Top 5 reasons the Official 9/11 Story is Bogus

[cottonzway]

To be real detailed....

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin ofthe money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

That is a criminal comment IMO. If any form of law enforcement who was investigating a crime to commit conspiracy put that in their report they would be fired from their position. It's unacceptable and shows a lack of willingness to look for who funded the attacks.

Also within that page it claims that they found no evidence that a foreign government was involved. Why was it in mainstream news that Porter Goss and Bob Graham was meeting with former head of the Pakistani ISI, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad who wired $100,000 to Mahmoud Ahmad in the days leading up to 9/11. The same Mahmoud Ahmad who gave that money to Muhammad Atta, despite Atta being one of the most known terrorists being watched under the Pentagon "ABLE DANGER" program.

Game. Set. Match.

We have been lied to.

 

[CapnG]

You're assuming all opinions are equally valid. I don't think they are.

I'm forced to agree. For example, I'd say Bruce Macabee's opinion outweighs Micheal Horn's on jst about every level I can think of.

 

[fitzbew88]

Game. Set. Match.

We have been lied to.

I understand your comment about the "practical significance" (and I respect your opinion) but I don't yet see the "lie" you are describing.

Lots of money was sent to the Taliban by the ISI -- and lots were sent to the ISI by the U.S.. It is plausible that money sent to the Taliban by the ISI wound up in OBL's pockets, but so what?

It doesn't mean that Pakistan was "involved" in 9/11 (at least not directly as a co-conspirator).

Now, you might make a case that the Taliban was a foreign government "involved" in 9/11, but I have not seen that case made yet. I'm not sure we can even say that Afghanistan really had a government at that time. I'm skeptical that the leadership of the Taliban had any idea what OBL was up to.

For me (personally) to hold such a conclusion significant, I'd need some evidence that the ISI knew what the money was going to be used for.

Money was flowing into that part of the world from all over --- and likely still is.

 

[Tommy Allison]

I've actually read the 9-11 commission report, and it is horribly flawed, because of omissions, and half truths. It's laughable.

You would not believe the who's who of terrorism is involved with both, the first WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9-11.

 

[cottonzway]

Tommy,

Have you also read David Ray Griffith's; "9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions" as well? For those who are uninterested or too lazy to read the boring report I feel that covers the problems with the report very well.

 

[Rick Deckard]

If you don't see your neighbor's children playing in the street for a week, can you picture yourself going over to your neighbor and accuse him of selling them into slavery? When he protests, would you say: "I was just thinking out loud, exploring the boundaries?"

I think we may just disagree on this ethically -- I just don't think that's ok.

I love you. Will you marry me?

 

[Rick Deckard]

You're assuming all opinions are equally valid. I don't think they are.

I'm forced to agree. For example, I'd say Bruce Macabee's opinion outweighs Micheal Horn's on jst about every level I can think of.

That's because you agree with Macabee and disagree with Horn - that's subjective.

I dunno - is this argument objective, subjective or both? If I disagree with someone, does that make their opinion less valid?

 

[Rick Deckard]

Tommy,

Have you also read David Ray Griffith's; "9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions" as well? For those who are uninterested or too lazy to read the boring report I feel that covers the problems with the report very well.

You mean 'Griffin'. I have 3 books by Griffin.

 

[CapnG]

That's because you agree with Macabee and disagree with Horn - that's subjective.

One is a respected image analyst with decades of experience, the other is a loon trying to milk a crazy old man's story to sell DVDs. There's nothing subjective about that. I'll stick with Macabee.

I dunno - is this argument objective, subjective or both? If I disagree with someone, does that make their opinion less valid?

I think it's subjective even if you've read all the necessary documentation. Objectivity would require an external viewpoint.

 

[Rick Deckard]

That's because you agree with Macabee and disagree with Horn - that's subjective.

One is a respected image analyst with decades of experience, the other is a loon trying to milk a crazy old man's story to sell DVDs. There's nothing subjective about that. I'll stick with Macabee.

Well, I wouldn't argue with you there, but the FIGU crowd would disagree. They would state the reverse, no?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

If M.Horn, looked half as good as S.Brown, Capn wood B all on it.



The conversation might go further, if we all take a step back and a breather. Just a recommendation. I recommend to stick to the facts as you know them, and bounce off one another. Only a suggestion btw, you do NOT have to conform to my wishes. As others, I'm merely adding my proverbial cense/sense. But as a person that frequents this forum, I've seen good post (IMO) by all of you. It's best imo to maybe work together in a more respectable way. Just my thoughts, again, you do not have to conform. Be yourself, but with "common sense" in mind. Which, you've all done, but I sense we might go down a non-sensical ave. I could be wrong, if so, please take no offense.


PS. Capn paid 1000 bucks to smell S. Brown's armpits.

Humor never hurts either. I hope.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I want green letters for my name! I have pink. Rick, fix me up!

Again, humor folks I hope.

What's wif the AWOL?

 

[CapnG]

Humor never hurts either. I hope.

Ahem, Humour.

And you're the one who keeps bringing up SB, PP. Curious...

 

[cottonzway]

Tommy,

Have you also read David Ray Griffith's; "9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions" as well? For those who are uninterested or too lazy to read the boring report I feel that covers the problems with the report very well.

You mean 'Griffin'. I have 3 books by Griffin.

Ah yes, that guy.

 

[pixelsmith]

this is a link to a group of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. very interesting.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[fitzbew88]

Here is a link to the research by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

NIST WTC Investigation

To my own eye --- after a quick glance --- most of the stuff on the ae911truth site looks pretty flimsy. (Although I would like to know more about the thermite trace testing which returned some positives.)

NIST has considered a "controlled demolition theory" and explains why they don't think the theory holds water on this FAQ Page (Question 2). Yes, I realize that given the nature of the discussion, input from NIST would have to be surveyed suspiciously.

If there really was an "unknown" (non-Islamic terrorism) cause of 9/11 then I think OBL had to be in on it --- and the plot would had to have stretched back into the 90's. Judging from his history before and after 9/11 that doesn't seem to me to be even remotely possible. That's my opinion.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Ugh. Sorry about posting HAMMERED last night. I need to hook up a breathalyzer to these forums to make sure I don't post when trashed.

I see Rick left again. He'll be back I'm betting.

Canadians spell humor like humour, that's right, I forgot. I like the US spelling, it's shorter. Why the extra letter in it? I'm a lazy American.

Although 9/11 isn't the paranormal, I would love to hear a show by Gene and David on it someday.

Ugh, I feel like throwing up. Wine, beer, tequila doesn't mix.

 

[CapnG]

I see Rick left again. He'll be back I'm betting.

I have no doubt. The paracast is like the mafia... you can try to get out but they keep pulling you back in!

 

[cottonzway]

Here is a link to the research by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

NIST WTC Investigation

To my own eye --- after a quick glance --- most of the stuff on the ae911truth site looks pretty flimsy. (Although I would like to know more about the thermite trace testing which returned some positives.)

NIST has considered a "controlled demolition theory" and explains why they don't think the theory holds water on this FAQ Page (Question 2). Yes, I realize that given the nature of the discussion, input from NIST would have to be surveyed suspiciously.

If there really was an "unknown" (non-Islamic terrorism) cause of 9/11 then I think OBL had to be in on it --- and the plot would had to have stretched back into the 90's. Judging from his history before and after 9/11 that doesn't seem to me to be even remotely possible. That's my opinion.

All of that info is secondary to a rational debate that questions the 9/11 events in general. Basically I’m saying it is speculative and not really needed to disseminate that the option of “OTHER” is the closer answer to what happened that what has been suggested.

While I find the work by Steven Jones and Richard Gage interesting I don’t think it makes sense to show it as an “example to question” the events when there are many other issues that do that without much to any debate:

-The flawed 9/11 Commission Report
-The various military war games on the day of 9/11by NORARD, FEMA, the NGA, and probably most importantly the NRO.
-Put options on United and American Airlines. Put options that lead right back to former CIA Executive Director A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard.
-The attempted release of information by former FBI agent Robert Wright.
-The gag orders of Sibel Edmonds.


So on and so on.

There is no need to go into conspiracy about planes and bombs. It’s clear as day we have been mislead about 9/11. The exact details on what happened are needed to be filled in.

As for NIST, let it be known that their 10,000 page report only goes up to the start of failure. Meaning it doesn’t explain how or why it happened after collapse began. It’s bunk garbage. NIST also had given 5 reasons for the failure of WTC 7. All 5 of them, ranging from falling debris, to diesel fuel generators fires, to poor construction, to poor land it was over, to a compilation of the above have ALL BEEN RETRACTED BY NIST. They have attempted 5x to explain WTC 7, failed 5X and have no official reason that after being peer reviewed has been deemed acceptable. FACT.

I am for 9/11 Truth. That doesn’t mean I have 9/11 answers. We have been lied to and I feel that much is proven. The answers are what I want.

 

[fitzbew88]

All of that info is secondary to a rational debate that questions the 9/11 events in general. Basically I’m saying it is speculative and not really needed to disseminate that the option of “OTHER” is the closer answer to what happened that what has been suggested.

I don't understand what you mean here.

While I find the work by Steven Jones and Richard Gage interesting I don’t think it makes sense to show it as an “example to question” the events when there are many other issues that do that without much to any debate:

-The flawed 9/11 Commission Report
-The various military war games on the day of 9/11by NORARD, FEMA, the NGA, and probably most importantly the NRO.
-Put options on United and American Airlines. Put options that lead right back to former CIA Executive Director A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard.
-The attempted release of information by former FBI agent Robert Wright.
-The gag orders of Sibel Edmonds.

So on and so on.

I think you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong): the presence of these five other bullet item "issues" make any other debate unnecessary. Just these five issues show that something significant(?) is wrong with the official story.(?)

Is that good read of your intent?

There is no need to go into conspiracy about planes and bombs. It’s clear as day we have been mislead about 9/11. The exact details on what happened are needed to be filled in.

Ok.

As for NIST, let it be known that their 10,000 page report only goes up to the start of failure. Meaning it doesn’t explain how or why it happened after collapse began. It’s bunk garbage.

I don't understand what you mean here. And I assume you are talking about the WTC 1 and WTC 2 since the [final] WTC 7 report won't be released until later this year.

The WTC 1 and 2 reports go up to the start of collapse. Why should it go further?

NIST also had given 5 reasons for the failure of WTC 7. All 5 of them, ranging from falling debris, to diesel fuel generators fires, to poor construction, to poor land it was over, to a compilation of the above have ALL BEEN RETRACTED BY NIST. They have attempted 5x to explain WTC 7, failed 5X and have no official reason that after being peer reviewed has been deemed acceptable. FACT.

Well, like I said the final WTC 7 report won't come out until August at the earliest so I think it is a little early to extract FACTs from it. But we should surely keep our eyes open.

I am for 9/11 Truth. That doesn’t mean I have 9/11 answers. We have been lied to and I feel that much is proven. The answers are what I want.

I agree with everything except the "lied to" part which may be true but I haven't seen anything *specifically* convincing yet. Considering the huge amount of testimony, research, committee and staff work, national security implications, it's probably a fair assessment that there is a lie in there somewhere.