To Skeptics: A Question I Pose to you

[CriticalFunker]

Hello, I've returned. I've been a bit busy maintaining my work and just with life and general. :D I hope this question sparks a challenge to the following. If it doesn't, who cares it's a digital post it board. :D


Here's my simple question:

If military intelligence officials were to come forward, what direct evidence presented would make you say, "Maybe there is something to this afterall"? I am just curious in this aspect of the 911 debate. What would be that rosetta stone that would make you open to the idea of orchestrated attacks with help from U.S. operatives?

I've often wondered this question about skeptics. And I have my own hypothesis on what would happen.


Thanks for your responses thus far in my last thread. :) (To the people who suggest I am a truther or a troll, that to me seems a bit of slander and shouldn't be tolerated. I am a curious individual who is interested in many different subjects. While I may be new, I assure you that I am not a troll.)

[Brainache]

An operative who said he was ordered to recruit and train the terrorists.(or whatever)
Some emails or inter-office memos to that effect.
Some kind of political scenario that actually makes sense, as opposed to the paranoid NWO stuff that Truthers often spout.

Once these things at the very least have been authenticated, then I'll be jumping on the "New Investigation" bandwagon.

[Tbone]

Your question is way too simple, I'm afraid. You'll need to focus on a specific aspect. There are too many conspiracy theories and theorists to start listing anything.

[Dave Rogers]

A credible scenario would have to be involved. That alone eliminates everything the TM has come up with so far. Anyone genuinely involved in a conspiracy would at the very least have some idea how the conspiracy was intended to operate. To believe that WTC1 & 2 were brought doen with explosives would require one heck of a lot more than that - a physically feasible scenario has yet to be suggested, and I wouldn't for example take someone seriously who claimed to be the lynchpin behind a plot to bring down the Twin Towers using space beams or mini-nukes.

A public confession broadcast on TV, followed by a detailed description of the history of the organisation carrying out the attacks, the movements of the principal figures involved, and the organisational details of who did what when and who reported to whom, that's consistent with all the existing evidence about what is known to have happened, would be quite convincing.

Hang on, haven't we already got that?

Dave

[CFLarsen]

The best evidence against a big government conspiracy is that the 9-11 truthers are alive and well.

If someone can secretly orchestrate a terrorist attack on such a humongous scale, with so many government levels involved, it would be small potatoes to remove, or at least silence, these people.

Since nobody is doing that, it is clear that there was no big government conspiracy.

[Horatius]

How about detailed financial records that itemize who got paid when for what? Such a large undertaking would require some sort of administrative organization to ensure that the right people got paid. One guy who doesn't get his billion dollar payoff, or whatever, and your whole plot could unravel.

Even known criminal conspiracies like organized crime have to keep track of their money. Remember what happened to Al Capone?

[T.A.M.]

Hello, I've returned. I've been a bit busy maintaining my work and just with life and general. :D I hope this question sparks a challenge to the following. If it doesn't, who cares it's a digital post it board. :D


Here's my simple question:

If military intelligence officials were to come forward, what direct evidence presented would make you say, "Maybe there is something to this afterall"? I am just curious in this aspect of the 911 debate. What would be that rosetta stone that would make you open to the idea of orchestrated attacks with help from U.S. operatives?

I've often wondered this question about skeptics. And I have my own hypothesis on what would happen.


Thanks for your responses thus far in my last thread. :) (To the people who suggest I am a truther or a troll, that to me seems a bit of slander and shouldn't be tolerated. I am a curious individual who is interested in many different subjects. While I may be new, I assure you that I am not a troll.)

For LIHOP, It would take a VERIFIED Memo to high ranking officials in the USG, dated before 9/11, Indicating that UBL and his men were going to attack. It would have to include the details of where (WTC and Pentagon), when (9/11), and how (Planes as missiles).

For MIHOP, It would take testimony from multiple operatives, with their stories backed up by physical evidence, indicating that under the orders of elements in the USG, they helped orchestrate the attacks.

TAM:)

[CHF]

Here's my simple question:

If military intelligence officials were to come forward, what direct evidence presented would make you say, "Maybe there is something to this afterall"? I am just curious in this aspect of the 911 debate. What would be that rosetta stone that would make you open to the idea of orchestrated attacks with help from U.S. operatives?

Someone with a LOGICAL scenario for starters...

As for direct evidence an authentic memo/order would be nice.

[jhunter1163]

I second CHF's point. Some piece of paper that was indisputably authentic that clearly either showed high-level members of the government giving the order, or ordering someone to do nothing and allow events to unfold.

[CriticalFunker]

An operative who said he was ordered to recruit and train the terrorists.(or whatever)
Some emails or inter-office memos to that effect.
Some kind of political scenario that actually makes sense, as opposed to the paranoid NWO stuff that Truthers often spout.

Once these things at the very least have been authenticated, then I'll be jumping on the "New Investigation" bandwagon.

Thank you, Brainache. I will give my thoughts on the question after everyone has answered this question. I appreciate your honesty.

[CriticalFunker]

Your question is way too simple, I'm afraid. You'll need to focus on a specific aspect. There are too many conspiracy theories and theorists to start listing anything.

Thanks for your response, T Bone :)

I disagree with this premise. Because I am asking skeptics not truthers. Let me be clear on that. No theories and theorists are part of this thought experiment.

Let me see if you will answer this. What evidence to you would be sufficient? It can be anything, a combination of evidence, a combination of people. What is that breaking point in 2008?

[Drudgewire]

Let me see if you will answer this. What evidence to you would be sufficient? It can be anything, a combination of evidence, a combination of people. What is that breaking point in 2008?

The problem with asking this question is it would have to hold up to scrutiny from lots of different areas which would suddenly prove a lot of people who seemed completely innocent were not, and would pretty much have to prove several previous conspiracies in the process.

I may have abondoned the CT movement, but I'll be back tomorrow if they suddenly can present ANYTHING non-debunkable. Until then, it's like believing in psychics: Unless one can do something which can't be easily faked by someone else, they're not getting anything more than a middle finger from me.

[Horatius]

Your question is way too simple, I'm afraid. You'll need to focus on a specific aspect. There are too many conspiracy theories and theorists to start listing anything.

Thanks for your response, T Bone :)

I disagree with this premise. Because I am asking skeptics not truthers. Let me be clear on that. No theories and theorists are part of this thought experiment.

Let me see if you will answer this. What evidence to you would be sufficient? It can be anything, a combination of evidence, a combination of people. What is that breaking point in 2008?



I think you need to reconsider Tbone's question. You ask us, "What evidence would be sufficient?", but you also assert that "No theories and theorists are part of this thought experiment". However, the question of what evidence would be sufficient cannot be answered in a meaningful way unless we know what is it we're looking for. Evidence that the WTC was demolished with explosives will necessarily be different from evidence that Bush et al. merely allowed an actual terrorist attack to happen when they could have prevented it.

Unless you specify what theories you consider to be valid or plausible, we'll just be tossing out random thoughts about any of the theories we've heard from CTists, which probably isn't useful to you.

[GlennB]

The simplest LIHOP scenario would require authority to be granted at some level in the chain of command, and then the absolute minimum of characters involved below that level.

What is the fewest number of people who could possibly be involved in that decision making process? Scores?

What is the fewest number of people (grunts, as it were) who could possibly have their daily work diverted / perverted to a degree that hairs would rise on the backs of their necks when 9/11 actually happened? Hundreds?

And then all those involved are human beings, with normal human frailties, including the desire to confess to misdeeds, seek material gain, seek attention or absolution, seek to punish others, to stir **** because they have developed personal or emotional problems. And so on. Issues like this would have to be considered by any LIHOP perps.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

Even the simplest 9/11 LIHOP CT would be so precarious, so unmanageable, and with such nightmarishly severe consequences for all those actively involved, that even a plausible narrative would get my attention in a big way, even without physical or verbal evidence.

[Tbone]

Thanks for your response, T Bone :)

I disagree with this premise. Because I am asking skeptics not truthers. Let me be clear on that. No theories and theorists are part of this thought experiment.

Let me see if you will answer this. What evidence to you would be sufficient? It can be anything, a combination of evidence, a combination of people. What is that breaking point in 2008?

If no theories are part of this hypothetical, then why are you asking for evidence that would make us believe alternate explanation is possible? Evidence of what is the question you really need to ask.

[Hellbound]

I have to agree with others, it depends on what evidence.

There are a few things, though, that would pretty much immediately make me conclude a conspiracy occurred:

The appearance of a large number of the passengers from the downed planes, or the planes themselves, still alive and/or intact.

Verifiable evidence of U.S. agents training, equipping, or otherwise aiding the terrorists who performed the attacks.

Verifiable evidence of agents 'planting' evidence, or otherwise manipulating the record.

These are a few, but the thing to remember is that I doubt any single piece of evidence would convince me. There is so much evidence already pointing to a group of 19 highjackers, without any indications of something else, that I'm hard pressed to come up with an idea on how it might have realistically been done some other way. The only remotely plausible theory is that the U.S. either 1) assisted the highjackers or 2)knew it was coming and did nothing. As to things like no planes, explosives, and so forth, I just don't see that as being physically possible. They would involve too many people to have been kept quiet, and there's too much evidence against them. There's also none of the evidence that would be expected if these were true.

The thing is, any alternate theory has to accoutn for all the current evidecne as well as the current idea, plus add something new. And by account for, I don't simply mean hand-waving it away as a "government cover-up"...that's nothing more than ad hoc reasoning and special pleading.

[Quad4_72]

There is no scenario. You cannot have an inside job scenario with the current facts. You would have to go back in time and change everything to get any sort of inside job scenario.

[CriticalFunker]

If no theories are part of this hypothetical, then why are you asking for evidence that would make us believe alternate explanation is possible? Evidence of what is the question you really need to ask.

If no theories are part of this hypothetical, then why are you asking for evidence that would make us believe alternate explanation is possible? Evidence of what is the question you really need to ask.

You decide what evidence. What would make you hit the brakes,so to speak. Evidence that someone manipulated the public into thinking it was more than just radical Islam. We have seen in our history, puppet governments, assassinations, false flag attacks and deception. Where previously thought as irrational conspiracy theories as well.

Why would this be so irrational to you in your mind? I would pose back to you that this is a very vulnerable time because the perception of what a conspiracy is and how improbable it is. That in a weird sense, makes it probable to happen. It's the shock n awe effect, right?

Thanks for your discussion in this matter, T Bone :D

[Quad4_72]

We have seen in our history, puppet governments, assassinations, false flag attacks and deception. Where previously thought as irrational conspiracy theories as well.


Do you mind citing any that have been authenticated and even remotely compare to the level of conspiracy that would be required to orchestrate 9/11 without a SINGLE person coming forward years after the fact?

[CriticalFunker]

There is no scenario. You cannot have an inside job scenario with the current facts. You would have to go back in time and change everything to get any sort of inside job scenario.

Thanks for your answer, Quad :)

I have to tell you that I think the current facts being available to the public is miniscule. I think it's not that much of a stretch that U.S. operatives were involved in helping and planning. All it would take is someone disgruntled or radical to help out here and there. Why is that so impossible to believe through the lense of world history? Why can't there be traitors in regards to 9/11 attack? I think it's different world to make conspiracies possible with the technology that we currently have.

[applecorped]

Anyone who has to reassure people that they are not a troll in the OP is............

[Bobert]

I will believe just as soon as Charlie Sheen makes a movie about it.

[CriticalFunker]

I have to agree with others, it depends on what evidence.

There are a few things, though, that would pretty much immediately make me conclude a conspiracy occurred:

The appearance of a large number of the passengers from the downed planes, or the planes themselves, still alive and/or intact.

Verifiable evidence of U.S. agents training, equipping, or otherwise aiding the terrorists who performed the attacks.

Verifiable evidence of agents 'planting' evidence, or otherwise manipulating the record.

These are a few, but the thing to remember is that I doubt any single piece of evidence would convince me. There is so much evidence already pointing to a group of 19 highjackers, without any indications of something else, that I'm hard pressed to come up with an idea on how it might have realistically been done some other way. The only remotely plausible theory is that the U.S. either 1) assisted the highjackers or 2)knew it was coming and did nothing. As to things like no planes, explosives, and so forth, I just don't see that as being physically possible. They would involve too many people to have been kept quiet, and there's too much evidence against them. There's also none of the evidence that would be expected if these were true.

The thing is, any alternate theory has to accoutn for all the current evidecne as well as the current idea, plus add something new. And by account for, I don't simply mean hand-waving it away as a "government cover-up"...that's nothing more than ad hoc reasoning and special pleading.

Thanks for your response, Hellbound

Something isn't right about the 19 hijackers. I don't think that makes someone insane or irrational to think that. I just can't go along with a narrative for a pretext that transformed this country where so many benefited from this attack. I think the waters are so muddied, we will never know what happened. And that's how it was designed to be. In that sense, that could be seen as a conspiracy even if there was no assistance. :D

[Quad4_72]

Thanks for your answer, Quad :)

I have to tell you that I think the current facts being available to the public is miniscule. I think it's not that much of a stretch that U.S. operatives were involved in helping and planning. All it would take is someone disgruntled or radical to help out here and there. Why is that so impossible to believe through the lense of world history? Why can't there be traitors in regards to 9/11 attack? I think it's different world to make conspiracies possible with the technology that we currently have.

The facts are in place. There were were no operatives involved. This is not a movie CriticalFunker. As fun as it is to think you are some sort of investigator and imagine that there are all sorts of conspiracies going on within the government, its just simply not true. In reality, you are just accusing innocent people of murder.

[CHF]

You decide what evidence. What would make you hit the brakes,so to speak. Evidence that someone manipulated the public into thinking it was more than just radical Islam.

How about a whistleblower?

Someone inside the conspiracy who comes clean on some aspect of the plot.

Say, a NORAD official who was "stood down," or a demolitions expert who shipped, planted or detonated the WTC exposives.

There should be THOUSANDS of these people out there. Find me one.

[Quad4_72]

Thanks for your response, Hellbound

Something isn't right about the 19 hijackers. I don't think that makes someone insane or irrational to think that. I just can't go along with a narrative for a pretext that transformed this country where so many benefited from this attack. I think the waters are so muddied, we will never know what happened. And that's how it was designed to be. In that sense, that could be seen as a conspiracy even if there was no assistance. :D

Who beneffited exactly? Bush? Republicans? Cheney? How so? Why would he want to start an unpopular war?

[CriticalFunker]

Anyone who has to reassure people that they are not a troll in the OP is............

Well, that is your opinion but it isn't true. Because I know what kind of person I am. I don't know how I can prove otherwise but it doesn't matter. But I guess you have become cynical and jaded by anyone who utters that statement. Sorry, but I can't change that. I still appreciate your input even if it is false.

[applecorped]

Anyone who has to reassure people that they are not a troll in the OP is............

.....a trolling truther.

[CriticalFunker]

.....a trolling truther.

I can already sense some hostility. You just jumped because you think your perceptions are accurate. Which I am sorry to say that you are incorrect. But you know, sometimes you have to fess when you misjudged. Viva La Internet. Appreciate the 2 responses though. Something got you motivated to post.

[Quad4_72]

Well, that is your opinion but it isn't true. Because I know what kind of person I am. I don't know how I can prove otherwise but it doesn't matter. But I guess you have become cynical and jaded by anyone who utters that statement. Sorry, but I can't change that. I still appreciate your input even if it is false.

In my opinion, it seems that your twoofiness is quite glaring judging by your posts in this thread. So lets stop playing games and just go ahead and come out with it. You already indicated that you don't think 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11.

So I guess the question is, what is your favorite flavor of kool aid?

[CriticalFunker]

Who beneffited exactly? Bush? Republicans? Cheney? How so? Why would he want to start an unpopular war?


Thanks for your response, Quad.

Maybe the corporate/military interests who wanted to kickstart "The War on Terror" wanted to prosper in chaos. Couldn't that be a reasonable answer to your question? Why on earth would you want chaos to end if your fourth quarter profits haven't been better in the Defense world? Especially if there is no accountability.

I would say this to you,Quad. This is the Greatest Robbery ever in front of your eyes and it's happening minute by minute. With no convictions,no arrests, no trials, just the opportunity to have ultimate corruption for ungodly profits. Am I correct or am I wrong in this? Can you see why some would start to veer into that direction of thinking?

[Quad4_72]

Thanks for your response, Quad.

Maybe the corporate/military interests who wanted to kickstart "The War on Terror" wanted to prosper in chaos. Couldn't that be a reasonable answer to your question?

No not at all actually.

Why on earth would you want chaos to end if your fourth quarter profits haven't been better in the Defense world? Especially if there is no accountability.

Again, chaos is not a reasonable answer.

I would say this to you,Quad. This is the Greatest Robbery ever in front of your eyes and it's happening minute by minute. With no convictions,no arrests, no trials, just the opportunity to have ultimate corruption for ungodly profits. Am I correct or am I wrong in this? Can you see why some would start to veer into that direction of thinking?

You are 100% incorrect and have spoken COMPLETELY from speculation based on paranoia.

[CriticalFunker]

In my opinion, it seems that your twoofiness is quite glaring judging by your posts in this thread. So lets stop playing games and just go ahead and come out with it. You already indicated that you don't think 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11.

So I guess the question is, what is your favorite flavor of kool aid?



Quad, let me ask you a serious question. Am I a truther if I have doubts of the official narrative? Are we allowed to have doubts? Do you blame me with this administration? C'mon, Quad. Did you really have to go to the cliche kool aid comment?

Let me be clear on the Truth Movement: I think the truth movement has no validity anymore when it comes to actual debate. Because it is mostly emotional and the same ad nauseam points are made over and over. There is too much invested interest to have a logical debate with this. But having said that, I am not going to hyper nod like a bobblehead over what was presented to me as the official story. Is that a fair answer for you?

[Billdave2]

Thanks for your response, Hellbound

Something isn't right about the 19 hijackers. I don't think that makes someone insane or irrational to think that. I just can't go along with a narrative for a pretext that transformed this country where so many benefited from this attack. I think the waters are so muddied, we will never know what happened. And that's how it was designed to be. In that sense, that could be seen as a conspiracy even if there was no assistance. :D

You have asked us for our criteria, but from this statement it appears that all you need is that you think/feel something isn't right about the 19 hijackers. Is that accurate? if not, what is your criteria?

I will agree that that was "something not right" about the hijackers. They were religous fanatics that didn't mind dying or killing thousands of innocent people just to make a point. It really goes without saying that there was "something not right" about them.

[CriticalFunker]

No not at all actually.



Again, chaos is not a reasonable answer.



You are 100% incorrect and have spoken COMPLETELY from speculation based on paranoia.

"I am 100 % incorrect." I didn't know you could measure my incorrectness so accurately. My speculation isn't on paranoia. It's how everything has played out for the past 8 years. If we invade another country preemptively because of another attack, will you take it as face value? When will you as a american citizen start to have doubts in the military and defense industry, that it does not have our best interests at hand? What is so crazy about that,Quad?

Just asking, :cool:

[Axiom_Blade]

I've noticed that 9-11 deniers are very predictable in their arguments. They will bog you down in technicalities and minutiae if you let them, so it's important to keep to the bigger picture. I always like to say "Just give me evidence X, Y, or Z, and I'll accept that we need a new investigation."

It's hard to find a good rebuttal for that, if your request is a reasonable one. (Of course, many deniers aren't reasonable. One lady informed me that it was the government's duty to re-investigate, as long as anyone was unsatisfied with the investigation! If we did that, then there would never be an end to the investigations...)

[CriticalFunker]

How about detailed financial records that itemize who got paid when for what? Such a large undertaking would require some sort of administrative organization to ensure that the right people got paid. One guy who doesn't get his billion dollar payoff, or whatever, and your whole plot could unravel.

Even known criminal conspiracies like organized crime have to keep track of their money. Remember what happened to Al Capone?

Thanks for your response, Horatius. :D

I would think this would be very difficult because of the resistance of what it might uncover. I think this is another flaw in the investigation as a whole. You bring up a valid point. Financial records were not looked at in detail and stonewalling was a common tactic. No tin foil is required to be curious about detailed financial records. I think we would come across a common phrase "That's classified"

[CriticalFunker]

I've noticed that 9-11 deniers are very predictable in their arguments. They will bog you down in technicalities and minutiae if you let them, so it's important to keep to the bigger picture. I always like to say "Just give me evidence X, Y, or Z, and I'll accept that we need a new investigation."

It's hard to find a good rebuttal for that, if your request is a reasonable one. (Of course, many deniers aren't reasonable. One lady informed me that it was the government's duty to re-investigate, as long as anyone was unsatisfied with the investigation! If we did that, then there would never be an end to the investigations...)

Thanks for your response,Axiomblade.

I agree with you on alot of these points. I don't think we had a fair investigation regarding witnesses who wanted to testify. That includes a enormous amount of 9/11 family members. I had issues with that, Axiom.
I have a serious concern regarding future "attacks" this will be the same pattern that will occur.

Let me pose this question back to you,Axiomblade. Do you feel it is a waste of time and energy to debate and debunk Truthers and theorists? Or do you get something out of it that previously you didn't before? What interests you?


One of the reasons I brought this up is, because maybe skeptics/debunkers like using others for punching bags to get their frustrations out. So I guess I would say that truthers provide a venting towards what you feel are the laws of rationality and where they should be grounded. In that regard they provide a function,correct? :cool:

In any event, I like most of the responses. Even though this is obviously a place that one can get :boxedin: if one isn't clear on their positions. :jaw-dropp

[CriticalFunker]

You have asked us for our criteria, but from this statement it appears that all you need is that you think/feel something isn't right about the 19 hijackers. Is that accurate? if not, what is your criteria?

I will agree that that was "something not right" about the hijackers. They were religous fanatics that didn't mind dying or killing thousands of innocent people just to make a point. It really goes without saying that there was "something not right" about them.

Thanks for your response, BillDave

Religious Fanatics have always murdered people,BillDave. That goes for CHRISTIAN fanatics as well in immense numbers. It's just not publicized as much in America. ;) I have a problem with the actions of this administration and their patterns of deception giving me the script in which I am supposed to nod my head at completely. I don't see how a rational person can't understand how someone could have doubts with this administration and their past/present actions. Can you see where I am coming from?

[Drudgewire]

I have a problem with the actions of this administration and their patterns of deception giving me the script in which I am supposed to nod my head at completely. I don't see how a rational person can't understand how someone could have doubts with this administration and their past/present actions. Can you see where I am coming from?


Yes, I see exactly where you're coming from. You've basically started at "the government lies" and then gone nowhere.

Blindly accepting the government's version of anything is retarded. But refusing to believe something JUST BECAUSE THEY SAID IT regardless of:

-how well the evidence stands up to scientific scrutiny
-how many NON-GOVERNMENTAL BODIES back it up
-a complete and utter lack of anything which can cast legitimate doubt on the overall story after 7 years
-how few experts do anything beyond laugh at the conspiracies
-how the movement has to rely on "experts" of their own creation to keep their alternate theories alive
-how... instead of convincing ANYONE with any legitimate credentials to join them... the only "new names" joining up with them are washed up actors and professional wrestlers?


Yes, that makes one a twoofer. Pure, uncut twoofer.

[CHF]

"The government lies" ignores the fact that much of what we know about 9/11 comes from witnesses and researchers who have nothing to do with the government.

Besides, what is "the governemnt" anyway?

Our government is made up of people. This includes patriotic people, people with families, people with morals, people who would not sit back and watch as 3,000 of their fellow citizens are killed.

Yet twoofers refer to the "government" as if it were the Borg from Star Trek - an evil entity in which all agree on the need to crush the rest of us.

[Quad4_72]

"I am 100 % incorrect." I didn't know you could measure my incorrectness so accurately. My speculation isn't on paranoia. It's how everything has played out for the past 8 years. If we invade another country preemptively because of another attack, will you take it as face value? When will you as a american citizen start to have doubts in the military and defense industry, that it does not have our best interests at hand? What is so crazy about that,Quad?

Just asking, :cool:

I am in the military as a matter of fact, and I happen to know plenty of men in the command positions. None of them have themselves in mind, only the defense of the country. Are you suggesting that they may be in it for the money? Power? What is your evidence of this?

[Horatius]

Thanks for your response, Horatius. :D

I would think this would be very difficult because of the resistance of what it might uncover. I think this is another flaw in the investigation as a whole. You bring up a valid point. Financial records were not looked at in detail and stonewalling was a common tactic. No tin foil is required to be curious about detailed financial records. I think we would come across a common phrase "That's classified"



Financial records were not looked at in detail because we don't have access to AQ's financial records, and we didn't have any reason, or probable cause, to look into anyone else's records. If some other evidence had come to light to implicate some other group, one we could get records for, I'm sure they would have been examined.

However, if that other group does exist, someone somewhere has access to at least some of those records. If that person was to come forward with this information, I suspect it would make a lot of us take a serious look at their allegations.

[PhantomWolf]

If someone was to come out and explain how it was done, who did it, and present the evidence to back up their claims so that it matches with the evidence we already have, I'd certainly look at it.

However currently from the TM they have no idea how it was done, they have zero evidence that matches reality, and they all keep pointing the finger at different people. In fact, when it comes to verifiable facts, the TM has nothing they can all agree on except the date (and I have seen one truther even get that wrong.)

[Billdave2]

Thanks for your response, BillDave

Religious Fanatics have always murdered people,BillDave. That goes for CHRISTIAN fanatics as well in immense numbers. It's just not publicized as much in America. ;) I have a problem with the actions of this administration and their patterns of deception giving me the script in which I am supposed to nod my head at completely. I don't see how a rational person can't understand how someone could have doubts with this administration and their past/present actions. Can you see where I am coming from?

If you don't hear about how christian fanatics have murdered people in this country, you must not get out much. I think we get more coverage of the odd random christioan who kills from religious fanaticism than we do the large numbers of christians/buddists etc that are being killed in south east asia in fairly large numbers. Also, the particular religous beliefs of the 19 hijackers is valid in that it links them to their superiors, Al-Quada. You say you have a hard time believing this administration. Do I think this administartion has been 100% truthful all the time? No, I don't and I am a conservative. I don't think any administration is. If the government tells me that the sky is blue and not green, I don't have to take their word for it, I can go an look. Their are massive amounts of eyewitness reports and physical evidence to show for the 9/11 attacks being carried out by the 19 hijackers. There is ZERO credible evidence that contridicts it. To blindly disbelive anything the governements says is just as foolish as believing. What if they were to tell you tomorrow that eating cyanide would kill you and not make you feel wonderful at all? Would you disbelieve them and take some cyanide?

[PhantomWolf]

Also, the particular religous beliefs of the 19 hijackers is valid in that it links them to their superiors, Al-Quada.

It's not just the link that is important. To most people in the west Politics and Religion are different beasts and there is even law keeping them appart to some degree. Islam isn't like that. To the Middle Eastern mind Islam is their politics. We're not just talking about people who believed that Allah is God and Mohammed was his Prophet, but rather that God gave them the one and only way to live, a full political system and law, a law that every person on the planet should be following. They believed (and other like them still do) that to act in obediance a law is to show worship to the one that made that law. To them, following man-made law is the same as worshiping men. Only following God's laws is acceptable in their eyes and anyone that doesn't is on a one way trip to hell. They believed that the West (and the US in particular) are corrupting their countries' Governments by promoting and upholding secular Governments, that is is a form of attack against Islam and that by forcing these sorts of Governments on the Islam people, Governments run by man-made laws, you are then forcing to the people to worship men and in doing so forcing them into enslavement of men, and away from God. They believed that the only way to free their people from that enslavement was to hit the West hard enough to make them run away (just like Korea, Vietnam, and Somaila.) Once they were out of the picture and no longer supporting the corrupt, humanist Governments that enslaved the people, the people can rise up and over throw them, breaking free of the shackles of human made laws and the slavery to them, instead living free under God's one and only law.

This is why the Hijackers' religion is an issue, because it's totally inseparable from their political views, and it was the belief created from that Political/Religous mix that lead them down the track to what they did.

[CriticalFunker]

I am in the military as a matter of fact, and I happen to know plenty of men in the command positions. None of them have themselves in mind, only the defense of the country. Are you suggesting that they may be in it for the money? Power? What is your evidence of this?

Are you going to stand by that comment? "No one has themselves in mind." Just because you talk to some people in the military, doesn't mean the military has our best interest. Quad, you know better than that. Let me ask you, you think this was all motivated by just doing this for your country? I suggest you keep your eye in the defense sector, see where they invade next and who the war is sponsored by. Keep your eye out for the logos, that's a sign that this war isn't for "Freedom" or "Democracy" Look for the logos,Quad.

[gumboot]

Thanks for your answer, Quad :)

I have to tell you that I think the current facts being available to the public is miniscule. I think it's not that much of a stretch that U.S. operatives were involved in helping and planning. All it would take is someone disgruntled or radical to help out here and there. Why is that so impossible to believe through the lense of world history? Why can't there be traitors in regards to 9/11 attack? I think it's different world to make conspiracies possible with the technology that we currently have.


Personally I think it's plausible that you could have a scenario in which American government operatives were actively involved in implementing the attack plot, and could even have eased the movement of the hijackers into the country.

The only major hurdle to such a scenario (other than issues of motive, etc) is Al Qaeda's apparent continued exclusive claim to the attacks. Osama Bin Laden is smart enough to know that revealing the US Government's involvement would do more to throw the US into turmoil than any attack he could ever pull off.

So apart from these pretty substantial gaps in the theory, the other thing about this theory is it means everything on the day itself unfolded precisely as the "official version" says it did. And every single conspiracy theory thus offered is rendered null and void.

[MarkyX]

Physical evidence of bombs planted in the buildings in the debris.

If you had that piece of evidence alone, you wouldn't really need to describe how they were planted or anything. It would be a huge glaring anomaly that has been overlooked by the investigation.

Problem is, not a single person found any evidence of explosives in the debris.

[Hellbound]

Just to reiterate:The thing is, any alternate theory has to account for all the current evidence as well as the current theory, plus add something new (explain additional data). And by account for, I don't simply mean hand-waving it away as a "government cover-up"...that's nothing more than ad hoc reasoning and special pleading.

When you start saying things like:
"But they haven't released all the evidence" or "they're the ones who controlle dthe evidence, so how do you know", that is the hand-waving part mentioned.

This is, reworded, the equivalent of saying:

"I haven't seen any evidence, but I'm going to allege it happened as I imagined it anyway"

It's not an argument, it's an unsupported allegation.

Oh, and by the way, I've ben in the U.S. Army for 15 years and two wars. I've yet to see any wars that had "sponsors", nor have there been any logos. We don't wear team shirts that say anything expect "U.S. Army".

[twinstead]

Oh, and by the way, I've ben in the U.S. Army for 15 years and two wars. I've yet to see any wars that had "sponsors", nor have there been any logos. We don't wear team shirts that say anything expect "U.S. Army".

Really? I seem to recall I had a sponsor's logo on my uniform when I was in the military. I think we were sponsored by the 1st Armored Division ;)

[Hellbound]

Really? I seem to recall I had a sponsor's logo on my uniform when I was in the military. I think we were sponsored by the 1st Armored Division ;)

That ain't exactly a sponsor :P

That's more like a cattle brand than a sponsors logo :D

[Drudgewire]

Really? I seem to recall I had a sponsor's logo on my uniform when I was in the military. I think we were sponsored by the 1st Armored Division ;)


Which was later renamed "Coke Zero." ;)

[Axiom_Blade]

I agree with you on alot of these points. I don't think we had a fair investigation regarding witnesses who wanted to testify. That includes a enormous amount of 9/11 family members. I had issues with that, Axiom.
I have a serious concern regarding future "attacks" this will be the same pattern that will occur.

I'm sure that in an event as large as 9-11 was, there'd be a ridiculously large number of people who'd be angry, and would want to testify. It'd be impractical to have everybody, or even just a significant number, testifying.

Not to be harsh here, but what'd be the point of having them testify? If they don't have any new information to give us, why bother?


Let me pose this question back to you,Axiomblade. Do you feel it is a waste of time and energy to debate and debunk Truthers and theorists? Or do you get something out of it that previously you didn't before? What interests you?

It's good practice. Once in a while, very rarely, you make somebody think, or they make you think. However, 99.99999% of the deniers I've talked to were just "working off a script", so I wasn't hearing anything new, and they weren't listening to me. But, like I said, it's good practice to get all the talking points down.

If they say A, you say B.
If they say C, you say D.

I'm not against it being investigated, I'm against having the government do it. It's a) a waste of time, and b) a waste of money. That's money I paid out from my taxes, and I don't want it spent on humoring conspiracy theorists.

The deniers should do their own investigation. That would prove to me they're really serious about 9-11. And...who knows? They might even surprise me, and come up with something interesting.
Just...something. That would be more than what they've come up with in the last 7 years...which is nothing.


One of the reasons I brought this up is, because maybe skeptics/debunkers like using others for punching bags to get their frustrations out. So I guess I would say that truthers provide a venting towards what you feel are the laws of rationality and where they should be grounded. In that regard they provide a function,correct? :cool:

Naw, you could always vent your frustrations on a video game, or go hiking, or something like that.
Besides, arguing about 9-11 is often more frustrating. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian, or any other kind of True Believer.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Here's my simple question:

If military intelligence officials were to come forward, what direct evidence presented would make you say, "Maybe there is something to this afterall"? I am just curious in this aspect of the 911 debate. What would be that rosetta stone that would make you open to the idea of orchestrated attacks with help from U.S. operatives?


I'm not going to restrict myself to one or even multiple items or claims. I don't care what evidence would be presented, as long as it's relevance could proven and its existence verified. Basically.

[ElMondoHummus]

I think the waters are so muddied, we will never know what happened. And that's how it was designed to be. In that sense, that could be seen as a conspiracy even if there was no assistance. :D

Please do not take this as an attack or any impugnment on you personally sir (ma'am?), but I need to comment on this: We do know what happened. We may not know every single detail, but that doesn't change the fact that we have enough evidence to know the essentials, and in fact, even know many of the details. We have evidence of the identities of the hijackers as well as evidence placing them in the airliners, we have debris from the crashed jets, we have multiple converging testimonies from victims on the doomed jets, we have multiple radar and voice recordings from air traffic controllers, we have video of the planners bragging about their involvement... the point is that from all of that, we do know what happened. Due to the sheer volume of that evidence, any alternate theory of what happened must include the fact that 19 men of middle eastern origin were involved and supported by al-Qaeda, so that automatically dismisses non-LIHOP hypotheses. It's far too facile to claim that 9/11 was designed to mislead Americans to think someone other than those al-Qaeda associated hijackers were available, especially given that those hijackers themselves believe they were doing bin-Laden's bidding in carrying out Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's plans. But I digress; my point is that we do indeed know what happened, and talk of "muddied waters" when the only muddying is from conspiratorial talking points (for example, DRG's mistaken claims about cell phones and faked calls, or Steven Jones's absurd claims of having evidence of "energentic nanoparticles") ends up being a distortion of the actual strength of the evidence.

In short, the waters are not that muddied. Thinking so demonstrates a lack of investigation of the evidence, and only a consideration of the conspiratorial points. As noted in this forum, as well as the PopMech works, 911 Myths, Debunking 9/11, etc., those conspiratorial points are based on distortions, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, or in certain cases outright fantasies. A picture that's not razor sharp is not automatically so fuzzy that it's unable to show the subject; ditto 9/11, and the multiple narratives that are so often oversimplfied into "The Official Story". The waters are only muddy to people looking for contradictions instead of cohesive narratives.

I do not say this insultingly. I merely point out the error in representation of the event.

[thatsmystory]

Please do not take this as an attack or any impugnment on you personally sir (ma'am?), but I need to comment on this: We do know what happened.

Please explain this. Tenet tells us he was freaked out about a possible attack while concurrently his subordinates at Alec Station were withholding crucial intel from the FBI. Did Tenet want to prevent a possible attack or not? I'm no counterterrorism expert but one would think sharing intel about al Qaeda operatives inside the US would be a fairly useful thing to do. Do you realize that FBI agent Ali Soufan requested intel about the January 5-8, 2000 Malaysian summit from the CIA and was told they had nothing? Soufan was investigating the Cole attack at the time. Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar attended that summit along with people implicated in the Cole bombing plot. CIA personnel knew what these associations suggested. They knew the danger. What on earth was Tenet doing at the CIA? Why wasn't he fired on 9/12? Why did he later get a Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Tom Wilshire (Alec Station Deputy Chief) submitted statements for the Moussaoui trial (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/939.pdf)

[beachnut]

Please explain this.
He said we know. You are a truther, you only know how to apologize for terrorist and Monday morning quarterback the rest. Evidence is best, 9/11 truth ignores evidence and makes up failed conclusions.

Gain knowledge, figure out what happen. You have minutes to figure out 9/11 if you were a passengers on Flight 93! You have had 7 years! You have not figured out anything yet. 7 years?

[Metullus]

Please explain this. *snip*
Tom Wilshire (Alec Station Deputy Chief) submitted statements for the Moussaoui trial (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/939.pdf)Your link suggests that there was communication between the FBI and the CIA...

It does not support your assertion.

[De_Bunk]

If they said...."Yes...We done it"

DB

[CurtC]

De_Bunk, is that really you? I haven't seen you around here in forever - welcome back!

[TexasJack]

If 911 was an inside job, somebody would have squealed a long time ago, it's human nature. I think Franklin said it best: "Three can keep a secret, if two are dead."

[MIKILLINI]

Please explain this.

Just asking questions? I have one for you: Can't you seriously search for sources of information without having a conspiracy bias?

[thatsmystory]

He said we know. You are a truther, you only know how to apologize for terrorist and Monday morning quarterback the rest. Evidence is best, 9/11 truth ignores evidence and makes up failed conclusions.

Gain knowledge, figure out what happen. You have minutes to figure out 9/11 if you were a passengers on Flight 93! You have had 7 years! You have not figured out anything yet. 7 years?
You stoop to Bush's argument...with us or with the terrorists. Wow. I didn't realize questioning authority is the same thing as apologizing for terrorists. Amazing.

Which country has closer links to al Qaeda...Iraq or Saudi Arabia? Which country did Bush name an ally in the War on Terror?

[thatsmystory]

Just asking questions? I have one for you: Can't you seriously search for sources of information without having a conspiracy bias?

Is it wrong to question authority? Should I pretend there hasn't been a coverup? Should I pretend Tenet is a great guy? Are the choices limited to Bush or Bin Laden? The world is really that simple?

How many FBI UBLU agents have you seen interviewed over the years?

[thatsmystory]

Your link suggests that there was communication between the FBI and the CIA...

It does not support your assertion.

In the email Wilshire says the next attack will likely involve associates of Khallad (bin Attash). He names Khalid al-Mihdhar as one such person. Yet this crucial information wasn't shared with the Cole investigators. Instead, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were watchlisted in late August and the search was assigned to an FBI intel side agent.

We still don't know why Wilshire, Corsi (FBI UBLU agent) and Middleton (Chief of the FBI UBLU) acted in such a strange manner. Wilshire especially since he knew that associates of bin Attash were dangerous. Make bizarre excuses if you want. These intel officials have not accounted for their conduct. If I'm an unpatriotic conspiracy nut for wanting accountability on this matter then so be it.

[Drudgewire]

Are the choices limited to Bush or Bin Laden? The world is really that simple?


You never look beyond "Bush is evil" to justify the fantasy which has been debunked by a car magazine, liberal universities, and multitudes of aviation/physics/engineering/demolition/terrorism experts (many of whom wouldn't cross the street to pee on anyone in this administration if they were on fire.)

Meanwhile, your alternative is being pushed by film school drop-outs (same here, so I'm not judging), theologists, and radio hosts... who have never provided a shred of evidence beyond "look how bad these guys are. OF COURSE they did it."

And you have the audacity to ask that question to skeptics?


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/picardpalm.jpg

[Metullus]

In the email Wilshire says the next attack will likely involve associates of Khallad (bin Attash). He names Khalid al-Mihdhar as one such person. Yet this crucial information wasn't shared with the Cole investigators. Instead, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were watchlisted in late August and the search was assigned to an FBI intel side agent.

We still don't know why Wilshire, Corsi (FBI UBLU agent) and Middleton (Chief of the FBI UBLU) acted in such a strange manner. Wilshire especially since he knew that associates of bin Attash were dangerous. Make bizarre excuses if you want. These intel officials have not accounted for their conduct. If I'm an unpatriotic conspiracy nut for wanting accountability on this matter then so be it.I am not making "bizarre excuses" for any one. I am merely pointing out that your link does not support your assertion.

[thatsmystory]

I am not making "bizarre excuses" for any one. I am merely pointing out that your link does not support your assertion.

Your point is that there was communication of some kind, therefore I am wrong? The best you can do is point out a technicality?

[thatsmystory]

You never look beyond "Bush is evil" to justify the fantasy which has been debunked by a car magazine, liberal universities, and multitudes of aviation/physics/engineering/demolition/terrorism experts (many of whom wouldn't cross the street to pee on anyone in this administration if they were on fire.)

Meanwhile, your alternative is being pushed by film school drop-outs (same here, so I'm not judging), theologists, and radio hosts... who have never provided a shred of evidence beyond "look how bad these guys are. OF COURSE they did it."

And you have the audacity to ask that question to skeptics?


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/picardpalm.jpg

Everyone who questions 9/11 shares the beliefs of Avery, Griffin and Jones? I don't think so.

[stateofgrace]

You stoop to Bush's argument...with us or with the terrorists. Wow. I didn't realize questioning authority is the same thing as apologizing for terrorists. Amazing.

Which country has closer links to al Qaeda...Iraq or Saudi Arabia? Which country did Bush name an ally in the War on Terror?

Can you please explain, exactly, what you believe Al Qaeda is?















(Waits for the google search and answer, rather that the spontaneous answer from somebody who actually knows and understands what he/she is talking about)

[neltana]

If military intelligence officials were to come forward, what direct evidence presented would make you say, "Maybe there is something to this afterall"? I am just curious in this aspect of the 911 debate. What would be that rosetta stone that would make you open to the idea of orchestrated attacks with help from U.S. operatives?
I don't think it would take anything so dramatic as a confession from military intelligence officials or any other kind of "smoking gun" to get folks interested in 911 CTs. If there was any kind of anomaly that pointed to the plausible involvement of the U.S. government (or Israeli government, if you like), there would be an overwhelming flood of interest from the American people.

If there is one thing Americans like to do, it is doubt the motives of their own government.

But to date, there really isn't any evidence of the U.S. government being behind the attacks (MIHOP) or that they had foreknowledge of the attack which they ignored (LIHOP).

Instead, we get arguments over how many and what kind of phone calls were made from the planes, whether there were planes, whether the acceleration due to gravity is actually 9.8 meters per second squared and whether a suicidal pilot would have flown a hijacked aircraft in a manner that might void its warranty.

None of this stuff makes any sense.

Actual evidence would be able to be corroborated. Actual evidence would be in line with physics and chemistry as we know it. Actual evidence would actually narrow our understanding of what happened, allowing us to converge on a single, plausible theory of the crime(s).

As of right now, we have no actual evidence that 9/11 was anything other than the work of 19 (or 20ish) Al Qaeda operatives working under Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and against the interests of the United States in particular and the western financial system in general.

But give us pictures of missile parts from the site of the Pentagon (not misidentified aircraft parts), show us evidence that thermite charges can cleanly cut through steel beams and only leave behind microscopic globules or demonstrate that any 9/11 hijacker secretly worked for the U.S. government or is still alive and you will have people flock to your cause.

The problem is that, to date, 9/11 CTs have been unable to produce evidence of any of these things. Frankly, 9/11 CTs have been unable to even produce a coherent theory of what happened. All we get is people who are "just asking questions..." with no real qualitative analysis of anything.

So, the rosetta stone would be evidence...any kind of evidence.

[thatsmystory]

Can you please explain, exactly, what you believe Al Qaeda is?
Are you suggesting that only ignorant people would take issue with the 9/11 Commission's findings? Believe it or not, I have not limited my research to "truther" sites. Perhaps some find it more comforting to chalk up all 9/11 Commission report skeptics as people who only care about information that reinforces their beliefs.

Did you know:

1) The CIA IG report is still classified (just the executive summary was declassified).

2) 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry report which deal with Saudi support for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in San Diego are still classified.

3) The 9/11 Commission restricted access to some of the evidence used to compile the report until January 2009. Why would they keep it from the public for two Presidential election cycles?

[LashL]

I don't think it would take anything so dramatic as a confession from military intelligence officials or any other kind of "smoking gun" to get folks interested in 911 CTs. If there was any kind of anomaly that pointed to the plausible involvement of the U.S. government (or Israeli government, if you like), there would be an overwhelming flood of interest from the American people.

If there is one thing Americans like to do, it is doubt the motives of their own government.

But to date, there really isn't any evidence of the U.S. government being behind the attacks (MIHOP) or that they had foreknowledge of the attack which they ignored (LIHOP).

Instead, we get arguments over how many and what kind of phone calls were made from the planes, whether there were planes, whether the acceleration due to gravity is actually 9.8 meters per second squared and whether a suicidal pilot would have flown a hijacked aircraft in a manner that might void its warranty.

None of this stuff makes any sense.

Actual evidence would be able to be corroborated. Actual evidence would be in line with physics and chemistry as we know it. Actual evidence would actually narrow our understanding of what happened, allowing us to converge on a single, plausible theory of the crime(s).

As of right now, we have no actual evidence that 9/11 was anything other than the work of 19 (or 20ish) Al Qaeda operatives working under Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and against the interests of the United States in particular and the western financial system in general.

But give us pictures of missile parts from the site of the Pentagon (not misidentified aircraft parts), show us evidence that thermite charges can cleanly cut through steel beams and only leave behind microscopic globules or demonstrate that any 9/11 hijacker secretly worked for the U.S. government or is still alive and you will have people flock to your cause.

The problem is that, to date, 9/11 CTs have been unable to produce evidence of any of these things. Frankly, 9/11 CTs have been unable to even produce a coherent theory of what happened. All we get is people who are "just asking questions..." with no real qualitative analysis of anything.

So, the rosetta stone would be evidence...any kind of evidence.

Nicely said, that.

[jaydeehess]

Hello, I've returned. I've been a bit busy maintaining my work and just with life and general. :D I hope this question sparks a challenge to the following. If it doesn't, who cares it's a digital post it board. :D


Here's my simple question:

If military intelligence officials were to come forward, what direct evidence presented would make you say, "Maybe there is something to this afterall"? I am just curious in this aspect of the 911 debate. What would be that rosetta stone that would make you open to the idea of orchestrated attacks with help from U.S. operatives?


Well at least that removes all the ridiculous senarios concerning nukes, space-a-beams, month long thermi(a)te fires and flyover magic tricks.

No single thing could do it except perhaps Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld or some other very high official declaring it, basically incriminating themselves.

[jaydeehess]

Which country has closer links to al Qaeda...Iraq or Saudi Arabia? Which country did Bush name an ally in the War on Terror?

Silly, obviously the 911 attacks were staged to implicate Iraq thus garnering a war with Saddam. After all look at all the supposed hijackers who were Iraqi. ,,

[jaydeehess]

Nicely said, that.

Indeed it is. I should have started reading this thread in reverse chronilogic order.

[thatsmystory]

Silly, obviously the 911 attacks were staged to implicate Iraq thus garnering a war with Saddam. After all look at all the supposed hijackers who were Iraqi. ,,

Did Bush get his invasion/occupation? Did the conflation of Hussein with al Qaeda help him in this effort?

Yes and yes.

I don't pretend to understand the MO of these deceptions. We do know the conflation fearmongering strategy worked and that there was no accountability for Bush's deception.

[Travis]

Did Bush get his invasion/occupation?

Were there good reasons to invade both countries without 9/11 happening?

Did the conflation of Hussein with al Qaeda help him in this effort?

Were there many people who supported the invasions who did not conflate the two?

The answers to my previous questions are yes and yes.

I don't pretend to understand the MO of these deceptions.

What deceptions? Please don't answer WMD's as they were irrelevant to some people's decision to support invasion.

[T.A.M.]

I don't think it would take anything so dramatic as a confession from military intelligence officials or any other kind of "smoking gun" to get folks interested in 911 CTs. If there was any kind of anomaly that pointed to the plausible involvement of the U.S. government (or Israeli government, if you like), there would be an overwhelming flood of interest from the American people.

If there is one thing Americans like to do, it is doubt the motives of their own government.

But to date, there really isn't any evidence of the U.S. government being behind the attacks (MIHOP) or that they had foreknowledge of the attack which they ignored (LIHOP).

Instead, we get arguments over how many and what kind of phone calls were made from the planes, whether there were planes, whether the acceleration due to gravity is actually 9.8 meters per second squared and whether a suicidal pilot would have flown a hijacked aircraft in a manner that might void its warranty.

None of this stuff makes any sense.

Actual evidence would be able to be corroborated. Actual evidence would be in line with physics and chemistry as we know it. Actual evidence would actually narrow our understanding of what happened, allowing us to converge on a single, plausible theory of the crime(s).

As of right now, we have no actual evidence that 9/11 was anything other than the work of 19 (or 20ish) Al Qaeda operatives working under Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and against the interests of the United States in particular and the western financial system in general.

But give us pictures of missile parts from the site of the Pentagon (not misidentified aircraft parts), show us evidence that thermite charges can cleanly cut through steel beams and only leave behind microscopic globules or demonstrate that any 9/11 hijacker secretly worked for the U.S. government or is still alive and you will have people flock to your cause.

The problem is that, to date, 9/11 CTs have been unable to produce evidence of any of these things. Frankly, 9/11 CTs have been unable to even produce a coherent theory of what happened. All we get is people who are "just asking questions..." with no real qualitative analysis of anything.

So, the rosetta stone would be evidence...any kind of evidence.

Succinct, and well articulated.

TAM:)

[thatsmystory]

What deceptions? Please don't answer WMD's as they were irrelevant to some people's decision to support invasion.

1) Conflation of Hussein with al Qaeda.

2) Claims Hussein had WMD's. This was the foundation of the public case.

3) The constant 9/11 fearmongering which enhanced the first two deceptions.

Did he lose the '04 election? No. Was he impeached? No.

[Viper Daimao]

so what you're saying is, despite all evidence to the contrary, 9/11 was an inside job because some people conflated hussein with al qaeda, even though the administration didn't, and because there were no massive stockpiles of wmd's, just wmd weapons programs ready to be started up after sanctions were lifted?

[dudalb]

1. If 9/11 was an inside job to justify the invasion of Iraq, why the hell did they not plant some DIRECT links between the Hijackers and Saddam? That would have been easy enough.
2.And would it not have been very easy, during the invasion of Iraq, to smuggle in some WMD's and plant them early on to "justify" the invasion? I beleive that Bush and co.really thought there were WMD in Iraq, and actually behaved a little like truthers in that they used very weak evidence to back up whan they firmly beleived...not unusual behavior among True Believers.
3. I love the way certain people use the word "fearmongering" to describe ANY action taken after 9/11.

[Metullus]

Your point is that there was communication of some kind, therefore I am wrong? The best you can do is point out a technicality?No. Once again (you might want to take notes) I merely pointed out that the link you provided presumably as support for your assertion does little or nothing to, well, support your assertion.

Never mind. Not worth my time.

[ElMondoHummus]

Please explain this. Tenet tells us he was freaked out about a possible attack while concurrently his subordinates at Alec Station were withholding crucial intel from the FBI. Did Tenet want to prevent a possible attack or not? I'm no counterterrorism expert but one would think sharing intel about al Qaeda operatives inside the US would be a fairly useful thing to do. Do you realize that FBI agent Ali Soufan requested intel about the January 5-8, 2000 Malaysian summit from the CIA and was told they had nothing? Soufan was investigating the Cole attack at the time. Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar attended that summit along with people implicated in the Cole bombing plot. CIA personnel knew what these associations suggested. They knew the danger. What on earth was Tenet doing at the CIA? Why wasn't he fired on 9/12? Why did he later get a Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Tom Wilshire (Alec Station Deputy Chief) submitted statements for the Moussaoui trial (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/939.pdf)

Pardon me for not responding sooner; I've been quite busy lately, plus I'm reading up on some of the areas of 9/11 history that I want to improve on. At any rate: How does your post address what I was saying? When I made my response to CriticalFunker, I was referring to the plethora of physical evidence gathered from the scenes of the crimes, as well as establishing evidence gathered elsewhere (evidence gathered from the hijackers hotel rooms, for example, or completely separate from that, the ATC radar evidence I continually refer to). What Tenent chose to do or not do is irrelevant to that evidence.

So my apologies, but besides making a charge against Tenant, how does your statement impact what we know from the event itself? The evidence used to establish that jets were hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are independent of any actions taken by any CIA official prior to 9/11; again, I point to the ATC radar data as an example (but not the only piece of evidence that exists, mind you). Regardless of what Tenant and anyone else in the government did, that evidence stands on it's own, as well as so much of the rest of the evidence gathered.