• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Items of interest: 9/11

A! does anybody want to even take a guess
as to WHY the worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a job..... whats up with that?
 
Menard_K said:
A! does anybody want to even take a guess
as to WHY the worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a job..... whats up with that?
Click to expand...

Letting a plane slip past is one thing... and could be considered possible gross incompetence, at best. What should have lost him his job was running from his office following the plane crash, to the most dangerous area of the building, while the country is still potentially under attack.

This idiot is out on the lawn playing paramedic while a forth plane heads toward D.C. After that, he disappears inside the building and doesn't make it to his assigned post during a national emergency for almost an hour. FAIL! Fired!
 
Occam's Razor said:
Letting a plane slip past is one thing... and could be considered possible gross incompetence, at best. What should have lost him his job was running from his office following the plane crash, to the most dangerous area of the building, while the country is still potentially under attack.

This idiot is out on the lawn playing paramedic while a forth plane heads toward D.C. After that, he disappears inside the building and doesn't make it to his assigned post during a national emergency for almost an hour. FAIL! Fired!
Click to expand...

With great authority comes great responsibility, WHY hasn't anybody been held accountable for obvious
criminal malfeasance?
 
(from post #1)
Please keep the building talk, no-planes, nukes, energy weapons, fake victims and hoax talk out of this thread. It is disinformation and misinformation, and will not be appreciated. So do everybody everywhere a favor and NOT post that refuse here. Thank you.

What this thread is intended for is a discussion and link depositary for open credible sources regarding all things pertaining to, or are relevant to 9/11 before or after the day that irrevocably changed America and the world.

Now, for the first link: BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush says he had no 9/11 warning

From the article, President George W. Bush is quoted as saying, "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America - at a time and a place, an attack."

The 08/06/01 Presidential Daily Brief, titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" (Page Not Found | The George Washington University) certainly shows that President Bush had indeed been briefed about an attack occurring within the U.S. Though, the brief does not give specific time/date information, we nonetheless see that President Bush lied.

It is worth mentioning that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden made it into the Presidential Daily Brief over forty times before 9/11 during just the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
You say you don't want disinfo here but you're still talking about an actual attack by terrorists. It was proven long ago that 9/11 was an inside job. The basic presumption of post #1 is disinfo. Here's a link to some of the inside job proof in case there are a few viewers who still haven't seen it.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
 
Scott said:
(from post #1)

You say you don't want disinfo here but you're still talking about an actual attack by terrorists. It was proven long ago that 9/11 was an inside job. The basic presumption of post #1 is disinfo. Here's a link to some of the inside job proof in case there are a few viewers who still haven't seen it.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
Click to expand...

Don't post that **** in this thread. How ****ing complicated is that to understand? If you want to link to your drivel, do it elsewhere.
 
There's some proof of an inside job that's simply too clear to obfuscate.

The craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
911 Part III The Clean Up


The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon is too pointed to be the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

I can see why you don't want people to see this proof. Once they see it, the best sophist in the world couldn't convince them that a 757 hit the Pentagon.


People who see this clear proof and still maintain that 9/11 wasn't an inside job should watch this video.
Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers - YouTube
 
Scott said:
There's some proof of an inside job that's simply too clear to obfuscate.

The craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
911 Part III The Clean Up


The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon is too pointed to be the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

I can see why you don't want people to see this proof. Once they see it, the best sophist in the world couldn't convince them that a 757 hit the Pentagon.


People who see this clear proof and still maintain that 9/11 wasn't an inside job should watch this video.
Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers - YouTube
Click to expand...

You all, and I mean ALL, everyone on both sides, needs to stop using the word proof, both in demanding it from others and in claiming it for themselves.

These are NOT proofs. This is evidence, nothing more.
 
Occam's Razor said:
You all, and I mean ALL, everyone on both sides, needs to stop using the word proof, both in demanding it from others and in claiming it for themselves.

These are NOT proofs. This is evidence, nothing more.
Click to expand...

So how is it that you dismiss PROF
that is the fact that WTC7 kept its shape, and descended for 2.25 sec at FREE FALL ACCELERATION?
This is very conclusive in that only if the event were planned to happen exactly as it did, would it
"collapse" as it did. The twin towers also, there is a factor of the speed of "collapse" and I submit
to all here, that the speed of "collapse" indicates clearly that there had to have been an additional
source of energy ( explosives .... or? ) involved to cause the twin towers to "collapse" as they did.
PROF is abundant here, What is the problem with calling it like I see it?
 
What happened at the Pentagon closes the whole case by itself. My above post shows the proof that whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. There are explanations for everything the pro-official version people come up with.

Witnesses can be planted. Plane parts can be planted before and after a crash.

Here's a witness list.
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

In an operation as big as this one there would be a lot of planted witnesses but also a few real ones so this fits the inside job scenario.

The light poles can be explained.
The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance. - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Here's a witness that says there was no plane.
April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon? - YouTube

Here's a guy who says he saw the 757 flying away after the explosion.
New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube

If there's anyone who doesn't have time to watch all eight parts of the above video, you can read this short summary.
New Research Contradicts Pentagon 9-11 Story - Sheila Casey | The Blog of the WTC Demolition Site


The crash site is not consistent with a 757's having crashed there.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
scholarsfor911truth.org - scholarsfor911truth Resources and Information. This website is for sale!


There's a lot more.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Killtown: Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon

9/11 Fraud: David Ray Griffin, Part 1 - YouTube
9/11 Fraud: David Ray Griffin, Part 2 - YouTube

9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Video Evidence at the Pentagon
9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Pentagon

Start watching this at the 29:00 time mark.
ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 (FULL documentary) - YouTube

http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?t=20525&highlight=barbara+olsen


The OP is trying to mislead those viewers who haven't done any research. He wants them to think there isn't any proof of an inside job. It's my duty as a truther to post the inside job proof to thwart him.

The way the towers fell is also proof of an inside job. There's some info on that here.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
 
Scott said:
What happened at the Pentagon closes the whole case by itself. My above post shows the proof that whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. There are explanations for everything the pro-official version people come up with.

Witnesses can be planted. Plane parts can be planted before and after a crash.

Here's a witness list.
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

In an operation as big as this one there would be a lot of planted witnesses but also a few real ones so this fits the inside job scenario.

The light poles can be explained.
The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance. - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Here's a witness that says there was no plane.
April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon? - YouTube

Here's a guy who says he saw the 757 flying away after the explosion.
New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube

If there's anyone who doesn't have time to watch all eight parts of the above video, you can read this short summary.
New Research Contradicts Pentagon 9-11 Story - Sheila Casey | The Blog of the WTC Demolition Site


The crash site is not consistent with a 757's having crashed there.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
scholarsfor911truth.org - scholarsfor911truth Resources and Information. This website is for sale!


There's a lot more.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Killtown: Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon

9/11 Fraud: David Ray Griffin, Part 1 - YouTube
9/11 Fraud: David Ray Griffin, Part 2 - YouTube

9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Video Evidence at the Pentagon
9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Pentagon

Start watching this at the 29:00 time mark.
ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 (FULL documentary) - YouTube

http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?t=20525&highlight=barbara+olsen


The OP is trying to mislead those viewers who haven't done any research. He wants them to think there isn't any proof of an inside job. It's my duty as a truther to post the inside job proof to thwart him.

The way the towers fell is also proof of an inside job. There's some info on that here.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
Click to expand...

So write a book and make some money.

Is the only way you are getting "the truth" out is on the internet?
 
Well, I am sure glad that fellow board members have *zero* reading comprehension problems...
 
Menard_K said:
So how is it that you dismiss PROF
that is the fact that WTC7 kept its shape, and descended for 2.25 sec at FREE FALL ACCELERATION?
This is very conclusive in that only if the event were planned to happen exactly as it did, would it
"collapse" as it did. The twin towers also, there is a factor of the speed of "collapse" and I submit
to all here, that the speed of "collapse" indicates clearly that there had to have been an additional
source of energy ( explosives .... or? ) involved to cause the twin towers to "collapse" as they did.
PROF is abundant here, What is the problem with calling it like I see it?
Click to expand...

Surely you read the opening of the OP, right?
 
Scott said:
What happened at the Pentagon closes the whole case by itself. My above post shows the proof that whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. There are explanations for everything the pro-official version people come up with.

Witnesses can be planted. Plane parts can be planted before and after a crash.

Here's a witness list.
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

In an operation as big as this one there would be a lot of planted witnesses but also a few real ones so this fits the inside job scenario.

The light poles can be explained.
The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance. - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Here's a witness that says there was no plane.
April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon? - YouTube

Here's a guy who says he saw the 757 flying away after the explosion.
New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube

If there's anyone who doesn't have time to watch all eight parts of the above video, you can read this short summary.
New Research Contradicts Pentagon 9-11 Story - Sheila Casey | The Blog of the WTC Demolition Site


The crash site is not consistent with a 757's having crashed there.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
scholarsfor911truth.org - scholarsfor911truth Resources and Information. This website is for sale!


There's a lot more.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Killtown: Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon

9/11 Fraud: David Ray Griffin, Part 1 - YouTube
9/11 Fraud: David Ray Griffin, Part 2 - YouTube

9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Video Evidence at the Pentagon
9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Pentagon

Start watching this at the 29:00 time mark.
ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 (FULL documentary) - YouTube

http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?t=20525&highlight=barbara+olsen


The OP is trying to mislead those viewers who haven't done any research. He wants them to think there isn't any proof of an inside job. It's my duty as a truther to post the inside job proof to thwart him.

The way the towers fell is also proof of an inside job. There's some info on that here.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
Click to expand...

You read the opening of the OP, correct? Then you realize you're off-topic here. Start your own thread instead of clogging up mine, please.
 
"It's almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. You have someone like Sandy Berger, who by all accounts is a decent guy, taking rather extreme measures to remove documents from the National Archives and hide them at a construction site where he could retrieve them later and destroy them. There were interviews made at the FAA's New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened."
John Farmer - senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission
Q&A: A New Look at the 9/11 Commission - TIME
 
Scott said:
All you seem to be able to do is spout empty rhetoric. Why don't you address some of the proof. Some good proof of an inside job was put forth in post #33.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/163852-items-interest-9-11-a-4.html#post1062002615

Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse
David Chandler's - WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall - (FullV) - YouTube

Tell us why this isn't proof of an inside job.
Click to expand...

And all you've ever done is Argumentum ad Youtubes. How about adding text of your own that explains your position - or do you always require the thoughts and opinions of others to make your argument?

I've explored MIHOP. It's not plausible. But LIHOP is.
 
And all you've ever done is Argumentum ad Youtubes. How about adding text of your own that explains your position - or do you always require the thoughts and opinions of others to make your argument?

I've explored MIHOP. It's not plausible. But LIHOP is.
Click to expand...
Translation:

That piece of proof of an inside job is so clear that, if I try to obfuscate it, I'll just look silly so I'd better tap dance around the issue instead of addressing it.

It's pretty clear that you know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do.
 
Scott said:
Translation:

That piece of proof of an inside job is so clear that, if I try to obfuscate it, I'll just look silly so I'd better tap dance around the issue instead of addressing it.

It's pretty clear that you know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do.
Click to expand...

LOL! Now you're going to me what I believe? Okay...
 
Objective truth-seekers don't avoid addressing issues that go against the conclusions they've already come to. They look at the issues and, if they see they're wrong, they modify their opinions. They don't have foregone conclusions that they stick to hell-or-high-water.

Your behavior is not that of a truth-seeker. It's that of a cornered sophist.

If you're a truth-seeker, address the issue I raised.
 
Scott said:
This is a disinfo article written by professional sophists who knew that 9/11 was an inside job.
Q&A: A New Look at the 9/11 Commission - TIME

Anyone who takes the time to do some research can see that 9/11 was planned and carried out by the US government.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
Click to expand...

First you lack supporting the statement that the Time article is disinfo.
Second, linking to another forum hardly provides evidence of your statement of inside job.

I could link you to forums that say just the opposite of what you are posting. You most likely would dismiss them. So are those sites all disinfo sites and yours are the only creditable ones? There are some poster here that present interesting evidence and opinions. What you provided falls short, imo.

I have no doubt that the US was caught with its pants down. That many govt employees and politicians were wanting to cover their asses. I also believe that some what was said or not said may have been to minimize the world knowing the lack of intelligence sharing that went on within the US govt.

If Bush wanted to go to war, there were a lot easier way to do it.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
First you lack supporting the statement that the Time article is disinfo.
Second, linking to another forum hardly provides evidence of your statement of inside job.

I could link you to forums that say just the opposite of what you are posting. You most likely would dismiss them. So are those sites all disinfo sites and yours are the only creditable ones? There are some poster here that present interesting evidence and opinions. What you provided falls short, imo.

I have no doubt that the US was caught with its pants down. That many govt employees and politicians were wanting to cover their asses. I also believe that some what was said or not said may have been to minimize the world knowing the lack of intelligence sharing that went on within the US govt.

If Bush wanted to go to war, there were a lot easier way to do it.
Click to expand...

No... there wasn't.

Quite possibly the last thing American's wanted at the turn of the century, was war. And to think that there was ANY easy path to pre-emptive war... is just naive.

IF the Cheney cabal could eventually convince congress, it would take a very very long time to finish that debate, all of it in the glare of public opinion, likely taking longer than one term, if at all.

So please, enlighten us as to the peculiar environment in 2001 that would have made going to war "easy".
 
Occam's Razor said:
No... there wasn't.

Quite possibly the last thing American's wanted at the turn of the century, was war. And to think that there was ANY easy path to pre-emptive war... is just naive.

IF the Cheney cabal could eventually convince congress, it would take a very very long time to finish that debate, all of it in the glare of public opinion, likely taking longer than one term, if at all.

So please, enlighten us as to the peculiar environment in 2001 that would have made going to war "easy".
Click to expand...

Seriously, what's easier than avoiding all of that? And quicker...
 
Occam's Razor said:
No... there wasn't.

Quite possibly the last thing American's wanted at the turn of the century, was war. And to think that there was ANY easy path to pre-emptive war... is just naive.

IF the Cheney cabal could eventually convince congress, it would take a very very long time to finish that debate, all of it in the glare of public opinion, likely taking longer than one term, if at all.

So please, enlighten us as to the peculiar environment in 2001 that would have made going to war "easy".
Click to expand...

First I reject the premise that the govt. staged 911 to go to war.
Second. Remember Bush Sr. engaged the military in a war setting now didn't he.

So what particulars do you have that the govt staged 911, to go to war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom