actually the Pentagon walls are 2 feet of concrete with kevlar reinforcement and blast proof windows

but you are the most credible person on TWW so...

9/13/2006 10:21:34 AM

Do you only want to talk about the Penatgon? Because even if a 757 hit the Pentagon just like the government says, you still have dozens and dozens of major problems with the "official" story...including the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the controlled demolitions of the twin towers, the phony bin Laden tapes, the failure of NORAD and the U.S. Air Defense to respond according to standard procedure, etc.

9/13/2006 10:30:13 AM

Quote :

"the controlled demolitions of the twin towers"

you still have dozens and dozens of problems with this and many of your claims as well

but hey you're making progress...at least you admit the possibility that a plane hit the Pentagon

9/13/2006 10:49:38 AM

Two interesting video clips from MSM reports on the 9/11 Truth Movement...

VIDEO: Dr Griffin BBC1 Sunday 10 September 2006 interview about 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9181676883393469552&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=nl

VIDEO: Dutch TV News Report On 9/11 "ConspiracyTheories"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906lie.htm

9/13/2006 10:58:24 AM

Quote :

"including the controlled demolition of WTC 7,"

You have yet to provide any evidence regarding this, aside from a blurry picture. brianj320 went through the footage frame by frame and thoroughly debunked this theory.

Quote :

"the controlled demolitions of the twin towers,"

I found dozens of taped of controlled demolotions, and none of them resemble the WTC collapse. However, you refuse to look at any of them.

Quote :

"the phony bin Laden tapes,"

Where is your evidence regarding that? You keep posting a blurry photo. However, you have repeatedly refused to comment on bin Ladens fatwah against americans and repeatedly speak of arabs as incompetent.

Quote :

"the failure of NORAD and the U.S. Air Defense to respond according to standard procedure, etc."

What was standard procedure?

9/13/2006 11:31:26 AM

Is anybody paying you to post mindless garbage on tww Mr. Joshua?

9/13/2006 11:40:41 AM

Mr Joshua had some well written critiques and questions on the last page, would you please reply to those

9/13/2006 11:46:55 AM

Is alex jones paying to cut and paste everything that he writes on tww?

Stop trying to slander me because you can't answer my questions.

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

9/13/2006 11:53:10 AM

ok, i dont ever post here but i do lurk quite often. could someone tell me if anyone has ever brought up the popular mechanics article from a few months back that has now been turned into a book and refutes many of the claims presented in this thread, and if so, what is the response to this article from the proponents in this thread of the 9/11 was a govt job theory?

9/13/2006 1:06:36 PM

Yes, Popular Mechanics and other sources have been brought up repeatedly. salisburyboy's response:

Quote :

"http://www.prisonplanet.com"

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 1:12 PM. Reason : [/user]]

9/13/2006 1:11:43 PM

well after a quick look at that website i saw no reference to the popular mechanics article. does prison planet have any type of point by point refute of what the popular mechanics article claims? and i apologize for not searchin the thread for this, i really didnt wanna look through 49 pages, most of which i found contained nothing but weblinks...

9/13/2006 1:17:21 PM

he labels the popular mechanics piece as a product from the jew controlled media and thus cant be taken seriosuly even though multitiudes of scholars from all backgrounds have come together to refute the theories that are completely wrong.

9/13/2006 1:18:46 PM

i see, and im guessing this prisonplanet website takes a similar stance on the PM article?

9/13/2006 1:24:00 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Their rebuttle is to point out parts of the conspiracy theory that Popular Mechanics didn't address and then say that they weren't addressed because the prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

They also point out that the magazine is a part of Hearst Publications, which was founded by William Randolph Hearst. Apparently, since he was a bad person we can't trust Popular Mechanics.

Also, they point out that one of the researches was named Benjamin Chertoff and claim that he is the cousin of Michael Chertoff of the homeland security department. I looked that up myself and was unable to find any mention of the two being related outside of prisonplanet. They lock onto that and completely ignore the other 300 researchers involved.

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2006 1:45:27 PM

salisburyboy is a case study in argument from personal incredulity.

9/13/2006 1:50:22 PM

Compartmentalization makes salisburyboy's central thesis that it was an inside job plausible. Of course, the same concept also makes everything the 9/11 Commission Report says plausible as well. That's not where the huge disconnect is, though. People jump from plausability to certainty far too quickly, and I agree with him about that. The problem is that he's as guilty of certainty as the people who are vehemently arguing with him.

But I suppose that's all "semantics."

I'm waiting on my salisburyboy challenge: How would you convince a person who has no assumptions about the MSM, government, Prisonplanet, religion, etc.?

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 2:13 PM. Reason : certainly not everything]

9/13/2006 2:10:52 PM

ok, so i read the article on prisonplanet and it seemed to just focus on the buildings falling, didnt seem to rebut much else. my whole problem with all of this conspiracy is how was an event of this magnitude carried out by the govt without anyone finding out or anyone leaking any information? seems like there would have to be quite a few people involved to make this happen and you think someone might have found out along the way...

9/13/2006 2:12:50 PM

Again, compartmentalization of information. Information control is a very powerful concept.

Let's be clear about this though. Asserting possibility and asserting likelihood are hugely different things.

9/13/2006 2:14:39 PM

Quote :

"5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc. 13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody; Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more. Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history."

9/13/2006 2:17:12 PM

Yeah, that's pretty worthless.

Quote :

"5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc."

What's superhuman about compartmentalizing information? Our own analysis of the functioning of Al Qaeda admits that they operate this way. Hell, our own information came to us through intelligence services that operate the exact same way themselves.

Quote :

"13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody; Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more. Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history."

If he's saying it was an inside job, it's not involving the whole world. The CIA has assets in many foreign countries. The historical record supports that fact isn't a recent development.

If he's saying it was one organization of one mind that spans the whole world, he's a nutcase.

9/13/2006 2:20:01 PM

That was directed at the post above yours. My bad.

Quote :

"5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc."

The NWO is all powerful and manages to keep all conspirators silent. They also own all mainstream media, so anyone who tries to blow the whistle won't receive any attention.

Quote :

"13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody; Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more. Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history."

The conspiracy grows whenever anyone expresses belief in the official story. Popular Mechanics went from being just another magazine to being a "Zionist rag" after publishing one article.

9/13/2006 2:25:58 PM

I see what you're saying.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: The NWO is all powerful and manages to keep all conspirators silent. They also own all mainstream media, so anyone who tries to blow the whistle won't receive any attention."

You've invalidated the first statement with the second one. I've seen among his listed evidence "testimony" from people "on the inside" before. I haven't read it, or heard it, but clearly they don't all keep silent, or wouldn't have to. They'd just have to be quietly ignored.

First, I don't think salisburyboy has to argue they are all-powerful, otherwise he wouldn't be part of some "movement" to get the truth out. What effect could they have on the all powerful, right?

Second, if the attack was carried out by elements of a compartmentalized organization, the numerous low level individual members wouldn't have enough information to blow the whistle on anything, and the higher level members wouldn't have beneficial interest in doing so. Further, if the MSM fears for its reputation as a source of accurate information (and it does), it's not going to report a story by some low-level former CIA operative with a very limited part of the story about a domestic involvement in the 9/11 plot. Too much credibility would be given to one person who'd have totally unverifiable information. Besides, the guy could just be a whackjob with a fancy printer and authentic-looking identification. The NY Times isn't going to risk its reputation on one guy with an incredible story, no matter what that story is about.

You don't see many exposes written in the paper by ex-Mafia hitmen for a reason. It's not because the Mafia doesn't exist, or even that society wouldn't be interested in the story. It's usually because these guys often don't know why they're being ordered to kill a person, or often who issued the order. Beyond that, their stories are nigh impossible to corroborate.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: The conspiracy grows whenever anyone expresses belief in the official story. Popular Mechanics went from being just another magazine to being a "Zionist rag" after publishing one article."

Now that is crazy. But what if he were a little more rational about things (read: not an anti-Semitic tinfoil hat guy) and alleged instead only that the article and its author weren't necessarily "in on it," but used questionable science and methodology in their debunkery?

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2006 2:44:53 PM

Quote :

"my whole problem with all of this conspiracy is how was an event of this magnitude carried out by the govt without anyone finding out or anyone leaking any information?"

People have found out. Why do you think at least 36% of Americans believe the government
was involved? The truth was eventually going to come out on 9/11. It was only a matter of
time. The only thing the government and their MSM mouthpiece could do is try to ridicule those
exposing the truth as "crackpot conspiracy theorists." And those smear tactics are no longer
working.

And whistleblowers have leaked information. Sibel Edmonds, Morgan Reynolds, and other
former government employees come to mind. Many of those in the government (or formerly in the
government) who have knowledge against the official account are pressured into keeping quiet
because of possibly loosing their job, due to alleged "national security interests", threats against
them, etc. And even if many of these people did speak out, you are not likely to hear from them
(via the MSM) because the MSM is involved in the ongoing cover-up.

Governments carrying out (real or staged) terrorist/military attacks or attacking their own
countries is not unprecedented. Far from it. There are many historical examples of this: the Nazis
burning the Reichstag building, the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Operation Northwoods
plan.


[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 3:09 PM. Reason : 1]

9/13/2006 2:54:50 PM

Batshit insane or not, the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a plan to attack the United States on its own soil only 44 years ago is pretty frightening.

salisburyboy

In as few words as possible, why do you believe your account more credible than the 9/11 Comission report?

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2006 2:58:29 PM

im not disputing govts have attacked their own people before, so thats not an issue for me. and im guessing MSM means mainstream media? and so by saying the MSM is in on the conspiracy, are we just talking about the corporate execs or are we including everyone, even reporters?

9/13/2006 3:00:40 PM

And here's a good response to the Popular Mechanics hit piece...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

Quote :

"Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 Some magazine by the name of Popular Mechanics recently came out with an issue in which the main story was called 9/11: Debunking The Myths: "PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11." Really? Upon examination it turns out to be a shoddy piece of disinfo produced in a desperate attempt to defend against the fact that Americans are finally waking up and realizing that 9/11 was an inside job, that about 3000 people died at the hands of elements within their own government. [...]"

9/13/2006 3:01:44 PM

salisburyboy, could you please respond to mr joshua's post on the last page.

thanks, im having trouble with it

9/13/2006 3:02:04 PM

You have to establish either of the following (and cannot ignore this):

1) The Popular Mechanics article is factually, historically, logically, and/or scientifically deficient in its analysis.

2) That a more factually, historically, logically, and/or scientifically available analysis exists to support your conclusion.

9/13/2006 3:03:52 PM

Quote :

"because the MSM is involved in the ongoing cover-up."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

9/13/2006 3:04:21 PM

Quote :

"by saying the MSM is in on the conspiracy, are we just talking about the corporate execs or are we including everyone, even reporters?"

The higher-ups in the MSM call the shots and decide what gets reported and what doesn't. The
lower level employees either tow the line, or they lose their job. It's that simple. Then the only
journalists reporting the truth about these issues are independent journalists (who are not
given "credibility" by some because they're not employed by the "imminently trustworthy"
MSM).



[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 3:10 PM. Reason : 1]

9/13/2006 3:08:11 PM

Quote :

"You've invalidated the first statement with the second one."

I didn't mean to make those contradictory, just illustrating a built in mechanism that maintains silence on the issue.

Quote :

"What effect could they have on the all powerful, right?"

"All powerful" was an exageration on my part to make a point. "Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators" is more accurate.

Quote :

"the numerous low level individual members wouldn't have enough information to blow the whistle on anything"

Low level individuals are still a part of the chain of command and would have taken part in any kind of NORAD stand down, the fabrication of the thousands and thousands of pages relating to the 19 hijackers, or any other number of issues.

Quote :

"Further, if the MSM fears for its reputation as a source of accurate information (and it does), it's not going to report a story by some low-level former CIA operative with a very limited part of the story about a domestic involvement in the 9/11 plot."

If a CIA operative came out and said that he took part in the 9/11 attacks it would make the front page. Regardless, they would check his credentials and background to verify that he was who he claimed to be before sensationalizing his story.

Quote :

"Too much credibility would be given to one person who'd have totally unverifiable information. Besides, the guy could just be a whackjob with a fancy printer and authentic-looking identification."

Remember Jesse Macbeth? He bought a surplus uniform, stitched some patches to it, and made in onto TV by talking about attrocities that he claimed to have committed in Iraq as an army ranger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Quote :

"The higher-ups in the MSM call the shots and decide what gets reported and what doesn't."

Can you prove your baseless accusation?

9/13/2006 3:09:27 PM

that response to popular mechanics didnt answer shit, and showed its bias in the first line

9/13/2006 3:09:35 PM

and with that, its back to lurking...

9/13/2006 3:12:19 PM

salisburyboy - Could you please, PLEASE, answer my question. I really do want to understand why you think the story you believe is more credible than the official account.

---

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: "Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators" is more accurate."

It's just that the word superhuman smacks of the same biased language Prisonplanet uses. It's simply not superhuman. The director of the CIA, US Attorney General, President, Vice President, CEOs of news organization, and others do wield incredible resources. Incredible talents are required to get those jobs by their nature.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Low level individuals are still a part of the chain of command and would have taken part in any kind of NORAD stand down, the fabrication of the thousands and thousands of pages relating to the 19 hijackers, or any other number of issues."

1) As the official and crazy stories agree, NORAD couldn't have done shit about it with or without a stand down that day. No planes were near enough to intercept. No conspiracy is even necessary to explain that. Providence helped Al Qaeda in the official story. Providence could have also helped the N.W.O. and A.U.T.H.O.R.I.T.I.E.S. (whatever that stands for) in this case. A sinister explanation could support both allegations as well.

2) Why would document fabrication be necessary?

After 9/11, you didn't hear anybody in the intelligence community going around claiming: "We had no idea who these guys are." You heard them claiming: "We had no idea they were planning this." The reason is that these guys were known or suspected terrorists, who already had a dossier by the time of the strikes because of investigations into their activities that were ongoing.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: If a CIA operative came out and said that he took part in the 9/11 attacks it would make the front page. Regardless, they would check his credentials and background to verify that he was who he claimed to be before sensationalizing his story."

You would hope. But oddly enough, a CIA operative could also wander around today blissfully ignorant that the brown bag he carried to some drop point in Dallas had something to do with 9/11. The world of intelligence is notoriously compartmentalized, and extremely so.

Oddly enough, you immediately contradict the last part with the Jesse Macbeth story. I'm confused about what you believe about the media's ability to check on its sources. Would or wouldn't the news media require authentication of a CIA operative's identification if he suspected he was involved in 9/11's before publishing his story?

9/13/2006 3:34:47 PM

Quote :

"The director of the CIA, US Attorney General, President, Vice President, CEOs of news organization, and others do wield incredible resources. Incredible talents are required to get those jobs by their nature."

They do. Despite their power, it is still ridiculous to think that they could keep a massive conspiracy under wraps without a single leak.

Quote :

"As the official and crazy stories agree, NORAD couldn't have done shit about it with or without a stand down that day."

I agree with that completely. I'm referencing salisburyboys allegations that there was a NORAD stand down ordered that day and that they didn't follow standard operating procedure.

Quote :

"The reason is that these guys were known or suspected terrorists, who already had a dossier by the time of the strikes because of investigations into their activities that were ongoing."

True. They had massive dossiers on all of them. However, if salisburyboys theory is true, these guys were all patsies and the feds would have had to forge the massive paper trail that is discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Quote :

"You would hope. But oddly enough, a CIA operative could also wander around today blissfully ignorant that the brown bag he carried to some drop point in Dallas had something to do with 9/11."

True, but the 9/11 attacks were on such a scale that many low level operatives would have at least gotten clues that something was up.

Quote :

"Oddly enough, you immediately contradict the last part with the Jesse Macbeth story."

I'm just illustrating that if a story is sensational enough, fact checking often takes a back seat to getting the story out. The Dan Rather memo also comes to mind. I'm sure that the media would at least require some credentials if someone claiming to be a CIA operative came to them with a story like that.

9/13/2006 3:45:56 PM

Quote :

"In as few words as possible, why do you believe your account more credible than the 9/11 Comission report?"

Because the evidence supports such a conclusion. The evidence destroys the
"official" account, while pointing to a government cover-up and government involvement.


[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ``]

9/13/2006 3:47:21 PM

So have you actually read the entire 9/11 Commission Report or are you just dismissing it because it comes to a different conclusion than you?

9/13/2006 3:51:39 PM

Quote :

"Because the evidence supports such a conclusion. The evidence destroys the "official" account, while pointing to a government cover-up and government involvement."

what evidence!?!?!?! you have provided NO evidence at all.

9/13/2006 3:57:44 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: They do. Despite their power, it is still ridiculous to think that they could keep a massive conspiracy under wraps without a single leak."

1) It's easier with compartmentalized organizations like Al Qaeda and intelligence services.

2) We've established leaks are acceptable.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I agree with that completely. I'm referencing salisburyboys allegations that there was a NORAD stand down ordered that day and that they didn't follow standard operating procedure."

Ah. But that's where the true conspiracist would ask "Why weren't there any planes near enough to defend the capital?" And more to the point, "Who gave the orders?"

Remove the sinister insinuation in asking the question from your mind and follow wherever it leads. I certainly don't have any idea what the answer is. Both answers could be dead ends, and support the notion that no incompetence or malevolence involved. That just establishes that providence and not conspiracy were involved in this element of the story.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: True. They had massive dossiers on all of them. However, if salisburyboys theory is true, these guys were all patsies and the feds would have had to forge the massive paper trail that is discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report."

Why would they have had to forge what they already had?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: True, but the 9/11 attacks were on such a scale that many low level operatives would have at least gotten clues that something was up."

I mean to be polite about this, but isn't that inductive reasoning? What convinces you that they would've gotten clues about it? What convinces you the clues they received would be accurate? The clues could just as easily have been: "Ok, need you to drop these photos off for Mr. X. They're part of the evidence of an international drug trafficker moving a hundred kilos of heroin into the country."

It's a huge issue of credulity, and the seemingly arbitrary assignment of credulity or altruism to an individual who dabbles in the dark world of intelligence gathering. Mind, the fact that we have our own deception agents working for us--and we do--doesn't mean that they were complicit or even involved. I'm just saying that they could've been, and if done right, we'd never have a clue.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I'm just illustrating that if a story is sensational enough, fact checking often takes a back seat to getting the story out. The Dan Rather memo also comes to mind. I'm sure that the media would at least require some credentials if someone claiming to be a CIA operative came to them with a story like that."

No doubt. The media loves to sell papers and advertising, that's for sure. I think they'd have to authenticate the credentials of an agent with a story like that. But here's yet another rub: What are the odds a story like that would go to print?

The government doesn't have absolute control over the media, but it can influence the hell out of it. It took the NY Times a full year to release the story about the NSA Wiretaps, specifically at the government's request. That suggests, to me at least, that the government exerts at least some authority over what stories can be released and when, especially regarding national security.

---

Quote :

"salisburyboy: Because the evidence supports such a conclusion. The evidence destroys the "official" account, while pointing to a government cover-up and government involvement."

Questions that come to mind:

1) Does the presence of a government cover-up insinuate that the entire government was behind it?

2) What elements of the "official" account are questionable evidence or exhibit faulty reasoning on the part of the investigation?

3) Most importantly, what evidence tying the events of 9/11 to inside elements of the government can you provide?

9/13/2006 4:14:19 PM

Quote :

"1) Does the presence of a government cover-up insinuate that the entire government was behind it?"

No, not necessarily. And I have never said that the entire government was intimitely involved
in carrying out the attacks. Most likely, only a small portion of the government (eg, high-level FBI,
CIA, etc.) had prior knoledge of the attacks or was involved in planning and executing the
attacks. Nevertheless, nearly all elements within the government are involved in the ensuing
cover-up.

Quote :

"2) What elements of the "official" account are questionable evidence or exhibit faulty reasoning on the part of the investigation?"

Many elements. For starters, the phony "bin Laden" tape from December 2001 that was used as
the "smoking gun proof" of bin Laden's guilt. The tape clearly shows a bin Laden impersonator.
Other tapes purportedly showing bin Laden taking credit for the attacks are fake and/or
doctored and mistranslated. Then you have the government lying about the cause of the collapse
of the 3 WTC buildings (or, as in the case of WTC 7, almost comletely ignoring it)....and covering
up the Mossad/Israeli connections to the 9/11 attack.

Quote :

"3) Most importantly, what evidence tying the events of 9/11 to inside elements of the government can you provide?"

First off, the fact that the government is actively covering up the truth about 9/11 signals that
they are connected to the real culprits. Then you have the stand down of NORAD and the U.S.
Air Defense on 9/11. And the deliberate hindering of investigations into suspected "terrorists"
inside the U.S. just prior to 9/11 (many of these "terrorists" were actually Mossad agents).


It is important to emphasize the fact that the real masterminds of the 9/11 attack is not a rouge
element within the Bush Administration. Our government is under the control of powerful Jewish
interests behind the scenes (connected to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank). These
Zionist Jewish interests masterminded the 9/11 attack. On an operational level, the Mossad, U.S.
intelligence, and high-level U.S. Government officials carried out the attack.


[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : 2]

9/13/2006 4:39:30 PM

9/13/2006 4:42:04 PM

Quote :

"It's easier with compartmentalized organizations like Al Qaeda and intelligence services."

You're taking compartmentalization too far. You can't carry out something on the scale of 9/11 simply by having someone drop off a brown bag in Dallas. You're painting low level intelligence operatives as delivery boys. A huge number of people are going to be hard at work building a case against the 19 arabs, tying it into Osama bin Laden, studying controlled demolition, figuring out how to crash planes from afar, et cetera, et cetera. 9/11 was one of the most significant events of the past several decades, obviously they would strive for a level of perfection that would require a massive amount of man-hours to pull off.

Quote :

"But that's where the true conspiracist would ask "Why weren't there any planes near enough to defend the capital?" And more to the point, "Who gave the orders?""

You would think so, but salisburyboy is sticking with an air defense stand down.

Quote :

"Why would they have had to forge what they already had?"

Why would they already have dossiers that painted 19 innocent arabs as fanatical terrorists?

Quote :

"I mean to be polite about this, but isn't that inductive reasoning? What convinces you that they would've gotten clues about it? What convinces you the clues they received would be accurate? The clues could just as easily have been: "Ok, need you to drop these photos off for Mr. X. They're part of the evidence of an international drug trafficker moving a hundred kilos of heroin into the country.""

Again, you're painting low level intelligence operatives as delivery boys. Obviously at some point in the chain of command someone is going to see that they are performing a mission that involves arabs, airplanes, explosives, the world trade center, etc.

Quote :

"The government doesn't have absolute control over the media, but it can influence the hell out of it. It took the NY Times a full year to release the story about the NSA Wiretaps, specifically at the government's request. That suggests, to me at least, that the government exerts at least some authority over what stories can be released and when, especially regarding national security."

Wiretapping could be covered up under the guise of national security. However, if the NY Times were about to print a front page article about the US murdering 3,000 people to justify an invasion of Afghanistan, I doubt that the government would be able to keep it under wraps.

9/13/2006 4:47:35 PM

Quote :

"salisburyboy: No, not necessarily. And I have never said that the entire government was intimitely involved in carrying out the attacks. Most likely, only a small portion of the government (eg, high-level FBI, CIA, etc.) had prior knoledge of the attacks or was involved in planning and executing the attacks. Nevertheless, nearly all elements within the government are involved in the ensuing cover-up."

1) To what degree do you think the elements of the government involved in the coverup are knowledgeable of that fact?

2) What are some examples of covering it up?

3) For each example: To what degree do you ascribe intent behind the specific action on the person/agency's part to "cover up" the truth?

Quote :

"salisburyboy: Many elements. For starters, the phony "bin Laden" tape from December 2001 that was used as the "smoking gun proof" of bin Laden's guilt. The tape clearly shows a bin Laden impersonator."

What about that man and his behavior makes it clear that he is an impersonator?

Quote :

"salisburyboy: Other tapes purportedly showing bin Laden taking credit for the attacks are fake and/or doctored and mistranslated."

What evidence supports these claims? You're talking about a lot of tapes.

Quote :

"salisburyboy: Then you have the government lying about the cause of the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings (or, as in the case of WTC 7, almost comletely ignoring it)"

What evidence do you have to support the notion that they've lied or ignored about the cause of each collapse?

Quote :

"salisburyboy: and covering up the Mossad/Israeli connections to the 9/11 attack."

I know of no such connections, but that doesn't establish they don't exist.

1) What evidence supports the idea of their involvement?

2) What evidence supports the idea that our intelligence agencies were aware of it?

3) What evidence supports the idea that we covered it up?

9/13/2006 4:49:15 PM

Quote :

"What about that man and his behavior makes it clear that he is an impersonator?"

Here is a CNN article referring to a Dec. 2001 video tape that supposedly shows bin Laden taking
credit for the 9/11 attacks:

CNN: "Bin Laden on tape: Attacks 'benefited Islam greatly'
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/

Now, take a close look at picture of the man from that tape that is purportedly the real Osama bin
Laden. Here is a comparison of the photo of the man from that video tape and a photo of the real
Osama bin Laden:



It is obvious that the man from the Dec. 2001 tape is not the real Osama bin Laden.

Quote :

"What evidence supports these claims? You're talking about a lot of tapes."

This tape for starters...

BBC: "Bin Laden tape 'not genuine'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm

Quote :

"What evidence do you have to support the notion that they've lied or ignored about the cause of each collapse?"

Well, obviously, because the government is promoting the "pancake theory" and covering up
the evidence of explosives in the WTC towers and the demolition of WTC 7.

Quote :

"1) What evidence supports the idea of their involvement?"

There are many "mainstream" articles that initially reported on the Mossad/Israeli connection
to 9/11. Not much has been reported by the MSM since shortly after 9/11.

Google "5 Dancing Israelis" or read these articles...

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/13/story23625.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm


For someone who probably knows all of this, these questions are really getting a little ridiculous. Are you trying to waste my time, gather information for your book, or what?

9/13/2006 5:01:27 PM

Have about you google

"paranoia"

9/13/2006 5:04:57 PM

Quote :

"It is obvious that the man from the Dec. 2001 tape is not the real Osama bin Laden."

No, it is not obvious.

There's a Seinfeld in which Jerry dates a woman who looked either hot or butt ugly dependent only on the lighting. The point being--something like different lighting angle/intensity/hue can make the same person look completely different.





But you probably don't watch Seinfeld, him being Jewish and all.

9/13/2006 5:12:59 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You're taking compartmentalization too far."

I disagree. For the rest of your rant:

"You can't carry out something on the scale of 9/11 simply by having someone drop off a brown bag in Dallas."

No shit. Didn't say you could.

"You're painting low level intelligence operatives as delivery boys."

They are sometimes. Other times they are assassins. Other times they are newspaper owners.

"A huge number of people are going to be hard at work building a case against the 19 arabs, tying it into Osama bin Laden, studying controlled demolition, figuring out how to crash planes from afar, et cetera, et cetera."

You're ignoring a "need-to-know" basis, an element of pretty much every intelligence outfit (including Al Qaeda". A person at work building the case against 19 arabs--which I'll submit that they wouldn't have to do at all--doesn't have to know about controlled demolition.

"9/11 was one of the most significant events of the past several decades, obviously they would strive for a level of perfection that would require a massive amount of man-hours to pull off."

How does requiring a massive number of man-hours necessitate that those involved would know what they were working on?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Why would they already have dossiers that painted 19 innocent arabs as fanatical terrorists?"

Perhaps because they weren't innocent. You've confused the fact that they could be innocent of carrying out 9/11 with the fact that they were guilty of other things, which warranted suspicion on the part of our intelligence services and created a paper trail.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Obviously at some point in the chain of command someone is going to see that they are performing a mission that involves arabs, airplanes, explosives, the world trade center, etc."

Yes, at SOME point. What makes you think that point would be among the low-level intelligence operatives?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Wiretapping could be covered up under the guise of national security. However, if the NY Times were about to print a front page article about the US murdering 3,000 people to justify an invasion of Afghanistan, I doubt that the government would be able to keep it under wraps."

What if it had to do with national security?

9/13/2006 5:15:00 PM

Quote :

"You're ignoring a "need-to-know" basis, an element of pretty much every intelligence outfit"

And I'm sure that works great on covert operations. However, I have enough faith in the intelligence of intelligence operatives to hope that they would be able to see the significance of their actions in light of the 9/11 attacks. Its ridiculous to think that it would be possible to keep any possible whistle blowers in the dark.

Quote :

"How does requiring a massive number of man-hours necessitate that those involved would know what they were working on?"

The more personnel that you devote to an operation like that, the more likely one of them is to figure it out.

Quote :

"Perhaps because they weren't innocent. You've confused the fact that they could be innocent of carrying out 9/11 with the fact that they were guilty of other things, which warranted suspicion on the part of our intelligence services and created a paper trail."

I'm merely presenting [user]salisbury[/user]s notion that they were all innocent moronic arabs who chosen as patsies by the zionists because of their incompetence.

Quote :

"Yes, at SOME point. What makes you think that point would be among the low-level intelligence operatives?"

You're putting all of your emphasis on the lowest level of intelligence workers. There are many different levels between "low level" and "inner circle" and not everyone above low level is going to be part of the plot.

Quote :

"What if it had to do with national security?"

How could it? The murder of 3000 innocent people to provoke a war solely for a political agenda is treason.

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

9/13/2006 6:23:38 PM

salisburyboy:

1) Here is a CNN article referring to a Dec. 2001 video tape that supposedly shows bin Laden taking credit for the 9/11 attacks:

I read the article. The video link doesn't work anymore. The picture on their site that alleges to show Bin Laden isn't exactly convincing either:



He looks more like a shadowy figure wearing a white turban in the background. If the stills you show are actually from the December 2001 tape, the first in which he claimed responsibility, and the other photos you're showing are not doctored and are from the same time period, I'll grant that I can agree they could be different people.

2) This tape for starters...

Ok. Let's objectively look at what you've given me. I can't ignore that it was authenticated by the CIA & NSA, so I'm granting you a premise card. Your premise is that the CIA and NSA, or some officials therein, were involved in the attacks on 9/11.

Now that it's stated, I can move on and accept that a Swiss research team of good credentials could find that one audio tape is 'not genuine.' But that raises a question in my mind. How many other tapes have been analyzed by how many other different independent institutions?

As I said originally, there are a lot of tapes.

3) Well, obviously, because the government is promoting the "pancake theory" and covering up
the evidence of explosives in the WTC towers and the demolition of WTC 7.

What is scientifically unsound about the "pancake theory?"

My understanding is that heavy, large, flat surfaces will fall straight down on top of one another when confined within the same vertical space when the structure's support system is sufficiently diminished. What about that basic understanding violates science?

You assert that there were explosives in the WTC towers. What is the complete account of evidence you have to back up that claim?

What is your complete account of the evidence that WTC 7 was demolished?

4) There are many "mainstream" articles that initially reported on the Mossad/Israeli connection
to 9/11. Not much has been reported by the MSM since shortly after 9/11.

It took some effort, but I did my homework. It looks like the Israeli Mossad--and this is according to the Guest Host of a show on Fox News on November 29, 2002--is "essentially an assassination squad." Other enlightening gems from that interview include that it "could be a very different war on terrorism with the Israelis actively involved" in the planning of our intelligence ops, and that "Even the Shiite and the Sunni groups work with each other to achieve common objectives." Truly an interesting read to say the least.

The interview ended with a questioning of the intelligence of Al Qaeda, and whether they foresaw the dramatic polarization between the US & Israel vs. Pan-Arab conflict's sides.

If it appeared on Fox News, I'll give you that it's worth noting.

Of course, this leads to an inevitable question: What convinces you that Israeli involvement is malevolent?

I've also got to admit, you've pointed out a good resource for the breaking headlines on 9/11: http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/13/world.asp


5) Are you trying to waste my time, gather information for your book, or what?

I'm actually just trying to piece together for myself what exactly your premise is. I'm actually trying to understand first of all, what exactly you believe happened. To be totally honest, I read so much from you about what didn't happen, that I don't think I have a complete account about what you do.

Here's what you've established to a pretty skeptical Pyrrhonist:

(1) I can't completely trust the official account.

Agreement Level: 100%

Governments have agendas. Individuals have agendas. Given the involvement of so many intelligence officials in the process of discovery for the commission's findings, I'd have to say that it wouldn't be hard for at least a few facts to be out of order, misrepresented, or outright false.

(2) The intelligence services of our country and other countries know more about why 9/11 happened than they've disclosed to the public.

Agreement Level: 100%

Information is more powerful than weapons in this world. The intelligence agencies of all countries and particularly our own are and have been aware of that forever. As such, I can find it highly probable that they know more than we do. Classifying information leaves room for nothing but speculation.

(3) ...or disclosed to the 9/11 Commission.

Agreement Level: 25%

You reach here, but you don't state it, or don't realize that you do it. Some of what was told to the 9/11 Commission was classified. Anything you speculate or want to grant as a premise must deal with this issue in a rational manner. You have to disclose that while some of the evidence you present may be factual, and raise doubts about the official account, the hypothesis you create carries a degree of uncertainty with it. It doesn't rule it out completely. That'd be illogical to say at this point. But that doesn't grant your hypothesis as true either. I'll deal with more of that later.

(4) The figure in the December 13, 2001 video is difficult to establish as bin Laden;

Agreement Level: ?

Until I see the video, it's going to be difficult to say for sure. Because I can't tell anything from the photo I posted, and have nothing but his appearance to judge by, I'll say I'm still at about 50/50 on it being him. I need to see the video, and know more about Bin Laden's behavior, mannerisms, speech patterns, and also the quality of experts who've established that the man in the video isn't Bin Laden.

As we're going through the evidence, I'd like to ask you to do a simple thing. I know you'll find it difficult and complicated, but it would be worth your while. Could you please write your complete hypothesis down and post it along with your own assessment of the probability that it's true (as a %)?

9/13/2006 8:40:02 PM

Mr. Joshua: And I'm sure that works great on covert operations.

The official account is that 9/11 was a covert operation...carried out by Al Qaeda, established as a highly compartmentalized organization. Given how little information the Pentagon and CIA have given us, we are free to speculate it's as likely as anything else that many of the hijackers may not have known of the full plot until that morning, and many of them may not have know each other.

Especially if we don't commit ourselves to any conclusions, and don't stupidly form hypotheses.

Mr. Joshua: However, I have enough faith in the intelligence of intelligence operatives to hope that they would be able to see the significance of their actions in light of the 9/11 attacks.

Faith and hope are emotional phenomenon more related to the realm of belief, not rational deduction.

Mr. Joshua: Its ridiculous to think that it would be possible to keep any possible whistle blowers in the dark.

You, me, and salisburyboy agree here.

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2006 9:30:12 PM