• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The mastermind of 9/11

dixon said:
Other than putting in the minds of conspiracy theorist the idea that a controlled demolition took place, why would that be "necessary"?

My guess would be they were concerned the falling buildings, if allowed to topple over, might damage Number 11, Wall Street. Or, if they went the other way, there are some targets in and around the World Financial Center that wouldn't be so good to destroy.
 
My guess would be they were concerned the falling buildings, if allowed to topple over, might damage Number 11, Wall Street. Or, if they went the other way, there are some targets in and around the World Financial Center that wouldn't be so good to destroy.

I guess in the product of these free form speculations on your part, internal consistancy isnt important.

As I've said in the past, if there was a controlled demolition, it would not have been at all a normal controlled demolition. There wouldn't have been any care about whether people were killed or nearby buildings damaged.

These scenarios you dream up say nothing about reality and are merely evidence of the fertility of your imagination.
 
dixon said:
I guess in the product of these free form speculations on your part, internal consistancy isnt important.

Seems internally consistent to me. Why do you think otherwise?

dixon said:
These scenarios you dream up say nothing about reality and are merely evidence of the fertility of your imagination.

I freely admit that this may not be what happened. It is what I think is most likely to have happened, for the reasons already outlined.
 
Seems internally consistent to me. Why do you think otherwise?

I think I will leave you to wonder on your own. For the others-

As I've said in the past, if there was a controlled demolition, it would not have been at all a normal controlled demolition. There wouldn't have been any care about whether people were killed or nearby buildings damaged.

My guess would be they were concerned the falling buildings, if allowed to topple over, might damage Number 11, Wall Street. Or, if they went the other way, there are some targets in and around the World Financial Center that wouldn't be so good to destroy.
 
I still don't see why that's internally inconsistent. A few tons of RDX planted in the towers wouldn't blow up the New York Stock exchange, even if they used way more than necessary or planted it sloppily enough to expel debris a few hundred yards. It might blow up or severely damage (say) WTC's 4, 5, and 6, but the damage wouldn't extend beyond that.

On the other hand, if the towers tipped over that direction, they might have destroyed the stock exchange, or they might have destroyed the World Financial Center--neither of which I would call so "nearby."
 
Last edited:
Wanted Suspects for a god damn PUBLIC TRIAL or interrogation in a PUBLIC COMPREHENSIVE REINVESTIGATION

Just off the top of my mind:

Dick
Wolf
Bremer
Bush I and Bush II
Porker
OBL
KSM
Zawahiri
Heads of Odeon, AMDOCS, AIPAC
Pervez Musharraf
That other Paki General
Tenet and Mitchell
Silverstein
Bibi
Bandar and Sultan
Blair
The 200 art spies
The dancing Israelis, their moving company owner
The head of airport security
Rummy
The riggers
 
Wanted Suspects for a god damn PUBLIC TRIAL or interrogation in a PUBLIC COMPREHENSIVE REINVESTIGATION

Just off the top of my mind:

Dick
Wolf
Bremer
Bush I and Bush II
Porker
OBL
KSM
Zawahiri
Heads of Odeon, AMDOCS, AIPAC
Pervez Musharraf
That other Paki General
Tenet and Mitchell
Silverstein
Bibi
Bandar and Sultan
Blair
The 200 art spies
The dancing Israelis, their moving company owner
The head of airport security
Rummy
The riggers

Ofcourse you have some evidence to back up your assertion that this was anything but an AQ operation from inception to execution right? Ya that's what I thought.
 
Seriously....U.S. Government...can't keep wiretapping secret from the NYTIMES....who really believes they could keep the murder of 3,000 Americans secret for more then 10 minutes? Tin. Hat. Good Game.
 
Seriously....U.S. Government...can't keep wiretapping secret from the NYTIMES....who really believes they could keep the murder of 3,000 Americans secret for more then 10 minutes? Tin. Hat. Good Game.

It isn't so "tin hat." According to a scientific poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence: Angus Reid Global Monitor

Many Americans, like the "Jersey girls," just want answers to so far unanswered questions. They want to know why a 9/11 investigation was stonewalled for over a year, and then whitewashed.
 
Seriously....U.S. Government...can't keep wiretapping secret from the NYTIMES....who really believes they could keep the murder of 3,000 Americans secret for more then 10 minutes?

Oh, and, did the NYT conduct an independent investigation of 9/11?
 
The ability of some people to not respond to a simple point but then act as if they had sometimes staggers me.

Hatuey,

You wrote:

Seriously....U.S. Government...can't keep wiretapping secret from the NYTIMES....who really believes they could keep the murder of 3,000 Americans secret for more then 10 minutes? Tin. Hat. Good Game.

I've answered this before and you've yet to respond. Here is the point about this again, for the UMPTEENTH time: just becase some things come to light doesn't mean they all do. Just because we uncover some conspiracies is no reason to believe that we uncover them all. Indeed, the fact that we uncover some conspiracies is a good reason to believe there are many more we don't know about.

Argue with that if you can...
 
Experts have said the "fat" OBL confession tape is a hoax.


Confession tape hoax

You know, our government's dishonesty with us and their blatant falsifications don't exactly prove that they were behind it... but it certainly casts doubt on their credibility in other matters when they are caught lying.
I think most Americans, at this point, believe there was some sort of government monkey business around the whole 9/11 affair.
If they weren't somehow involved or complicit, why the need for so much deceit and duplicity?
At this point, faced with the embarrassing possibility that we were duped, attacked by our own government as an excuse to start a preemptive war that they wanted, I think most Americans just want to bring the soldiers home, elect a new president, and move past the turmoil and trauma of the past seven years. And maybe hope that the rest of the world will forget, eventually.
 
Unless it's definitively proven otherwise, I believe the independant and bi-partisan 9/11 Commission Report (released on July 22, 2004) to be a valid historical rendering of Black Tuesday.

What is history? Is history what happened in the past, or is it what we think happened in the past? This is a complex question; for while we can know something of the past, we cannot know everything about it. If history is defined only by our perception of past events, then there is no history of the past without our interpretation of that past. If history is strictly the past itself, then those events occurred whether we perceive and interpret them or not and have no bearing on present circumstances. So then, what is the correct definition of history? History is the combined product of past events and the discovery and description of past events. In essence, history exists both inside and outside the minds of historians.

There are two methods to arrive at a current perception and description of history. The first is by direct material evidence which by nature must be both obvious and unambiguous. The second method is by what is called a "convergence of evidence". This is inferential evidence, and requires a consilience of inductions. Historians must have more than one induction, more than just a single generalization drawn from specific paths to arrive at a valid perception. They must have multiple inductions that converge upon one another, independently, but in conjunction. When these inductions "jump together", it strengthens the validity of historical description and perception.

The 9/11 Commission utilized both direct and inferrential investigative methodologies to probe and describe the 9/11 historicity. All Commission members agreed with the final conclusions in the report. 3½ years have now passed since publication. To my knowledge, no Commission signatory member has expressed reservations or cast aspersions on the Commission Report.

The one aspect of 9/11 that I find dissonance with was the decision to permit (and perhaps facilitate) the rapid extraction of bin-Laden family members from US soil when all continental air traffic was forbidden. This facet of 9/11 has never been explained to my satisfaction.
 
Tashah said:
There are two methods to arrive at a current perception and description of history. The first is by direct material evidence which by nature must be both obvious and unambiguous. The second method is by what is called a "convergence of evidence". This is inferential evidence, and requires a consilience of inductions. Historians must have more than one induction, more than just a single generalization drawn from specific paths to arrive at a valid perception. They must have multiple inductions that converge upon one another, independently, but in conjunction. When these inductions "jump together", it strengthens the validity of historical description and perception.

What you're leaving out here is the notion of completeness. Any theory, whether it be scientific or historic, must explain all the available evidence. If some observation doesn't fit within a particular theory, that theory must either be modified or discarded. Without completeness, we can more or less draw any number of conclusions from the available pool of observations. You can see this operate all the time in fundamentalist Christianity.

There's plenty that doesn't fit the official version of 911, and that probably couldn't be made to fit in principle.
 
Anyone who seriously believes our government was behind 9/11 is probably still learning to breath through their nose.
 
Without completeness, we can more or less draw any number of conclusions from the available pool of observations.
And historical completeness is precisely what and when is it accomplished?
 
I wouldn't use the phrase "historical completeness" as that implies that we somehow know everything that happened. Completeness does not have to do with how comprehensive history is, but whether a particular history takes into account and can explain all relevant observations.

When a history ignores and cannot explain relevant observations to do with whatever is the subject in question, that history is incomplete. If you want something semi-technical sounding, here's how I would define it:

When some set of observations within a domain are determined by a logical set of rules to be relevant to a particular topic, any history of that topic must not be contradicted or undermined by any of those observations.

To the extent that the 911 commission report does not take into account all the observations about the events relevant to 911, and to the extent that it is contradicted by some of them, the 911 commission report version is not a valid history.
 
Ok so I am not about to go through pages and pages of junk but I want to know from all those who support the theory that 9-11 was an inside job who orchestrated it? I know you believe it was the U.S. government but who (naming names) is the mastermind behind the plan? Why do you belive it was this person who did it and what evidence do you have to lead this person to such a hideous act?

An evil question trying to embarrassing the dissenters. Because only a few insiders know who did it. That's a top secret. The insiders assassinated President Kennedy, (911 attack) they pushed out a scapegoat, Oswalds (Al Qaida), then they asked, "Why do you belive it was some other person who did it and what evidence do you have to lead this person to such a hideous act?". They know you have no specific information, only they have the right answer.

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

Anyhow, here is an analysis for it.

Quote, "Here is a synopsis of what the best and brightest researchers around the world have gleaned over the past five-plus years from the best evidence available:

* yes, 9-11 was a “terrorist” attack, but it was not perpetrated by “angry Arabs”, it was a State-sponsored “inside job”, a “false flag <http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html>” operation planned, executed, and covered up by elements of the USG and operatives from at least two other countries… it was the greatest act of psychological warfare ever perpetrated;

* the alleged 19 Arab “hijackers” were “patsies”, several are still alive <http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html>, several were under the care and feeding of USG operatives and were being “trained” at CIA-operated flight schools;

* FBI <http://www.rense.com/general25/fb.htm> field agents who discovered the plot were told by their superiors not to investigate the “suspicious Arabs in flight schools”;

* no interceptor jets were launched in a timely manner on 9-11 because of the five to seven overlapping war games <http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm> - “games” simulating a simultaneous hijacking of several planes - that were taking place on 9-11;

* the planes that hit the Twin Towers were most likely remotely controlled <http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm> to their intended targets;

* WTC 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers) and WTC 7 were all destroyed by preplanted charges - a combination of Thermate and high-powered explosives - in controlled demolitions <http://www.journalof911studies.com/>;

* the Pentagon <http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/06-14-04/discussion.cgi.51.html> was hit by a military drone painted to look like American Airlines flight 77, possibly in combination with a cruise missile;

* the cell-phone calls
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html> allegedly made from the “hijacked” flights were not possible with the technology available on 9-11 from the altitude and speed at which the jets were traveling, these calls were faked to help sell the OCT;

* the fate of United flight 93 is still up for debate at this time, it seems to have been intended to hit Congress and was likely shot down by a “rogue” air force interceptor, but some reports claim it landed in Cleveland (one way or another, all passengers are dead).

Why Kill Your Own People?

This is the toughest part for the uninitiated to understand. The people who planned and executed the treasonous, heinous crimes of 9-11 are largely drawn from a handful of people known as NeoCons. Many of these are current or former members of PNAC <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century> (Project for the New American Century). Many are disciples of Leo Strauss, a German-born, fascistic, political philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago.

Strauss thought that the average person was too stupid to decide what is in their best interest and that a ruling elite should govern all of humanity.
Taking a long-term perspective, 9-11 was conceived as a “stepping stone” to eventually enable the creation of a New World Order <http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/> (NWO), the ultimate goal of the ruling elite - one global, fascistic, police state in perpetual war against an unseen enemy… terrorism.
There were also several short-term objectives of 9-11: to push the USA Patriot Act through a compliant and complicit Congress; to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq; to create a “siege mentality” in the USA and around the world; to eliminate the Constitution and in doing so eliminate Constitutional Rights and civil liberties; to dramatically increase military and “security” spending; to further divide the country; to rapidly militarize local police; to set the stage for the next “9-11”; and, ultimately, to prepare for martial law.

How Could They Keep It Secret?

Most people assume that for insiders to have pulled off 9-11 would have taken so many people that someone would have talked by now.

First of all, it seems likely that there were as few as roughly 140 people who were intimately involved in the details of 9-11. On this site, you can see pictures and a short bio of the 90 people who are highly likely to be the top criminal coconspirators guilty of the planning, execution, and subsequent cover-up of the treason and mass murder that took place on 9-11.

As far as why no one has confessed, look at it this way: everyone involved in 9-11, even those only involved in the cover-up, are guilty of crimes for which they could possibly receive a death sentence if convicted. If that isn’t enough incentive to remain silent, i don’t know what is! How many times has a criminal ever confessed to a crime for which they were not even a suspect?! Criminals will only confess if they’re convinced they’ve been caught and they’re willing to make a deal for leniency if they reveal their cohorts.

Furthermore, when you read the names on the list of suspected perpetrators, you’ll see right away what a tight-knit little group it is. If there were even a shadow of a doubt about someone’s loyalty, they would not have been invited into this cabal.

About the List of Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators.
....... (click the url)

http://www.whodidit.org/
 
Quote, "Here is a synopsis of what the best and brightest researchers around the world have gleaned over the past five-plus years from the best evidence available:

* yes, 9-11 was a “terrorist” attack, but it was not perpetrated by “angry Arabs”, it was a State-sponsored “inside job”, a “false flag

Can you even associate a name to that statement? I dont see a name attached to the whoditit.org site. If you dont know who it is, how can you say he is among the "brightest researchers"
 
In short, to answer this question (naming names) is to willingly step in front of the firing squad unarmed in this forum.

Who did it? - Who gained the most?

Why could it be these people? - Motive & means?

Evidence? – who has exploited (gained from) 9/11 to this day?

Who has helped muddy the whole situation where it’s near impossible to have a civilized conversation on the subject, much less get to the bottom of ALL the evidence?

Who have we given our Civil Liberties to through the Patriot Act et all in the name of 9/11?

Who’s dodged or fought subpoenas and/or avoided testifying?

Who’s invaded and occupied 2 countries (whose justifications are also questionable) in the name of 9/11?

Who ordered those mysterious put options prior to 9/11 & who has the power to make something so MASSIVELY disturbing in its implications remain unexplored?

Who made the calls on things like setting up the 9/11 Commission, or immediately shipping WTC remains overseas, the ‘stand down’, the military exercises that replicated the exact same situation, on the exact same day, at the exact same time, etc?

Who’s helped foster an attitude of Red vs Blue, mainstream vs alternative thought, us vs them?

Those who don’t think 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ are quick to site lack of official evidence – as in the alternative evidence isn’t ‘official’, & therefore not credible - regardless of the veracity of the evidence.

Those who think that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ of some sort, claim that the unwillingness of officials who are implicated by alternative evidence to cooperate is evidence in itself.

Those who would be guilty by implication of alternative evidence are the ones in power & benefiting – corporate and government.

What’s their incentive to let independent studies gain ‘official’ status?

It will never be made ‘official’ by the current ‘officials’…

Somehow this now constitutes an alibi of sorts for them and their sympathizers, and a lack of evidence on any opposition’s part.



IMO, this is bigger than just the US. 9/11 was orchestrated to help further the New World Order agenda. In this respect, the US Government is not much more than a puppet, or ‘yes man’ for (corporate) powers much higher than them.

Peace
 
Rumsfeld="According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."
September 10, 2001
link

put options

suspiscious profits

profiting from a loss fitting.


Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11
link

FTW - October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation.
link
 
Last edited:
I don't believe it was an inside job. I do believe that the administration had prior knowledge and allowed them to transpire.
 
I don't believe it was an inside job. I do believe that the administration had prior knowledge and allowed them to transpire.

Govern-ment

To control/govern the mind/ment=mentis : mind, thought, intention, intellect

That is why this happened or was allowed to happen, they want control of the mind, they want you to be fearful of terror, they want you to be unsafe/vulnerable, in a state of confusion this makes their job alot easier.
 
This was too big to be a successful conspiracy by our government, or any organization. It was however just the right size for a small group of patient extremists. They had been picking at us for years blowing up our ships and our embassies...trying to get us to lash out so that they could rally Islam to their cause, united against one enemy. Well guess what...they pretty well succeeded.

This was a case of manipulation. We did just what they wanted because the neo-con/Vulcan/PNAC organization has long desired to see the U.S. exert it's influence like it did in Cold War era. They hearkened back to the post WW2 military industrial heyday of multi billion dollar defense contracts and a large US military war machine. For them the worst time in history was when the wall came down and then later on when Clinton started rapidly modernizing and drawing down our troop levels. How was the U.S. supposed to take advantage of it's new status as the only true superpower if we reduced our military and mothballed our armadas?

9/11 was just too good an opportunity to pass up. It was the catalyst, the New Pearl Harbor. But man, did they **** up. This is what happens when you let myopic expansionists take the helm.

This man has done his level best to bring this nation to ruin.
 
Can you even associate a name to that statement? I dont see a name attached to the whoditit.org site. If you dont know who it is, how can you say he is among the "brightest researchers"

Review of 'A New Standard For Deception:

The NIST WTC Report'
A Presentation by Kevin Ryan
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1 10/15/06

Contents

Introduction
Bush Science
The 'Collapses' in Perspective
Origins of the Steel-Melting Fire Claims
Where are the Real Experts?
Pre-Determined Conclusions, Obstruction
WTC Designers Contemplated Plane Crashes and Fires
The Pancake Theory
NIST's Methods

A. Review of documents
B. Interviews with eyewitnesses
C. Analysis of steel
D. Laboratory tests
E. Computer simulations

NIST methods summary
NIST's Story
1. How many columns were severed?
2. How much were loads redistributed?
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?
4. How hot could the Steel have become?
5. Some floors began to sag?
6. How did floors pull columns inward causing them to buckle?
7. Instability spread around entire building perimeter

NIST theory summary
Summary of NIST's Report
WTC 7
Audience Questions
Conclusion

Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan
 
Back
Top Bottom