Re: evidence for US gov't complicity in 9/11 attacks? (was: Conspiracy theories - evidence-based vs. non evidence-based)

[Guest guest]

On Oct 19, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> > I watched about 30 minutes of Fabled Enemies. A total piece of crap,

> > and wasn't convincing in the least.

>

> I get the feeling that if I told you there was a nose in the middle

> of your

> face you wouldn't be convinced in the least and would dismiss it as a

> paranoid conspiracy theory.

>

You'd have to try me.

>

>

> Who said that the first 30 minutes of any documentary would *convince*

> anyone that there was gov't complicity in the 9/11 attacks? As I've

> been

> saying all along it is the *totality* of the evidence that I and

> many others

> find convincing - not *one* documentary or *one* lecture or *one*

> book. And

> certainly not just the first 30 minutes of one documentary.

>

I was basing my statement on the fact that the arguments were

primarily emotional, poorly constructed, and seemingly bolstered by

the melodramatic music being played in the background. I think that

you can tell from the first half hour of something that it is a piece

of crap. I can listen to Palin for about 20 seconds, for

instance, to determine that she's an idiot.

Stopped reading at this point. I'm still waiting for a documentary

that is actually put together by someone with a modicum of intelligence.

>

>

> >

> > Thus far, I believe that all of the news sources have been from Fox

> > News. Fox news is simply not a trustworthy source. One example of an

> > extremely irresponsible bit of news/documentary from Fox - the

> recent

> > hour long Obama expose using Andy as a source.

>

> Obviously, you were not paying close attention then. In the first 15

> minutes

> of Fabled Enemies the NY Times was cited twice, Newsweek was cited

> twice,

> ABC news once, The Guardian once, and Judicial Watch once among

> others, but

> more importantly, first_person_testimony was given on several

> important

> subjects.

>

So, you're actually denying that most of the news sources that are

displayed in the video (at least the first 30 minutes) are from Fox

News? If you are, I'm impressed, though I'm not sure at what.

>

>

> I agree that Fox News is, on the whole, not a trustworthy source,

> and I'll

> raise you one and charge that they serve as a propaganda machine for

> the Neo

> Cons.

>

Not sure what the competition is. Obviously this is the case.

> Because of this, whenever they report on something that sheds a

> *negative* light on the Neo Cons, I find them more credible than the

> other

> 99% of the time they spend bashing liberals.

>

A very interesting line of reasoning. I'd prefer, however, that my

news sources came from sources that were a slight bit more reliable.

>

>

> Secondly, the first Fox News report mentioned in the film was also

> reported

> by the NY Times - this is the issue of several of the hijackers being

> trained at US military bases in the US. The NY Times reported that the

> Defense Dept. said that the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, had gone

> to the

> International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in AL., and

> that two

> of the others were at other military installations.

>

> But far more important than these news reports is the first person

> testimonial of Springmann which started about 7 mins into

> the video.

> Springmann was the chief of the visa department at the US Consulate in

> Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and he testified that the consulate was

> essentially run

> by the CIA and was used to funnel in and protect Islamic terrorists.

> Springmann explains that his superiors overrode his decision to deny

> visas

> to over 100 applicants including several of the 9/11 hijackers. In one

> example he describes an unemployed refugee from the Sudan who's

> application

> he denied but his superiors overrode telling him it was for " national

> security purposes: "

>

> Springmann goes on to explain that he believes these folks were being

> recruited as CIA assets. And then explains the role that bin Laden

> played as

> a CIA asset during the Afghan war against the Soviets.

>

> Springmann's testimony is one piece in the large body of evidence

> strongly

> suggesting US gov't complicity in the attacks on 9/11.

>

> A few more things worth noting in the first 15 mins of the

> documentary:

>

> Ten minutes into the documentary it discusses the NY Times report

> that 2 of

> the hijackers lived with an FBI informant.

>

> FBI investigator O'Neil was the FBI's counter terrorism chief

> in charge

> of investigating bin Laden and he testified that as he got close his

> investigation was shut down. On Aug 22, 2001, after he repeatedly

> claimed

> that his investigation into bin Laden was obstructed, he left the

> FBI. He

> then took on the job of head of security at the WTC and was killed

> in the

> attacks.

>

> This is very interesting in light of the fact that the head of the FBI

> claims the agency doesn't have sufficient evidence against bin Laden

> to

> charge him with the 9/11 attacks. So the agency is charging him with

> several

> other previous terrorist attacks, but it doesn't list 9/11 as one of

> bin

> Laden's crimes.

>

> Also interesting that W. Bush's brother and cousin are

> principles in

> the company that provided security for the WTC...

>

> Next, Fabled Enemies shows testimony from Judicial Watch members who

> are

> trying to help FBI agent who came forward to say that

> his

> investigation into bin Laden had been blocked by the FBI and he went

> so far

> as to *sue* the FBI to allow him to tell the public the truth.

>

> Everything I've mentioned above was covered in the first *15* mins

> of the

> documentatry. I don't have time to go over the other 15 mins that

> you were

> so gracious to watch.

>

> Had you followed through and watched more of it you would've seen

> Barry

> Jennings' unedited testimony. Jennings was the deputy director of

> emergency

> management services and was with city counsel Hess in

> building 7

> before any of the towers fell. He testifies on camera that there were

> explosions below them while they were on the 8th floor and that, in

> fact,

> the floor had blown out from underneath them and he found himself

> hanging

> from a beam. This happened *before* either of the Twin Towers fell.

> Then, as

> he was being led out by fireman he was told not to look down, he says,

> because they were stepping over bodies in the *lobby* of building 7.

>

> Where did those bodies come from? Building 7 only had a few sporadic

> fires

> as it was a football field length away from the Twin Towers. Why did

> so many

> people testify that they heard explosions in all three buildings?

> Why are

> squibs visible on video footage in floors below those falling?

> (Squibs are

> the characteristic puffs of smoke coming out windows when each floor

> is

> exploded in a controlled demolition). There are so many " whys "

> surrounding

> the collapses of these three buildings, but especially building 7.

> What do

> *you* think caused its collapse?

>

> And why did Barry Jennings ask the producers of Loose Change (the

> first

> documentary showing his interview) to edit out key portions of the

> interview

> because he was afraid to lose his job? And why did Barry Jennings

> die two

> months ago today -less than two weeks before Fabled Enemies was

> released?

> Why isn't his cause of death being released? If he died of respiratory

> complications from 9/11 why not just release that info and put a

> rest to the

> speculation about the cause of death of a key witness of 9/11?

>

> > If Fabled Enemies is the best you've got, I just have to laugh.

>

> In and of itself it is not the *best* source of evidence supporting

> the

> claim that there was US gov't complicity in 9/11, but as I've

> repeatedly

> stated it (as well as other lectures, documentaries and books I've

> mentioned) offers pieces of evidence, that when looked at within the

> context

> of the larger body of evidence, is certainly a valuable asset.

>

> Suze

>

>

>