticize it for not doing what it was not

> intended

> to do.

>

Sure it is. You have repeatedly said that this was an inside job, and

mischaracterized what I've said over and over and over. I've claimed

that there isn't any evidence. And you haven't provided ANY. All

you've done is imply that I " m somehow foolish for believing the

official story, when I've repeated over and over that I don't.

>

>

> You want to discuss the evidence? I'm all for it. I have very, very

> little

> time these days to spend on discussion forums, but will gladly

> respond to

> posts as time allows.

>

> Where do you want to begin?

>

> The apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7? If so, where to start?

> Barry

> Jennings (recently deceased, cause of death being withheld)

> testimony that

> the floor below him blew out from under him BEFORE either Twin Tower

> fell?

> The dead bodies in WTC 7 he mentions? How about the WTC leaseholder

> Larry

> Silverstein saying on camera that they decided to " pull " building 7?

> This

> is, BTW, the commonly used demolition term for a controlled

> demolition. How

> about the billions on insurance that Silverstein made from the

> collapse of

> the towers?

>

Not evidence that this was planned and executed by the Bush

administration.

>

>

> Or would you rather start with Cheney's bunker orders, presumably to

> either

> stand down or shoot down, as Norman Minetta's testimony describes?

> Or the

> timing of Cheney arriving in the bunker and how even his own testimony

> contradicts that of the 9/11 Omission's report? Or about the extreme

> time

> lapses from when they knew there were civilian planes off course and

> not

> responding (normal response is to scramble fighter jets, which had

> been done

> 67 times already between Jan 2001 and Sept. 10, 2001) and the time

> the plane

> was reported to have hit the Pentagon?

>

>

Evidence at best that there is more to the story, or that there was

foreknowledge. Not evidence that it was actually planned by the Bush

administration,.

> Or would you rather start with the official fable's proclamation

> that the

> motive of these so-called Islamic Jihadist where that they hated our

> freedom? These puritanical fundamentalists hated our freedom so

> much...so

> let's discuss why their purported ring leader, Mohammed Atta, was

> heavily

> into booze, cocaine and topless clubs and lap dances? Oh and pork?

> Or his

> penchant for cocaine. Or maybe his live-in call-girl girlfriend.

> Want to

> talk about that?

>

Not evidence that it was planned by the Bush administration. Of

course, everyone with part of a brain knows that the 'they hate our

freedoms' crap is precisely that - crap. But how many people in

positions of power in the U.S. will offer any kind of a realistic

explanation as to why much of the world hates us? By your reasoning

they were all in on it...

>

>

> Or why don't we discuss why the US Consulate director in Jeddah Saudi

> Arabia, Springmann, was told by higher ups to issue US

> passports to

> 11 of the accused hijackers as well as about 100 others, even though

> he'd

> rejected them as unqualified? Why don't we discuss his claims that

> the CIA

> was so involved in the running of the Jeddah consulate office?

>

Don't know this story, but I'm sure that (other than videos on the

internet) you've verified it, and tied it to the Bush administration?

>

>

> Or should we talk about the numerous ear witness accounts of

> explosions in

> the lower floors of the WTC right before they fell?

>

> Or the put options placed on the two airlines involved right before

> the

> attack?

>

> Or the molten steel?

>

> Or the Israeli company that broke it's lease and relocated its staff

> shortly

> before 9/11?

>

> Or the dozes of countries claiming they provided the US intelligence

> about

> the attack before it happened?

>

You continually imply that I've totally rejected the possibility that

there was foreknowledge. I've challenged you in one area - that the

Bush Administration carried out the attacks. And yet you have the

audacity to claim that I'm using ad hominem attacks when I point this

out, and claim that you've presented no evidence. Your entire post

here suggests that you still don't understand any of these distinctions.

>

>

> Or the military exercises that were going on DURING the attack that

> simulated the very same scenario as well as the other exercises at

> the same

> time that conveniently took some of our air defenses away from the

> area?

>

Why would you rehearse the attack while it was going on? That makes no

sense to me. But the U.S. government has contingency plans for some

amazingly outrageous scenarios - that is not the same thing as saying

that, if one of these scenarios actually occurs, they were behind it.

I just can't read any more of this. Please - in a post that can

reasonably be defined as distinct - present actual evidence, and

refrain from implying that I accept the official story. The point at

which I think it's rubbish is that the Bush administration actually

planned all of this. I'm not asking for opinions of other people (I'm

sure you could find quotes suggesting that JFK was killed by

Venusians, if you looked hard enough), and I'm not asking for sites

that cast doubt on the official story.

Focus on the prize - provide evidence in a form that I'll actually be

motivated to read it, that the Bush administration actually planned

and carried out the attacks.

>

>

> Or that Bush and Rice both famously stating that they could never have

> envisioned such an attack when NORAD had not only envisioned it, but

> had run

> maneuvers using it as a possible scenario (hijacked airliners flying

> into

> key buildings) And that the face of the " fake " hijacker mastermind

> on the

> cover of the NORAD maneuver pamphlet was...Osama bin Laden.

>

> Or the proximity of s Air force Base to the Pentagon and their

> squadrons of fighter jets that would normally be scrambled in a

> situation

> like 9/11.

>

> Or the stark discrepancies in the time tables when it was known we

> were

> under attack and the time the jets actually WERE scrambled?

>

> Or the Grandpre seminar of military and civilian pilots held to

> determine

> whether the hijackers were capable of flying the planes into the WTC

> and the

> Pentagon and the fact that they expressed " grave doubt " that the

> purported

> hijacker pilots (all of whom had been described as inadequate at

> flying

> small Cessna's by their trainers, and the one who supposedly flew

> into the

> Pentagon - a 270 downward spiral which by all accounts takes

> incredible

> experience and precision - was the worst pilot of them all) could've

> carried

> it out.

>

> There are so many points we could start with...so where do you want to

> start?

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> So, pray tell - which of the links that you provide below actually

> provide EVIDENCE that the Bush administration planned and carried out

> 9/11?

They all provide some evidence that the attacks were almost or definitely

impossible to carry out without inside help. As I've said before, this

doesn't mean that every one in the 9/11 Truth movement believes that " THE

Bush administration planned and carried out 9/11 " . There seems to be more

evidence against Cheney than Bush and I believe some think Bush might not've

even known about it, at least explicitly. Others simply believe *someone* on

the inside was working with the hijackers but don't know who.

Obviously there is no written confession or videos of secretly taped

meetings between Cheney and bin Laden's CIA handler, etc.

No_one_is_saying_that. Both the non evidence-based official conspiracy

theory and the evidence-based 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theory are

circumstantial cases involving circumstantial evidence - in some cases VERY

strong evidence and in other cases weak evidence. The difference however, is

that the 9/11 Truth movement developed a theory based on the actual

evidence, and so the theory is consistent with the evidence. The official

conspiracy theory is wildly at odds with the evidence. The former also

includes means, motive and opportunity while the latter is sorely lacking on

these points.

So you're not going to get a smoking gun from either side. Instead you are

going to get a mountain of circumstantial evidence and a theory based on it

vs. a theory grossly at odds with it.

> You have posted time and time and time again, but never provided any,

I see. And since my previous email was not intended to provide any as it

dealt with another issue and when you insisted you wanted evidence, I said

sure, where do you want to start and then provided over a dozen points that

we could start with, instead of saying, OK, let's start with this one,

you're response is " you've never provided any evidence " . Never mind that I

provided numerous resources that DO provide evidence.

> and I'm quite disinclined to spend more time looking at this stuff

> unless you can actually provide evidence- not that the story that we

> have isn't the full or true story - but actual evidence that Bush &

> Co. was involved. Or do you not know what evidence means?

No, of course I don't know what evidence means. I'm an idiot. Col.

Bowman who ran the space weapons program under two presidents is an idiot.

The former CIA leaders are idiots. The former German Defense minister is an

idiot. The European Parlimentarian and Japanese parliamentarian are idiots.

The scientists I named are idotis. Neither I nor they know what evidence

means.

I challenge you to look at just ONE of the lectures or documentaries I

posted. Just ONE. Then tell me which piece of evidence presented you would

like to begin a discussion of the evidence with. I'm_happy_to_discuss_it.

Just name what point you want to start with. Like I said in the previous

post, I have very little free time now, but I WILL discuss the evidence of

the 9/11 attacks being done with inside help. Just watch one of the movies

or lectures and tell me which point you want to start discussing and give me

a little time to respond. I'm way over my limit of email posting for this

week now though so it may take me some time before I can get to the response

but if you watch one of these resources, I WILL respond.

And how about answering some of MY questions which you've conveniently

avoided. I'll repeat:

Do you have no comment on the fact that not only former high level CIA

insiders as well as gov't officials of friendly nations, as well as

scientists and the former director of the Star Wars program have thoroughly

examined the evidence and conclude that 9/11 was carried out with the

complicity of elements within the US gov't?

Do you think that YOU have done a more thorough investigation than they

have? Or that YOU have more inside knowledge of the CIA and covert gov't

operations than Bowman, Ray McGovern, Bill Christison, s Von

Bulow, etc? if not, do you think these folks have an ulterior motive for

saying their gov't was complicit in the attacks?

Suze

[Guest guest]

I have no patience for this - just tell me - which link provides the

best evidence that the events of 9/11 were actually planned by the

Bush administration. I'll look at it.

>

> > So, pray tell - which of the links that you provide below actually

> > provide EVIDENCE that the Bush administration planned and carried

> out

> > 9/11?

>

> They all provide some evidence that the attacks were almost or

> definitely

> impossible to carry out without inside help. As I've said before, this

> doesn't mean that every one in the 9/11 Truth movement believes that

> " THE

> Bush administration planned and carried out 9/11 " . There seems to be

> more

> evidence against Cheney than Bush and I believe some think Bush

> might not've

> even known about it, at least explicitly. Others simply believe

> *someone* on

> the inside was working with the hijackers but don't know who.

>

> Obviously there is no written confession or videos of secretly taped

> meetings between Cheney and bin Laden's CIA handler, etc.

> No_one_is_saying_that. Both the non evidence-based official conspiracy

> theory and the evidence-based 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theory

> are

> circumstantial cases involving circumstantial evidence - in some

> cases VERY

> strong evidence and in other cases weak evidence. The difference

> however, is

> that the 9/11 Truth movement developed a theory based on the actual

> evidence, and so the theory is consistent with the evidence. The

> official

> conspiracy theory is wildly at odds with the evidence. The former also

> includes means, motive and opportunity while the latter is sorely

> lacking on

> these points.

>

> So you're not going to get a smoking gun from either side. Instead

> you are

> going to get a mountain of circumstantial evidence and a theory

> based on it

> vs. a theory grossly at odds with it.

>

> > You have posted time and time and time again, but never provided

> any,

>

> I see. And since my previous email was not intended to provide any

> as it

> dealt with another issue and when you insisted you wanted evidence,

> I said

> sure, where do you want to start and then provided over a dozen

> points that

> we could start with, instead of saying, OK, let's start with this one,

> you're response is " you've never provided any evidence " . Never mind

> that I

> provided numerous resources that DO provide evidence.

>

> > and I'm quite disinclined to spend more time looking at this stuff

> > unless you can actually provide evidence- not that the story that we

> > have isn't the full or true story - but actual evidence that Bush &

> > Co. was involved. Or do you not know what evidence means?

>

> No, of course I don't know what evidence means. I'm an idiot. Col.

>

> Bowman who ran the space weapons program under two presidents is an

> idiot.

> The former CIA leaders are idiots. The former German Defense

> minister is an

> idiot. The European Parlimentarian and Japanese parliamentarian are

> idiots.

> The scientists I named are idotis. Neither I nor they know what

> evidence

> means.

>

> I challenge you to look at just ONE of the lectures or documentaries I

> posted. Just ONE. Then tell me which piece of evidence presented you

> would

> like to begin a discussion of the evidence with.

> I'm_happy_to_discuss_it.

> Just name what point you want to start with. Like I said in the

> previous

> post, I have very little free time now, but I WILL discuss the

> evidence of

> the 9/11 attacks being done with inside help. Just watch one of the

> movies

> or lectures and tell me which point you want to start discussing and

> give me

> a little time to respond. I'm way over my limit of email posting for

> this

> week now though so it may take me some time before I can get to the

> response

> but if you watch one of these resources, I WILL respond.

>

> And how about answering some of MY questions which you've conveniently

> avoided. I'll repeat:

>

> Do you have no comment on the fact that not only former high level CIA

> insiders as well as gov't officials of friendly nations, as well as

> scientists and the former director of the Star Wars program have

> thoroughly

> examined the evidence and conclude that 9/11 was carried out with the

> complicity of elements within the US gov't?

>

> Do you think that YOU have done a more thorough investigation than

> they

> have? Or that YOU have more inside knowledge of the CIA and covert

> gov't

> operations than Bowman, Ray McGovern, Bill Christison,

> s Von

> Bulow, etc? if not, do you think these folks have an ulterior motive

> for

> saying their gov't was complicit in the attacks?

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Please just

> state the evidence, not just stuff in the official explanation that

> doesn't add up, or the names of people who agree with you, etc. And -

> it is not the same thing to say that there was some complicity by

> 'elements' of the government, than it is to say that it was entirely

> planned and executed by the U.S. government. And it is not the same

> thing to say that there might have been foreknowledge, etc....

I agree it's not the same thing. I don't recall having said that there is

evidence that THE administration entirely planned and carried it out as you

say. I have said repeatedly though that there is evidence of complicity

within the gov't. This *could* include planning and orchestrating, which I

do not find implausible, but does not necessarily include it.

I think you assumed that I was arguing that the Bush admin planned and

carried out the attacks from this post:

http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/102569.html

But if you read it you'll see I didn't say that. What I AM arguing is that

there is a large body of circumstantial evidence that there was some

complicity, as stated in my other email.

> This is crazy. I do not have to spend hours researching every crackpot

> theory that comes along to challenge them as crackpot theories.

No, but it would be irrational to dismiss an evidence-based theory about

events that have changed the lives of everyone in this country for the

worse, have been used as the basis to justify dictatorial power of the

executive branch of the US gov't, have been used to justify endless

pre-emptive wars and have been used to justify the slaughter hundreds of

thousands of innocent people, without having thoroughly examined that

evidence oneself.

The sheer massive influence of the events of that day on our lives seems

like it would justify a thorough examination of the evidence by every US

citizen at the very least if not by citizens around the world who are also

being affected by it. Especially considering that the 9/11 Commission's

report was clearly a cover-up and very few people believe it.

Suze

[Guest guest]

It's important, however, to remain calm, rational and logical

> when trying to discern the truth, and not to fall prey to emotions and

> prejudices.

I don't think calmness is relevant here, but I completely agree with the

need to remain rational and logical when trying to discern the truth.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Well, after all of this, our positions aren't much different. I think

that it's very plausible that some in this administration had advance

knowledge, much short of actually planning and executing it. I haven't

seen any actual evidence, and don't think that there is any other than

very, very circumstantial evidence - but certainly we haven't been

told the truth, and certainly Cheney and the rest of the crew are not

above having a few people lose their lives to further their agenda.

> >Please just

> > state the evidence, not just stuff in the official explanation that

> > doesn't add up, or the names of people who agree with you, etc.

> And -

> > it is not the same thing to say that there was some complicity by

> > 'elements' of the government, than it is to say that it was entirely

> > planned and executed by the U.S. government. And it is not the same

> > thing to say that there might have been foreknowledge, etc....

>

> I agree it's not the same thing. I don't recall having said that

> there is

> evidence that THE administration entirely planned and carried it out

> as you

> say. I have said repeatedly though that there is evidence of

> complicity

> within the gov't. This *could* include planning and orchestrating,

> which I

> do not find implausible, but does not necessarily include it.

>

> I think you assumed that I was arguing that the Bush admin planned and

> carried out the attacks from this post:

> http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/102569.html

>

> But if you read it you'll see I didn't say that. What I AM arguing

> is that

> there is a large body of circumstantial evidence that there was some

> complicity, as stated in my other email.

>

> > This is crazy. I do not have to spend hours researching every

> crackpot

> > theory that comes along to challenge them as crackpot theories.

>

> No, but it would be irrational to dismiss an evidence-based theory

> about

> events that have changed the lives of everyone in this country for the

> worse, have been used as the basis to justify dictatorial power of the

> executive branch of the US gov't, have been used to justify endless

> pre-emptive wars and have been used to justify the slaughter

> hundreds of

> thousands of innocent people, without having thoroughly examined that

> evidence oneself.

>

> The sheer massive influence of the events of that day on our lives

> seems

> like it would justify a thorough examination of the evidence by

> every US

> citizen at the very least if not by citizens around the world who

> are also

> being affected by it. Especially considering that the 9/11

> Commission's

> report was clearly a cover-up and very few people believe it.

>

> Suze

>

>

>