In my defense

by **Qutb** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:28 pm

Darkbeforedawn wrote - "a bunch of 19 year olds" They weren't 19 years old. "with strange suicidal religious beliefs" Are you suggesting suicide attacks don't happen? Is this a phenomenon that has escaped your attention? Your use of the word "strange" seems to imply that it is unheard of that religiously-politically motivated young men and women with Muslim backgrounds give their lives in such attacks. "and boxcutters" There are witness reports that might indicate that they were armed with more than boxcutters. "hijack four jets simultaniously and overpower military-trained pilots and co-pilots." But only successfully in three of the four cases. "Though having very little or no experience flying large aircraft" Maybe they had more experience than you think? "they perfrom unparalleled feats of aviation" I don't know if they're unparalleled. There's nothing that spectacular about what flights 175 and 11 did. "the world's most prepared and trained air defense ever" Absolutely nothing would indicate that it was "the most prepared and trained air defense ever". That's just what you're taught to believe. "We're the best! USA! USA!" "successfully exploding three out of four targets" None of the targets "exploded". "the master planner, once a known CIA asset" The master planner, according to the "official story", was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He is not known to have ever been a CIA asset. Neither, for that matter, is Osama. I may suspect that he was, but there's no reliable evidence that he's actually worked directly for the CIA (I consider the Tim Osman story interesting, but uncorroborated). "The world's most persistent and pervasive military force vows to get him "dead or alive", but can't." "We're the best! USA! USA!". They haven't found Osama, but they've found a lot of other key al-Qa'ida operatives: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh being the most prominent. "Powerful forces working behind the scenes in finance and government needed a "new Pearl Harbor" and boldly declared so." I don't know if that's an accurate description of the PNAC extremists who wrote "Rebuilding America's Defenses". These weren't terribly powerful people prior to the Bush administration's taking office in January 2001, neither does anything point to them being significant forces "behind the scenes in finance and government". "They planned for years to bring this event about and diligently included ownership and control of the media in this formula so as to keep the public in the dark." Now we're entering the realm of fantasy. "9-11 was a false flag terror attack designed to legitimize our nakedly aggressive policy to control and and direct resources in the middle east, mainly oil, drugs and arms traffic" That's pure speculation and doesn't agree with most of the evidence. "The true criminals can be identified by following the flow of money, which Jeff so brilliantly outlined in a recent blog." I agree. And the money seems to point to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:50 pm

Wow Qutb, it sure is clear where you stand....Many of the "hijackers" were very young. Osama has clearly been connected both with US interests and the decadent Saudi Royalty his entire life as most of the Bin Ladens are, and he was the one presented over and over again to the public as the "mastermind". None of the fliers had more than a few hours flying commercial jets. "Jihadists" may indeed exist, but their ideas are weird, (even most Muslims think so) and usually their goals are much closer to home. Many of these "jihidists" around the world are now being exposed as false flag attacks...see the stories coming out of Spain and Indonesia....The three buildings certainly look exploded to me, and to many other more expert observers. Airplanes alone cannot account for the damage in any of these cases.The "hijackers" were successful in taking over all of the planes. The story is the passengers stormed the cabin in #93. If our air defense is not the best ever in history, then whose is? Oh don't even answer any of this. You clearly are stuck stuck stuck defending the official story. Just stay there. I am sure you must have your reasons. Getting at the truth of what has happened obviously is not one of them.

by **Qutb** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:52 pm

Grasping at straws, that describes your position quite well. Couldn't have said it better myself. The worst thing is, I don't think you even realize how little sense you make, or with what ease you straddle the boundary between the real world and your imagination. But then you share that with many of the demagogues and con-men of the Truth movement.

by **sunny** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:17 am

darkbeforedawn, just wanted to post and say thank you and kudos to you for your continuing persistence and passion in the face of such arrogant ridicule. If it wasn't cd, then what the hell happened to WTC 7? Not one of the critics can answer that. Do you have a plausible alternate theory, critics? If you don't, then you must believe the official story. The critics keep harping on some of the parapolitical aspects of the crime. Yet, it escapes them that regular citizens, who are for the most part hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who deserve the truth about their gov't, cannot grasp such concepts as of yet. They must be led to it. The best way to lead a nation obsessed with Law and Order, CSI, Cold Case Files, Forensic Files, et al,(I know, I've harped on this before) and have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Rules Of Evidence due to these programs, is to present the physical evidence first. That is how law enforcement works. They collect physical evidence first, then go where it leads, not the other way around, gathering up suspects, financial records, phone logs, etc. first and then hoping the physical evidence fits. The thing with cd is, if it happened, and it did, then we have prima facie evidence of whodunnit.(caveat: while the Norad stand-down is not strictly physical evidence, it is something a cop would look into, forthwith. example: missing bodygaurds in the case of an assassinated pol or celebrity.) The only difficulty is in dissemination. How to get to them? Many people are not online, or are unsure how to use the internet for research into deep politics.Have you noticed we we haven't seen one single shot of the entire collapses of WTC during Mousaoui's trial? People viewing that footage free of the emotional shock of the day's and week's following the event are bound to question the manner in which the buildings fell. Can't have people doing that.

by **StarmanSkye** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:25 am

This is the crux of the issue with the Pentagon attack, as Hoffman from 911research.wtc7 sees it and I agree: A scientific approach to resolving questions about the attack is to draw conclusions directly supported by all of the credible evidence and then formulating hypotheses that fit those conclusions. We believe that that a careful examination of the photographic and eyewitness evidence strongly supports the following conclusions, if it does not prove them. An aircraft similar to or being a Boeing 757 approached the Pentagon and exploded at or in front of it. If the aircraft was a 757, portions of it were destroyed before impact. The attack involved an explosive detonation not explainable by jet fuel combustion. ------- Before one can make a hypothesis about something, one has to develop an accurate-as-possible understanding of a given situation using the best info. On this thread, I see an awful lotta carping about stuff that has NOTHING to do with the Pentagon attack. Now why is that? Other than one self-avowed peurile clown, seems anyone posting on this thread is either interested in discussion or trying to dampen discussion. ***** RobertReed said: --quote-- Starman, your objections about Flight 77 are reiterations that have been brought up and addressed on other threads- and, in fact, on a site that I've linked on this thread, at the beginning of the discussion. They don't need to be wallpapered all over the page again. (My comments *starred --S) *I disagree -- "MY objections"? What does that mean? What am I objecting to? That makes as much sense as saying, "Robert, your objections have been made on other threads. You really should go elsewhere" What the fuck is that about? Besides that -- You among a few others still reveal an astonishing lack of familiarity with critical details of the Pentagon attack and what the controversy IS about, and why. You may recall your disagreement on another thread with such non-controversial facts I posted as the alleged Flight 77's approach path and angle of strike on the west face of the Pentagon, issues of scale and the evidence of facade damage. Given that a few people here are making errors and misrepresentations apparently due to incomplete understanding of the controversy, my 'wallpapering' serves a function. But anyway, who are YOU to tell me what's appropriate? -S The reason that there are so many unresolved questions about Flight 77 is because in this day and age, some people are unwilling to accept anything less than comprehensive multi-angle recordings of the event as proof, so they can play "eyewitness" too, and replay it to their heart's content. (And, as we've found in the case of the planes hitting the WTC, even that degree of confirmation isn't enough to satisfy the squinting "pod people" and the "hologram" solipsists. ) *See -- You've just shown you don't understand that the real reason for the unresolved questions about Flight 77 is because the physical/photographic evidence is inconsistent with the eyewitness evidence. That was the friggin POINT of the articles I posted. The lack of recordings underlies the numerous unresolved inconsistencies and the very suspicious government witholding of crucial evidence--S Less than that, and they feel entitled to let their imaginations run wild- although, I POINT OUT ONCE AGAIN, not enough to actually construct a scenario for their own version that accounts for the variables required to work as anything like an acceptable explanation for their "substitute" hypothesis. *No -- I don't think it has to do with people letting their imaginations run wild -- or by the same 'reasoning' one could say the problem is that people accept whatever some 'authority' tells them without question. As far as alternative scenarios -- There are at least a half-dozen hypothesis that have been widely posted on the net and several books published. Why do you keep harping on that? Besides, I've weighed-in on my hypothesis -- that you didn't comment on it means you aren't primarily interested in discussion of tangible issues, but making objections and talking about everything BUT discussion of the evidence and what it implies. No wonder you think this thread isn't of any useful purpose. --S I refuse to do your legwork for you. Given that, it's only possible to raise the most general sorts of objections, when people aren't even putting forth even the most sketchy chronological outline as a narrative for their favored version of events. *Thanks. I refuse to paint a picture for you or sweep-out your workspace or take out your garbage or guide you to the summit or tutor you on the intricies of the scientific method. Now that we have the division-of-labor sorted out; If you don't want to participate in a constructive manner, fine --But it's disingenuous of you to pose as someone's who's been asked to do my legwork. Where do you even get off saying such a foolish thing anyway? "I refuse to do your legwork for you." Jeez, and after I graciously provided photos and links and details to help acquaint you with the Pentagon attack so you would at least be halfway up-to-speed on discussing this important issue. Instead, you act all pouty and resentful and superior. I guess it's getting clear what you're about. --S They'd rather snipe and nit-pick at semantic trifles than attempt to explain in detail how, where, and when their pet UFO ( they never identify the "substitute" flying object, they only hazard guesses) got switched for the 757 jet, Flight 77- which was tracked for all of its final approach, either on radar or by multiple eyewitnesses, or both. Now you're talking about 'they' -- what has that to do with my post or comments? I never posited a UFO. This is nothing but distraction, unless you didn't even read my comments -- in which case, your inability to discuss what I actually said makes sense, in a rude way. "Snipe and nit-pick at semantic trifles than attempt to explain ..." Hmmm ... Sounds like an explanation of your method. --S They'd rather claim that photos/video of a crash site depicting the aftermath of the initial impact on the Pentagon wall- most (if not all) of which lack a precise time stamp and/or were obviously taken in mid-cleanup- "prove" that there isn't enough damage or debris to account for a full-speed 757 crash into a reinforced wall- as if the verifiability of that claim were axiomatic, rather than dubious to non-existent. *WHAT? Talk about an absurd, pointless strawman -- The Pentagon front at the impact-spot fell within the hour of the plane strike -- Who needs a time-stamp to know no clean-up was begun until at least several hours, so all photos showing the facade before the collapse have NOTHING to do with "clean-up"? How do you 'clean-up' a wall, anyway? Within hours, the Pentagon lawn was covered with heavy-equipment and recovery/decontamination/services tents and vehicles and stuff -- There's no way to confuse a photo taken right after the oncident and one a day or two later. Sheesh. You really HAVEN'T done much reading, have you? How did you get so convinced your version is 'correct' if you didn't even examine what iut was based on? And, on the topic of suspicious evidence -- what about the stewardess who volunteered to serve refreshments on the following Saturday, when she accepted the offer to view the interior she claimed she could identify 'shiny' aluminum exterior, unscorched seat upholstery and wall-covering in the airline livery, and even saw human bones. Does the sheer improbability of this 'evidence' get through your idea-fixation that there's nothing to see here folks, move along? Let alone the perplexity provided by the so-called 'leaked' 5 frames of video -- like WHO made those obviously-contrived images and WHY? *You're good at talking about everything but the evidence, whether it's genuine or as importantly, why it might not be. I'm sincerely interested in discussing this, what about you? If not, why are you trying to control it and divert it with meaningless chatter? Hmmm? Starman

by **robertdreed** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:43 am

Starman, I've repeatedly discussed the Flight 77 case on other thread, quite thoroughly. That's one of the reasons that I don't go looking for links for this discussion. I've already done that for at least two previous topic pages related to the Pentagon attack. In fact, at this point I wonder why I bother responding to people who obviously haven't read through my previous comments in other discussions. I've been here since the first day of the opening of this discussion forum. I remember when an ezboard glitch ate about the first 40 pages. Another thing- I've actually been to the Pentagon. I know how huge and substantial the thing is, in a way that no photograph or video can fully capture. You may find a few people around DC who have seen the Pentagon up close who find the entry hole and damage shown in the photos to be improbably small for a jetliner crash. Very, very few. The rest of us don't find anything the least bit suspicious about it, and it isn't because we're "in denial". Of course, I suppose that it's conceivable that we could all be in on the plot... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 10:58 pm

by **Qutb** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:20 am

Sunny said - "If it wasn't cd, then what the hell happened to WTC 7? Not one of the critics can answer that. Do you have a plausible alternate theory, critics? If you don't, then you must believe the official story." A good example of the kind of manipulative demagoguery that is used to fool gullible people into embracing the sci-fi delusions of the Truth Movement. "You, a layman with no relevant training, can't explain the precise mechanisms of the collapse by looking at a few pixelated videos on the Internet? Well, that proves it was demolished with explosives! And, by extension, that the towers were too!" I believe the correct term for this is "magical thinking".

by **professorpan** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:03 pm

As a fence-straddler on many of the 9/11 theories, I find this thread to be an excellent example of how people with an honest interest in getting to the "truth" wind up beating each other up as the argument degenerates into personal pissing matches. Everyone take a deep breath. I think most of us (not all) agree that there are multiple unanswered questions, that the "official" story is full of plane-sized holes, and that this leaves the field ripe for lunatics, hucksters, and paranoiacs to fill in the blanks. I'm not nearly as skeptical as Qutb, though I find his approach to be useful. Over time my perceptions of 9/11 "truth" have changed. I'm fairly convinced that it was more a LIHOP than a MIHOP operation, but the stock trading and dire warnings from various field operatives indicates that the imminence of the attacks was known to *some.* I see the truth movement getting increasingly divided by micro-battles about details that do more to derail the inquiry than to illuminate the real issue, which is *who knew and what did they know and when did they know it.* The degeneration into nitpicking is a product of human nature, and it is further exacerbated by the shroud of secrecy, and it ultimately works in favor of those who allowed 9/11 to happen. I don't have an answer to this problem, other than to suggest that truthseekers go after the pieces of the puzzle that are within reach. The trick is to ferret out those pieces. I don't spend my time researching the minutiae of 9/11, though I commend those who do. But as a generalist, I'd put less emphasis on CD theories, plane wreckage, and the like and focus on: Strange financial trading before 9/11 -- who profited, and why it's being kept secret Federal agencies ignoring warnings about Al Qaeda, PTECH, and the bizarre stifling of federal agents who gave explicit warnings about impending attacks -- who ignored the warnings, and why. Hold their feet to the fire until they start talking. FBI agents showing up at flight schools immediately after the attacks -- demand to know more. The financial ties between prominent rethugs/neocons and Saudi financiers -- open up all records. Etc. Of course, these are pipe dream requests. But they are much more actionable than trying to prove CD or positing holographic projections. Picking one's battles is the first step in winning the war for truth. The one definite way to lose the battle is to spiral into micro-debates and endless, circular flame wars -- and what is happening is this thread is a microcosm of what's happening to the larger body of truthseekers.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:08 pm

The problem I have with this endless debate is that there is this attitude of "if you don't believe particular detail X, then you buy everything about the 9/11 official story." I've argued on BOTH sides of CD, trying to get a handle on it. I acknowledge my own limits in terms of physics knowledge...but it's just the sheer "coincidence" and "in your faceness" that bugs me. And having a Bush recently resigned from the company providing security to the buildings bugs me. And there are numerous other such points, but I don't call them conclusive evidence... I just had dinner with a friend who would mercilessly reject ANYTHING smacking of conspiracy theory. I mean, he wouldn't even accept that maybe the American Idol producers monkey with results to insure high ratings. Nevermind controlled demolition. He saw the Loose Change video (I assume that's what it was. I didn't see it so I only had his description.) He was VERY disturbed. He told me it actually made him feel physically ill. We talked about various aspects of the theories there, which ones I bought as possible, which had problems in my view. But it was weird. I was the one bringing up objections to conspiracy theories, not him. Now, I was quite careful to say, "Yes, there's surely a lot of fire in that smoke. The relationships between the Bush's, CIA etc with the Saudis, Muslim extremist movements etc is reason enough to call for Congressional investigations. The no-bid contracts in Iraq are as well." I'm glad he's reached awakening...that's stage one. The problem is that the "truth" is multifaceted, complex, and contrary to some beliefs, rather difficult to prove. Especially with grainy video and questionable logic. So let's hope my friend continues to explore this line of thought. First off, this is good news because he is as mainstream as they come. In fact, I can predict rather accurately developments in mainstream politics and public opinion just by talking to him. When HE gets flipped, then the tipping point has been reached. He is just the kind of guy who needs to accumulate a certain weight of "memes" before he'll flip his opinion, as he did on Bush right on schedule. But is that REALLY good news? We have to be careful. My friend never takes positions that are, quite frankly, anything other than those he is SUPPOSED to take. Could this be another case of him simply being skillfully led by the nose toward opinions that now serve the power structure? Very important to think about that, which is why the source of "revelations" is important to think about as well their content. CIA and other intel revelations are a no brainer, as are the recent calls by Generals for Rumsfeld's resignation. Others have me suspicious as well. It's so well coordinated, seemingly, in the last few weeks, it's like "phase 3" has kicked in or something. But let's lay aside that concern, just for the moment. He's not a dumb guy by any means, so he can stumble on the truth as we all attempt to do. So what if all the eggs go in the "no plane at the pentagon" basket. What if THIS is the convincing piece to him. And let's say the FBI does release video showing the plane hit. "Oh," he'll say. "I guess that whole 9/11 conspiracy thing was just hype." And (this is the important part) HE'LL BE GLAD. The idea of a conspiracy as monstrous as the one alleged behind 9/11 is NOT a comfortable feeling for him. He'll happily dump it and get back to his XBOX (and hey, I join him in that once every week or two.) The folks here who insist that theory X MUST be accepted in order for someone to truly be considered to doubt the official 9/11 story are doing a very grave disservice in my opinion. You need to ask yourselves, especially when you go to less parapolitically oriented sites and meetings, this question: "Do you consider as allies or enemies, people who question 9/11 but do not accept various theories that you find indispensable ?" The answer should be the former, but it seems around here to be the latter. And should that Pentagon video ever come to light and it really does come to light then SO MANY OTHER CRUCIAL aspects of 9/11, not only remain unexamined, but also continue to operate. Whether or not it was CD, the World Trade towers will never fall again. That's done. The Pentagon hit is over. But the relationships among arms dealers, drug dealers, the military industrial complex, the intelligence communities of various countries, the deep structures of elite power -- those still continue to this day. Which, in my opinion, is exactly why there are so many "researchers" out there pointing away from these ongoing relationships. And by allowing them to dominate the discussion, or at least the public's perception of the discussion, the real culprits will get away. Again. After all, it wasn't the neo-cons who shot JFK. But the guys who did....they are still running the show. And when Bush and company get tossed out of office (barring deeper, more sweeping changes) they will STILL be running the show. We'll just be too busy congratulating ourselves to notice.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The problem is that the "truth" is multifaceted, complex, and contrary to some beliefs, rather difficult to prove. Especially with grainy video and questionable logic.<hr></blockquote> Let's not forget the first hand witnesses, the firefighters and medics who in their oral histories describe seeing and hearing exactly the sights and sounds of a controlled demolition. Again, that's first hand witnesses, not pixels. Just throwin' that in.

by **Qutb** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:03 pm

It's easy to manipulate people's thinking by combining moving pictures, music, "expert" comments and voice-overs. That's no less true for a conspiracy movie than it is for a Fox News or CNN documentary. Someone who's easily manipulated by the latter can just as easily be manipulated by the former.

by **Sarutama** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:39 pm

Hugh, in your opinion, what makes those witnesses more credible then the tons of withness that say the oppposite?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>tons of withness that say the oppposite?<hr></blockquote> I'm not familiar with that demographic. Being there counts heavily. Professional training and observation skills count heavily. Motive to understand for future rescues counts heavily. Motive to understand how their friends died counts heavily. That's why I mentioned dozens of oral histories (admittedly pixels of multi-handled documents which might be edited/distorted) purportedly by professional firefighters and medics who were There. It is what it is despite any other contradicting narratives. Means, motive, and opportunity possibilities divided by physical evidence/eyewitness reports mulitplied by historical precedent=most probable reality. All these are in the eye of each beholder whose psychic dispositions filter their perceptions. Yet crimes are solvable and even 'unsolved' crimes (lacking convicted perps) are worth judging and learning from. As in, we are obliged to be the best jurors of history possible. That is what makes this website interesting and probably a tool of open source intelligence for non-civilians, too. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/14/06 3:00 pm

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:00 pm

I have to repeat your words, and hope it sinks in. Whether or not it was CD, the World Trade towers will never fall again. That's done. The Pentagon hit is over. But the relationships among arms dealers, drug dealers, the military industrial complex, the intelligence communities of various countries, the deep structures of elite power -- those still continue to this day. Which, in my opinion, is exactly why there are so many "researchers" out there pointing away from these ongoing relationships. And by allowing them to dominate the discussion, or at least the public's perception of the discussion, the real culprits will get away. Again. After all, it wasn't the neo-cons who shot JFK. But the guys who did....they are still running the show. And when Bush and company get tossed out of office (barring deeper, more sweeping changes) they will STILL be running the show. We'll just be too busy congratulating ourselves to notice.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Which, in my opinion, is exactly why there are so many "researchers" out there pointing away from these ongoing relationships.<hr></blockquote> Despite my previous phrasing Jeff liked about the "3000 dead people End of the Enlightenment crossword puzzle while more bodies stack up," 9/11 is the Big Lie being used to resynthesize and perpetuate all those criminal relationships. 9/11 is the new American lingua franca and it must be translated correctly to halt its deadly mistranslation for decades more, a psy-ops fuel rod for the Clash of Civilisations forever. Firefighters know to cut off the fuel of a fire, not just the flames. So pointing at 9/11 is pointing directly at ALL those relationships in a way that even neophytes can understand, not away from it. We need the military, Republicans, fundamentalists, everyone as allies against US state-sponsored terrorism and the hoax of 9/11 is the way to unite us the way the perps hoped to for their own violent goals. Would you really rather try to expose everything about elite power in the last century? I suppose both tracks are necessary because you never know when one AHA will lead to another. But a coherent narrative is CRUCIAL to changing minds. And 9/11 can be that template for understanding parapolitics just as the murder of JFK once was for me. You get the players, the motives, the tactics, and the cover-up. "Break the code, break the spell." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/14/06 3:18 pm

In my defense

Re: house of twisted mirrors

grasping at straws...

Re: grasping at straws...

Re: grasping at straws...

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: first hand accounts

Exactly, DE

Re: Exactly, DE

Who is online