Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
>
Was 9/11 a false flag attack and 'Inside Job'? (GROUP POLL RESULT: 50% of you say YES)
Harry wrote: "Goldenpetal wrote: "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexper..."Thanks. Sure, I'm aware of the Iran-Contra Affair. Not sure how you mean that ties into this topic though! :)"
the U.S gave them weapons
In Dr. Judy D. Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11, she presents the idea that invisible, Telsa-like technologies where used to bring the Twin Towers down. In the 1920s, Nikola Tesla worked on a directed-energy weapon (DEW) he called a teleforce gun. 21st Century researchers now refer to this device as the Tesla Death Ray. Many believe it was stolen from Tesla and used by the military; and many believe it remains in use today – possibly in a more advanced form.
More info about this theory about 9/11 in this thread here:
Fringe science > Directed energy weapons https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
After 16 years, 9/11 Truth Movement fights on http://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/g...Article excerpt:
"Surging publicity surrounding WTC 7 and debate on why the steel-reinforced building came down in a free-fall motion, like all structures subjected to controlled demolition would, upgraded the 9/11 Truth Movement from a bunch of “conspiracy theorists” who lacked credibility to a group of people who should be taken seriously."
"A growing number of scientists, engineers, architects and academics have questioned the US government's official story that Middle Eastern fanatics carried out the worst terrorist attack on American soil."
Interesting quotes from the synopsis to Jim Marrs' book, guys... The revelations of former New Jersey attorney General John Farmer, who served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission: "At some level of the government, at some point in time. . .there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened." Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean's suspicions of deceit: "We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth." The European scientists' determination that there was nano-thermite in the World Trade Center debris, a high explosive generally available only through the US military. Pilots For 9/11 Truth's findings that Flight 77's flight deck door was never opened during flight, and their conclusion that hijackers could not have accessed the cockpit.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9...
The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 & the Loss of Liberty
How do the pilots know the cockpit doors were not opened when they were obviously not on the flight and only debris survived the tragedy? It's quite a statement to make.
David wrote: "How do the pilots know the cockpit doors were not opened when they were obviously not on the flight and only debris survived the tragedy? It's quite a statement to make."I'm not personally saying this is definitive or conclusive (as it's above my head, technically speaking), but here's what the organization 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' says:
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
[1] Hijacker Timeline - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/in...
[2] Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001 - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon...
Flight data? You mean there's a ground to air method of determining when or if the cockpit door is opened? So on an ordinary flight in 2001 when cabin crew were bringing coffee to the pilots ground control were notified the cockpit doors were opening? Or was this black box data? This information would prove beyond doubt other forces were at work on the flights so it's verification is critical. Does evidence exist on a print-out from a air traffic control computer or from any other source?
Was the event of 9/11 effectively an act of global _________?NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: 9/11 and Global Consciousness http://voices.nationalgeographic.org/...
Article excerpt:
Chances are, you probably remember exactly what you were doing on the morning of September 11, 2001, at the moment when you first learned about the attack on the World Trade Center. And if you were one of the millions who stared in horror at the television images of smoke billowing from the crippled towers, you undoubtedly can recall the intense, excruciatingly painful surge of grief and anger and sadness that you felt.
You may be surprised, however, to learn that Princeton University researchers believe that so many people around the world were affected in the same way that their collective mental energy actually altered the operation of computers.
Those findings, which have aroused some controversy in the scientific world, were produced by Princeton’s Global Consciousness Project, whose goal is to determine whether, and if so to what extent, human consciousness—that is, our minds’ awareness of the world in which we exist—can synchronize and act coherently.
Howard Stern is having fun on air...THEN 9/11 HAPPENS! (Radio History) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBKxG...The above is an interesting way to reconsider 9/11 as it follows the events in real time from the beginning...
And shows how a plane flew into the Pentagon in D.C. 48 minutes AFTER the Twin Towers were hit in NYC...Is that really possible? (Hopefully that's a rhetorical question...) Even on their absolute worst day, can the US AirForce and various other military defence systems of the most powerful, expensive military superpower in history really be THAT incompetent?
Or...
24 hard facts about 9/11 http://www.hangthebankers.com/24-hard...9/11 has been one of the biggest events in recent history that sparked a mass awakening across the world.
There has been much debate as to how it happened, who is responsible and why.
To this day about 1/3 of americans do not believe the official story.
In other areas of the world as much as 90% of the country does not believe the official story.
Here is a list of 24 facts that cannot be debunked about 9/11.
1) Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero. Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’
2) 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation. Richard Gage, Founder. ‘Explosive Evidence’, ‘Blueprint for Truth’, ‘AE911′, ‘Toronto Hearings’, ‘Kevin Ryan’.
3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′.
4) Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 while running war games. ‘Stand down order’. “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?”. Norman Minetta testimony. “Gave order to shootdown Flight 93.”, ‘NORAD Drills’.
5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”, ‘Max Cleland resigned’, ‘John Farmer’.
6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly missing a frame. ‘Sheraton Hotel’, “Double tree’, ‘Citgo”.
7) Osama Bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” CIA created, trained and funded “Al Qaeda/Taliban” during the Mujahideen. OBL was a CIA asset named ‘Tim Osman’. OBL Reported dead in Dec 2001 (FOX).
8) 100′s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. 9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. “Explosions in the lobby and sub levels”, ‘Firefighter explosions’, ‘Barry Jennings’, ‘William Rodriguez’.
9) 100′s of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN METAL ignored by the Commission report. “Like you’re in a foundry”, “NIST’s John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal”, ‘Swiss Cheese’, “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Leslie Robertson’.
10) ’5 Dancing Israeli’s’ arrested in ‘Mossad Truck Bombs’ on 9/11 that stated “We were there to document the event.” ‘Urban Moving Systems’ front company, ‘Dominic Suter’. “$498,750 Business loan (June 2001)”. “Officer DeCarlo’, ‘Art Students’, ‘Israeli Spying’.
11) On September 10th, 2001. Rumsfeld reported $2.3 TRILLION missing from the Pentagon. ‘Dov Zakheim’ Pentagon Comptroller. Former VP of ‘Systems Planning Corporation’ (Flight Termination System). Signatore of PNAC document.
12) 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials question the official story. ’9/11 Whistleblowers’, ‘Patriots for 9/11′. ‘Robert Bowman’, ‘Sibel Edmonds’, ‘Albert Stubblebine’, ‘Wesley Clark’, ‘Mark Dayton’, ‘Alan Sabrosky’, ‘Cyntha McKinney’, ‘Jesse Ventura’, ‘Kurt Sonnenfeld’. “patriotsquestion911.com”
3) Towers were built to withstand a Boeing jet(s). “I designed it for a 707 to hit it”, Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. “Could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”, “like a pencil puncturing screen netting” Frank De Martini, deceased Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management. “As far as a plane knocking a building over, that would not happen.” Charlie Thornton, Structural Engineer.
14) History of American False Flag attacks. ‘USS Liberty’, ‘Gulf of Tonkin’, ‘Operation Northwoods’, ‘OKC Bombing (Murrah Building)’, ’1993 WTC attacks’. ‘Patrick Clawson’. Project for the New American Century (PNAC) needed “a New Pearl Harbor”, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. 9/11 Achieved those goals.
15) BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the collapse of WTC 7 (Soloman Brothers building) 20 minutes before it happened. CNN/FOX/MSNBC also had early reports. ‘BBC wtc 7′, ‘Jane Standley’, Ashleigh Banfield’.
16) “Flight 93″ debris was spread out over many miles. Cheney admits to giving the order to shootdown 93. “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” Rumsfeld, “nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there” ‘Chris Konicki. “Not a drop of blood” Coroner Wallace Miller. “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull.
17) Bush hesitated for 441 days before starting the 911 Commission. ‘Jersey Girls’. ‘Phil Zelikow’ already wrote the outline before the commission began. Steel shipped over seas. Obstruction of justice. JFK and Pearl Harbor commissions were started within 7 days.
18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds. $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. (Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica).
19) Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom. “The TV was obviously on.” Was informed about the second impact while reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to the children. Remained for at least 8 more minutes while America was under “attack”.
20) The PATRIOT ACT was written before 9/11. Signed into law October 26th, 2001.
21) Marvin Bush was director of Stratasec (Securacom, ‘KuAm’) which was in charge of security of the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. All three were breached on 9/11. ICTS was another company that provided security at the airports. ‘Wirt Walker’, ‘Ezra Harel’, ‘ICTS”, ‘WTC power downs’.
22) “Who killed John O’Neil?”. Former FBI task force agent investigating Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. Transferred by Kroll Corporation to head the security just before 9/11. John O’Neil died in the Towers. ‘Jerome Hauer’ ‘Jules Kroll’.
23) Insider trading based upon foreknowledge. ‘Put Options.’ Never identified insiders made millions. ‘United and American Airlines’ ‘Raytheon.’
24) At least 7 of the 19 listed highjackers are still alive (BBC). No video footage of 19 highjackers or passengers boarding the 4 planes. Pilots of the 4 planes never squawked the highjacking code. ‘Alive highjackers’, ‘ACARS’, ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’.
WTC 7 (The Smoking Gun)
http://rememberbuilding7.org/
Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex.
Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States.
It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001 in 6.5 Seconds at free fall acceleration.
It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.
24 hard facts about 9/11 http://www.hangthebankers.com/24-hard...
US Army General Whistle Blower Reveals Facts of 9/11 World Trade Center/Pentagon Attacks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT9-j...
Were planes even used in the attack? I keep seeing more and more convincing footage and arguments that they weren't, like this short vid:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W3y3...
Forgive me for asking this if it’s already been covered (I may have missed it), but in the books listed here, do any go into tangible reasons why the US government would go to such great lengths (and risk public loyalty) to find an excuse to invade Iraq? Other than oil...or is it really all about the oil? I find it hard to believe that the US would risk such an outrage of the American people simply to acquire land to test weapons (as suggested in a previous post). Other than financial payoffs with insider trading, and payouts discussed previously, and oil, what would be the motive? And do the previously listed books go into the implication that the “hijackers” were Saudi Arabian? Where does Israel fit into this puzzle?Thanks to those who’ve studied this extensively for directing me to answers to these questions. After intensive research of the pharmaceutical industry, and the FDA’s ties to Big Pharma (which crosses party lines), I too am highly skeptical that the American public has been told the truth regarding 9/11. I don’t know why anyone would trust mainstream news media (of which is 70% funded through advertising by Big Pharma in non-election years); it’s obvious to me our government thinks we are all “dumb and dumber.”
I will add that I don’t believe ISIS is made up, knowing an FBI agent who headed a department in Afghanistan last year.
Has anyone read this memoir by a former-FBI agent who said 9/11 was completely mishandled? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/...
I agree with Vanessa totally. George W. did not need 9/11 to take out Sadam H. Did we miss clues, you bet. Is our government attacking it's own citizens. No credible evidence exists. Does this mean I doubt all false flag operations. No it does not. However, let's concentrate on facts and proof.
It's always such a compliment to common people that we (usually) cannot conceive of such monstrous acts against our fellow citizens. To us, it's completely unthinkable and rightly so. But just like when detectives try to solve murder cases, we as truthseekers must force ourselves to think like criminals instead of from our own (non-sociopathic) mindset. The other thing we must guard against, in my opinion, is assuming entire governments or entire intelligence agencies commit such crimes as false flag operations. My firm belief is about 99% of staff of almost any governmental administration is usually on the side of the People and would never even consider such evil acts. But it's that shady 1%, the rotten eggs at the top of the pyramid, that usurp or override the otherwise good work these administrations do.
And that shadow government always goes way above Presidents like George W. Bush just like it did when JFK was in power. Furthermore, such false flag operations are usually about various things (often over the long-term) rather than just the obvious reported things (e.g. starting a new Iraq War). For example, the military bonanza and profits are still pouring into the Military Industrial Complex long after Iraq - just investigate defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, for one thing. But many serious investigators also believe 9/11 goes much deeper than such ordinary "spoils of war", especially since the post 9/11 world is radically different than what might have been...
It’s a cunning Warren Commission-style tactic, when there is such a strong body of evidence to support 9/11 POTENTIALLY being an inside job (note I didn’t say it definitely was), to attempt to shut down what is probably the most important debate of our era (given how many wars and acts of military aggression have been, and continue to be, inspired by that single historical event in 2001) just because there is no smoking gun (yet).
Some theories have little to no evidence that they amount to pure speculation or tinfoil hat-style conjecture. Such concepts often deserve to be shut down or laughed at or actively debunked.
9/11 is definitely not such a theory. Given all the contradictory evidence that tens of thousands of investigators/aviation experts etc believe refutes the official story, 9/11 is in fact far closer to the assassinations of JFK and Princess Diana (which repeated mainstream media polls have revealed most Americans and Brits disbelieve the official stories of, even tho there is also no definitive proof in either case).
Before making instant dismissals, we also must look at, and learn from, recent history.
Here are just a few recent historical events that not only prove 9/11 being an inside job is entirely possible, but also essentially debunk the naïve or else uber-patriotic lines of thought which trust our leaders to never attack their nation’s citizens:
The U.S. Military’s official proposal to kill American civilians, bomb U.S. cities and fly planes into buildings in staged terrorist attacks (Operation Northwoods declassified) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Operation Gladio - the CIA's and NATO's (declassified) terrorist-sponsoring program in Europe https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident - The NSA-admitted false flag that began the Vietnam War https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
(Note that the orchestrated/engineered Vietnam War dwarves 9/11’s deathtoll in that it cost 60,000 US lives and untold American casualties, not to mention 3,000,000 North Vietnamese lives).
Besides all the highly-unusual (insider?) stock market trading that occurred on the day before 9/11, there is also the trillions of dollars Donald Rumsfeld announced was missing from the Pentagon’s budget on September 10, 2011 (which by sheer “coincidence” all financial records of which were destroyed at the Pentagon the very next day…)
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...
James wrote: "It's always such a compliment to common people that we (usually) cannot conceive of such monstrous acts against our fellow citizens. To us, it's completely unthinkable and rightly so. But just like..."I could not agree more. On your point on the commission tactics, I think they're created solely to scuttle the evidence and create the new myth that will cover it all up.
As Tristan says in PATRIOTS, “These commissions are GENIUS. First Warren and now this one. Scuttle the most damning facts. Don’t seek to connect the dots, draw lines of confusion between them, add more dots, lots more, the irrelevant, the unsubstantiated, the made up. Don’t approach the thing to solve it, but to make it messier. Denser. Too long to read. Only then connect a few dots, some that you’ve added out of your ass, to show the preexisting story you were commissioned to tell. Don’t worry—The People will trust you.”
Patriots: Book One A Novel
Great stuff, James. Are you publishing anything on this?
John wrote: "Great stuff, James. Are you publishing anything on this?"Already have to a degree in The Orphan Conspiracies.
Will also cover 9/11 anomalies in future podcast episodes on YouTube (free for everyone to listen to). Planning on bringing on a lot more whistleblowers on that score.
'North Tower Exploding' is a celebrated video made by David Chandler for AE911Truth:https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc
(5 mins)
Chandler says that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosions which cut the support columns, so that when the falling mass reached each story it encountered no resistance. Hence the collapse took place at or near "free fall", and a lot of debris was blown out laterally.
Am I right in thinking that this is the main Truth Movement theory of how the twin towers were demolished?
Vanessa wrote: "...in the books listed here, do any go into tangible reasons why the US government would go to such great lengths (and risk public loyalty) to find an excuse to invade Iraq?"'Risking public loyalty' is putting it mildly. In fact they were all risking their necks that nothing would go wrong, none of them would break ranks, and nothing substantial would ever leak out. They must have had very strong motives.
Ken wrote: "'North Tower Exploding' is a celebrated video made by David Chandler for AE911Truth:https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc
(5 mins)
Chandler says that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosio..."
That's one of dozens of theories put forward by such architects or engineers, or whatever Chandler is, that I've come across. Also, in that video, Chandler is more pointing out various anomalies in the official story in terms of the visuals, rather than outlining any of his theories in detail.
And of course he's only 1 guy in the tens of thousands of architects, engineers, firemen, policemen, scientists, pilots, etc, etc, who have signed petitions (mostly in the US) to say they categorically do not believe the US Govt's official explanation for 9/11. So as you can imagine, within the context of so many different experts or witnesses of the event, there are various scientific or pseudoscientific theories going around in the 9/11 Truth movement as to how the Inside Job (if indeed it was an inside job on some level, even if only a small dark splinter group within highest echelon of US govt/military/intel) was pulled off.
Thanks, James. Let me be more specific then. What is the main theory favored in the Journal of 9/11 Studies regarding the top-down demolition of the twin towers at "near free fall acceleration"?Something more than generalities must be proposed if it is to be compared against the Official Government Story.
Ken wrote: "Thanks, James. Let me be more specific then. What is the main theory favored in the Journal of 9/11 Studies regarding the top-down demolition of the twin towers at "near free fall acceleration"?..."
No idea. Sounds like you know the specifics of that document tho... And it also sounds like you want a specific answer as well? And that you are trying to narrow the whole massive field of 9/11 investigation down to just one theory or one document and argue within the narrow context you set the parameters for?
So I would assume the Journal of 9/11 Studies would cover a few or just one of the untold theories I mentioned in previous post on all the weird 9/11 anomalies? For example, I doubt it includes the work of US scientist Dr. Judy Wood who wrote Where Did the Towers Go?: Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11?
Therefore, debunking or attempting to debunk one 9/11 counter theory, or even 50%, does not make the entire vast mysterious event full of bizarre anomalies/coincidences and "first time evers" go away...no matter how much diehard patriots, warmongers and Government officials want it to.
I feel it very unlikely, I'd give it maybe a 1-5% chance, but I remain open to 9/11 being exactly as stated. However, it requires a shitload of coincidences for the official story to be true - a bit like the US Govt's official explanation on JFK, only even more coincidences and first time evers...In fact, the Warren Commissions infamous "magic bullet theory" designed to describe how Oswald killed JFK, has got nothing on the 9/11 Commission's explanation of 9/11, I would argue....
One of the best summaries, and well-researched albeit within a short satirical YouTube video, would be this video here which covers most of the strange coincidences that would have all needed to have occurred without orchestration for the US Govt's official story on 9/11 to be true:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4...
If anyone is prepared to keep an open mind, dive in deep on the research and discuss all these interrelated unexplained events surrounding 9/11, then I'm all ears.
I am trying to concentrate on what caused the top-down collapse of the twin towers, which after all was the main event of 9/11.There is broad agreement among Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman and most front-rank truthers. The consensus does not extend to Judy Wood, James Fetzer and others who are regarded as cranks (and possibly shills) by the mainstream.
I would like to discuss the ideas of the serious researchers.
Ken wrote: "I am trying to concentrate on what caused the top-down collapse of the twin towers, which after all was the main event of 9/11.There is broad agreement among Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Kevi..."
Yeah, I realize that, but sometimes those who are regarded as too far out-there, are in time understood to be correct (occasionally admittedly, but sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction). For example, people in the 1950s who claimed mind control technologies were 100% real and being conducted by the CIA, were labelled cranks and conspiracy nuts in that decade. By the 1970s however, when the CIA declassifed, or accidentally released, documents that proved mind control tech was real (e.g. MK-Ultra), the mainstream had to adjust their ideas. Likewise with Operation Paperclip and the protection of high-level Nazis including known war criminals post WW2 (again, the concept that the US/UK governments would ever collude with Nazis post-WW2 was formerly a batshit crazy idea).
Not saying I necessarily believe Judy Wood, but just giving it as an example of how the 9/11 debate should not automatically be narrowed down to any specific parameters (set by anyone, myself included).
Likewise, I don't think the 9/11 inside job theory should simply be a discussion about one thing like how the towers collapsed. In a fair and fullsome analysis (i.e. what the 9/11 commission should have done!) it should include a thorough investigation of all the anomalies of 9/11...So to name but a few off the top of my head, it'd include things like how the US air defense system failed to activate on the day, how Building 7 fell and there were reports it was "pulled" (demolition term for controlled demolition), as well as the monetary links to 9/11 like the vast insider trading reported/rumoured in the days/hours before 9/11, as well the missing trillions Rumsfeld announced from Pentagon budget the day before 9/11 which the Pentagon crash wiped out all records of the next day...Not to mention things like the BBC reporting Building 7 falling 20 mins before it actually fell...
Again, this 9/11 satirical research video does a very good job in my opinion in listing many of these anomalies/coincidences that need to be discussed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4... (If anyone is open to having a wide comprehensive debate on all these different interrelated 9/11 mysteries, then let's go for it...bring it on!)
I do agree with what you brought up about shills. that must be taken very seriously as intel. agencies are now on the record as conducting sophisticated misinformation/disinformation campaigns to attempt to distort the truth (research the NSA methods of infiltrating the UFO movement at MUFON conferences via now declassified documents, as one example).
The other problem with the specifics of engineering theories, is few if anyone in this group is likely to be able to argue those details to prove one way or another. It's high-level scientific analysis that I personally wouldn't comment on - not being scientific.
However, it is fascinating that so many (as in tens of thousands last time I checked) architects, engineers, scientists, demolition experts, not to mention pilots and NYC firemen/cops, have signed statements to say the official 9/11 story cannot be possible. Just like JFK assassination where you had so many physics and ballistics experts commenting over decades that the lone gunmen idea was BS, I wonder if we are heading toward another debunk of official govt story with 9/11?
We can never refine, test and ascertain particulars if we always talk about generalities. The only way forward is to take one step at a time. The alternative is to fall flat on our faces.I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Ken wrote: "We can never refine, test and ascertain particulars if we always talk about generalities. The only way forward is to take one step at a time. The alternative is to fall flat on our faces.I'll get..."
Sorry, but I don't view the serious eyewitness reports/expert testimonies and anomalies uncovered via independent researchers/journalists as mere "generalities".
On the contrary, investigating absolutely every angle and leaving no stone unturned (something that any official investigation should always do) is the only way to conduct an honest investigation here. Again, the totality of the 9/11 truth movement worldwide not only includes concerned citizens but also tens of thousands of experts in their fields. Those experts should be listened to, including the more obscure/out-there ones, just in case there could be something there.
Narrowing things down to very specific and pre-selected parameters is very Warren Commision-esque and dangerous, even if done with good intentions or in a naive fashion. That's another way "investigators" call fall flat on their faces and why the Warren Commision, and probably the 9/11 Commission too, are viewed as a joke by many, or even most, people these days.
Again, if anyone wants to have a fullsome and unregulated debate on all the 9/11 anomalies from NYC to the Pentagon, including the multi-trillion dollar money mystery, then count me in. But personally, I don't like rules or being told what can or cannot be brought up in any discussion...
James wrote: "the missing trillions Rumsfeld announced from Pentagon budget the day before 9/11"The 'missing trillions' was an accounting screw-up that had been going on for most of a decade. Rumsfeld referred to it at a press conference on September 10, 2001, but he didn't announce it then; it had been public knowledge for eighteen months. This is an AP report from March 3, 2000:
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-...
"the Pentagon crash wiped out all records [of] the next day"
What is the evidence that all records were wiped out, and what would be the point of that? Were the neocons trying to cover up what happened under the Clinton administration?
"how Building 7 fell and there were reports it was "pulled" (demolition term for controlled demolition)"
"Pull" is not an industry term for "demolish with explosives". The only place where that meaning is attached to it is certain truther websites. In the demolition industry "pull" could only mean "pull down with cables", and whatever happened to Building 7 it wasn't that.
"Not to mention things like the BBC reporting Building 7 falling 20 mins before it actually fell"
The BBC and CNN both passed on an erroneous report from Reuters that Building 7 had collapsed before it did. There has been a perfectly good explanation of that for a decade, and not even Dylan Avery (whose video 'Loose Change' popularized the story) now attaches any significance to it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors...
I hope that makes my p.o.v. clear. I will take seriously any solid evidence and soundly-based arguments that truthers wish to make, but they should not be adulterated with long-debunked trash and crackpot 'theories'. It's self defeating.
Vanessa wrote: " in the books listed here, do any go into tangible reasons why the US government would go to such great lengths (and risk public loyalty) to find an excuse to invade Iraq? Other than oil...or is it really all about the oil? I find it hard to believe that the US would risk such an outrage of the American people simply to acquire land to test weapons (as suggested in a previous post). Other than financial payoffs with insider trading, and payouts discussed previously, and oil, what would be the motive? ."Thing is, 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq whatsoever, as we know, which just goes to show how many multiple reasons there could be for conducting the false flag of 9/11. i.e - They start bunging together Bin Laden/Afghanistan/Taliban with every other group in the Middle East and call it something like 'War on Terror' and 'Axis of Evil' to give the excuse of invading not only Iraq but several other countries in the Middle East which had no or few US troops there prior to 9/11. And the increase of the US's dominance - and its coalition of other countries - in those regions is partially a reason for why ISIS and other groups started attacking the West, which it could be argued the US/"the conspiracy" actually wanted. I think it's also unwise to say "The US was responsible for 9/11", when it was, in my opinion, a few Americans who were responsible - and most likely others from Saudi Arabia etc. One country itself - the U.S - can't be responsible, even if it was an inside job, as I believe. Hope that makes sense!
On top of that, and the excuses made to get the oil, we saw the world change after 9/11: increased security measures, body scanners at airports (i.e - there was now an excuse to take away our freedom even more), heightening racism and causing people to be ignorant about such things as Islam etc. - as well as the fact that inside jobs mean there are plenty of players who benefited massively from the stock exchange - as we know there was a mass of unusual activity on related stocks prior to 9/11 happening etc.
That's just the stuff we know about, so there will also be plenty of other reasons for conducting a false flag like 9/11, which we're unaware of.
And things like Operation Northwoods shows that the U.S weren't afraid of coming up with false flag operations. And why would they 'risk public opinion' anyway, 'cos even when these things are out in the open - and talked about at length in discussion groups like this, and written about in numerous books, the general consensus still confines such ideas as being 'crazy conspiracy theories'. They weren't risking anything! :)
Ken wrote: ""Not to mention things like the BBC reporting Building 7 falling 20 mins before it actually fell" The BBC and CNN both passed on an erroneous report from Reuters that Building 7 had collapsed before it did. There has been a perfectly good explanation of that for a decade."So, that BBC article says:
"What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media."
- and it was therefore reported before the building collapsed.
I say: How stupid does a journalist have to be to report a rumour when all they had to do was look behind themselves and see that Building 7 was still standing?
Harry, how stupid does a journalist have to be to report this?https://tinyurl.com/yat4pgvk
But AP did, and ABC broadcast it.
Ken wrote: "Harry, how stupid does a journalist have to be to report this? https://tinyurl.com/yat4pgvk. But AP did, and CBS broadcast it."I don't quite see how a different misreporting of 9/11 is relevant to the point I was making. Misreports happen all the time (only yesterday here in the UK there were reports of gunfire at Oxford tube station, prompting a mass evacuation, even though it appears there were no gunshots fired), but that's not my point with regards to a journalist reporting a building had collapsed when it's still standing behind them.
Not that the incident of Building 7 alone is testimony that 9/11 was a false flag; it's just part of a plethora of evidence for that being the case, and there are more important factors like it being a demolition job, which support the idea of it being an inside job.
Also, I saw you were disputing certain factors re; Operation Northwoods in the thread about that, and actually you may have a point about the specifics of things like "planes being flown into buildings" being referenced, but specifics aside, ultimately, Operation Northwoods shows conclusively that the US were perfectly happy to create a false flag event: blowing up one of their own and blaming someone else. Such as: "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."
Harry wrote: "...why would they 'risk public opinion' anyway, 'cos even when these things are out in the open - and talked about at length in discussion groups like this, and written about in numerous books, the general consensus still confines such ideas as being 'crazy conspiracy theories'"The American people are not powerless against criminals in high office. We saw that with Nixon, and we're seeing it again now,
If there was anything more than talk - anything like evidence - to establish that
- 9/11 was an inside job
- elements of the govt. were involved
they would all be dead and damned forever.
That's what they were risking. Do you think the motives you cited were powerful enough for that?
There's a mass of evidence, just no conclusive proof. I won't bother to run down every facet of evidence again, as it's all been discussed here and in many books and many sites already, as you're obviously aware.There's much more than "just talk" though. Architects who say it was a demolition job for starters.
And just have a look through at other topics in this group to show how much shit those in power get away with and how little we can do to prevent it.
Otherwise, Tony Blair and Henry Kissinger would have been arrested for war crimes, to just name two things off the top of my head.
They're risking fuck all.
Again, I say: Operation Northwoods conclusively shows the US government were happy to bomb one of their own and blame someone else.
Harry wrote: "...that's not my point with regards to a journalist reporting a building had collapsed when it's still standing behind them."If you mean Jane Standley, she was reading a report that had been handed to her under very stressful conditions, not looking out of the window behind her. What makes you think she would even recognize Building 7?
"it's just part of a plethora of evidence"
If there's a plethora of it, let's hear the main points.
Ken wrote: "If there's a plethora of it, let's hear the main points"Good starting points:
http://911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://911scholars.org/
Ken wrote: "f there was anything more than talk - anything like evidence - to establish that- 9/11 was an inside job
- elements of the govt. were involved
they would all be dead and damned forever.
..."
Exact same argument Warren Commission believers (if there still are any left) use, or at least used to use, when stating JFK's assassination could never have been orchestrated by high ups in the US somewhere. "That'd be impossible," most said.
That argument also makes the fatal mistake, which is a common mistake, of assuming it's an entire government/administration, or even known political figures at all, who commit such crimes from within the US or within any nation (let's not just pick on one nation here). The school of thought you're expressing "it's too risky", exhibits a lack of understanding of shadow governments and/or splinter groups within the highest echelons of govt or intel. agencies...Some groups within circles of power go "rogue"...Perhaps that's why JFK said he would "Scatter the CIA to the four winds" - sounds like he viewed them as an enemy to the American people and a threat to democracy.
But, of course, if you see governments as united and unified and always on the side of the People, and if you still believe the President is at the top of that chain, then I can totally see why you cannot comprehend things like false flag operations occur or are possible.
Again, none of that is to say there's a smoking gun with 9/11 (not yet, at least). But to call it all "talk" and "hearsay" is again, VERY Warren Commission-esque, and out of touch with popular opinion in the US and globally regarding 9/11.
Ken wrote: "If there's a plethora of it, let's hear the main points. ..."All the main points, hundreds of anomalies on 9/11, have been listed throughout this entire thread.
Again, you need to slow down, son ;)
Harry wrote: "There's a mass of evidence, just no conclusive proof."The point is that most of the evidence - if you take the trouble to look into it - is about as strong as the evidence that Rumsfeld 'disclosed' the missing Pentagon trillions on 9/10/01.
What do you make of that, btw? Did you believe, like most truthers, that Rumsfeld announced it the day before 9/11 so the news would be buried? He didn't. It was already public knowledge. It was even raised in the Senate in January 2001.
"Architects who say it was a demolition job for starters."
I see that the AE911Truth petition has reached nearly 3000 signatories after ten years. Do you know how many professional engineers and architects there are in the USA?
2-3 MILLION.
Harry wrote: "Ken wrote: "If there's a plethora of it, let's hear the main points"Good starting points:
http://911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://911scholars.org/"
Thanks for those links, Harry. I know those sites and I've read large parts of them.
Actually, I was asking you to state what YOU consider to be the main proof points.
James, do you really believe that if there was actual evidence that the Bush-Cheney gang, or any of their underlings, were guilty of mass murder and treason, they would still be at liberty or even alive?Nixon was probably guilty of conspiracy to cover up a felony, and he only got away with it because his successor pardoned him. Can you see Obama pardoning people if there was evidence that they perpetrated 9/11? LOL.
Btw, what do you make of the 'mystery of the missing trillions' now? Do you still believe that Rumsfeld announced it the day before 9/11 so the news would be buried?
You're whitewashing things like a military spin doctor, Ken. If you understand spin, i.e. PR, like I do, you would know that there is ALWAYS a way to put a positive spin on any military acts of aggression, govt corruption, etc etc. Always.So to flip things back and balance out this extreme whitewashing going on (which could fool young people or naive types into believing there is NO 9/11 debate/investigation going on), Rumsfeld had announced it previously (correct) but it was escalating the day before 9/11. And he made this further announcement (since his initial senate statements about it) and indeed his final announcement (which was the most widely reported) on the 10th of September...
9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4Gd...
Donald Rumsfeld announces 2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon on September 10th 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVpSB...
So lessons in spin:
If a person was a PR specialist working for the military, and let's say there's a high level cover-up going on re these missing trillions and 9/11 itself (again, not necessarily saying there was), well you spin things by pointing out that it was reported earlier (fact: it was...indisputable...end of story, creates the illusion of a total debunk).
But the real truth is it was escalating to uncomfortable levels by the 10th of September. Several trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon budget which was a very awkward situation...
Another military PR-style trick would be to call missing trillions of US tax payer dollars an "accounting screw up" - that's real cute and works well, especially for deceiving mainstream media journos at least. And another trick is NEVER mention the US military (and most other military of superpower nations) has a history of creating massive black budgets and slush funds (reported by numerous military whistleblowers and researchers) which are all too often blamed on "unfortunate accounting screw ups",
Again, none of this is to say the missing trillions are proof of 9/11 being an inside job. But it's not instantly "dismiss this, go back to trusting your government and move on" either.
Ken wrote: "Actually, I was asking you to state what YOU consider to be the main proof points."Not "proof points", but: evidence points. Let's be clear about that.
Yeah, I kinda knew you meant that, and from reading your posts I got the impression that you were already aware of the sites I linked and more, but when those sites, and many more, and many books, and discussions already had in this thread and group, state the mass of evidence that's out there in much more detailed fashion than I could muster up, I thought it was easier to just link those sites for you to do your own research, otherwise I'd be here all day, especially as it seems like you're already informed on the types of points I could bring up, and which I've brought up before. Feels like you've already made your mind up and I'm bored of banging my head against a brick wall! ;)
And, you said: "I see that the AE911Truth petition has reached nearly 3000 signatories after ten years. Do you know how many professional engineers and architects there are in the USA?
2-3 MILLION."
3000 architects saying it was a demolition job seems like a very impressive number to not just discount their opinions out of hand.
Perhaps you could contact the other couple of million and show them the footage of the building's collapse and the opinions of their fellow architects, and see what their opinions are? ;)
Ken wrote: "James, do you really believe that if there was actual evidence that the Bush-Cheney gang, or any of their underlings, were guilty of mass murder and treason, they would still be at liberty or even ..."To reiterate:
That argument also makes the fatal mistake, which is a common mistake, of assuming it's an entire government/administration, or even known political figures at all, who commit such crimes from within the US or within any nation (let's not just pick on one nation here). The school of thought you're expressing "it's too risky", exhibits a lack of understanding of shadow governments and/or splinter groups within the highest echelons of govt or intel. agencies...Some groups within circles of power go "rogue"...Perhaps that's why JFK said he would "Scatter the CIA to the four winds" - sounds like he viewed them as an enemy to the American people and a threat to democracy.
In other words, to automatically think "Bush" or "Cheney" regarding the possibility of 9/11 inside job, is to most likely and inadvertently fixate on medium-level players at best...
Of course, if you cannot believe or conceive in shadow governments and splinter/rogue elements operating at the highest echelons, then I can fully see why you cannot even consider 9/11 may have been an inside job.
Harry wrote: "3000 architects saying it was a demolition job seems like a very impressive number to not just discount their opinions out of hand.Perhaps you could contact the other couple of million and show them the footage of the building's collapse and the opinions of their fellow architects, and see what their opinions are? ;) ..."
Fucking A, mate!
Plus, to point out further extreme whitewashing and sanitizing going on, it's definitely not 3,000 out of 1-2 million architects, as we don't know 99% of the rest of their opinions (again that's very skillful PR-like spin).
And it's also much higher number than just the 3,000 architects as a lot of other concerned or truther architects in the US and around the world have not signed that specific petition but have made official statements or written comments elsewhere to corroborate the AE911 Truth org.
Now consider two crazy/BS conspiracy theories: We never landed on the Moon and the Holocaust never happened. You won't find any legit scientists or engineers backing those theories - why? Because they are BS and there's no debate at all in scientific circles.
However, with 9/11 you do have a serious scientific/scholarly debate brewing. Period. And that list of architects and engineers is growing by the day even tho many may be risking their careers/livelihoods (especially if associated with the US Government in any way). How many other architects/engineers quietly agree, but wouldn't be willing to stick their necks out? 10 times more? 100 times more? We do not know.
It's like what WikiLeaks' Julian Assange said: “There are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two.”
Here are excerpts from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evi... ):
"Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building.
KEY EVIDENCE
Rapid onset of destruction,
Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples."
Associated papers and the full scientific evidence the thousands of architects and engineers of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth say refutes the US govt's official story can be viewed here: http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evi...
Now in case anyone missed any of that, and to move this debate beyond the silly notion that it's only amateurs believing the official 9/11 story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese, let me repeat one last time:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (and the other organizations I list again below) are comprised solely of tens of thousands of scientists, pilots, engineers, architects, military officers, NY firemen and other relevant/qualified/renowned experts who all have put their names forward and signatures down on various petitions to categorically say the govt's official story is a big fat joke:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice http://stj911.org/
Pilots for 9/11 Truth: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Scientists for 9/11 Truth http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth http://pl911truth.com/
U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth http://www.mo911truth.org/
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Unity http://ff911truthandunity.org/
Journalists and Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth http://mediafor911truth.org/
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth http://l911t.com/
Medical Professionals
for 9/11 Truth http://mp911truth.org/
Veterans for 9/11 Truth https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/v...
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/
9/11 Experts Speak Out http://911expertsspeakout.org/
So if 9/11 is such a black and white issue, then why are all these renowned experts putting their careers on the line to say "we have been lied to again"???
The obvious conclusion here is we need scientific experts on both sides to debate this (in collaboration with the likes of firemen, policemen, pilots, etc, etc) to debate this issue. But will that ever be allowed and would the mainstream media ever report such a debate?
And of course, all the above scientific analysis doesn't include the training drills coincidentally going on at same time, financial anomalies (e.g. the insider trading foreknowledge stockmarket signs in this video 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgj... ) and the bizarre things that happened with the Bin Laden clan being flown out of America straight after 9/11 as covered in Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 doco.
Cue: Mr "My Government/Military is ALWAYS right and on the side of God" enters stage and avoids the wider discussion and the hundreds of academic points referenced above by the various experts, and therefore craftily avoids the totality of the 9/11 debate, and instead attempts to debunk isolated points and then presents those isolated examples as an entire debunk of all 9/11 counter-arguments worldwide (call me Nostradamus, but let's see it play out that predictably). :)
James wrote: "Rumsfeld had announced it previously (correct) but it was escalating the day before 9/11."Rumsfeld had not ANNOUNCED it previously. It was announced in February 2000 under the Clinton administration. After that it was public knowledge. I have cited a newspaper report from the time.
In what way was it "escalating" the day before 9/11? What is the evidence for that? It was an accounting screw-up that had been going on for years. And suddenly in September 2001 public concern was escalating?
Harry wrote: "Perhaps you could contact the other couple of million and show them the footage of the building's collapse"Harry, my background is in math and physics. All I can say is that there were numerous structural engineers posting at amazon.com over the ten years I was there, and they laugh at your "impressive 3000 architects".
You can get one in a thousand members of any profession to sign up to anything. As an appeal to authority, it doesn't work. Sorry.
James wrote: "The school of thought you're expressing "it's too risky", exhibits a lack of understanding of shadow governments...Actually I meant that the perpetrators themselves, at every level, must have known that they were risking their necks on an extraordinarily complicated plan working perfectly with zero leaks.
And for what? Well, I suppose the "secret government" paid them handsomely, and they all kept their mouths shut. Is that how you think it worked?
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
False Flag 911: How Bush, Cheney and the Saudis Created the Post-911 World (other topics)The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror (other topics)
The Trigger: The Lie That Changed the World (other topics)
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition (other topics)
Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michel Chossudovsky (other topics)Donald J. Trump (other topics)
Philip Marshall (other topics)
Marianne Williamson (other topics)
Webster Griffin Tarpley (other topics)
More...
Thanks. Sure, I'm aware of the Iran-Contra Affair. Not sure how you mean that ties into this topic though! :)