Flight 77, the Fake War on Terror, and the Dubai Port Deal

[Time for change]

On 9-11-01, I was in the habit of receiving my news through the corporate U.S. news media (CM). So I naturally accepted the standard CM story of a terrorist attack on our country until later that day when my son, a DU member (EOTE), pointed out to me the absurdity of the most powerful and technically advanced military in the history of the world being so vulnerable to the attacks that occurred on that day.

Since that time I have read several books that have pointed out the numerous inconsistencies in the CM story, the best one IMO being The 9/11 Commission Report – Omissions and Distortions” by David Ray Griffin. This book not only lucidly and thoroughly points out the many inconsistencies in the standard version of the events of 9/11, but just as important, it shows how the 9/11 Commission systematically ignored any evidence that seriously disputed the official version and tended to suggest that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks. The Commission didn’t dispute most of these claims, they simply ignored them. And those that they did dispute were disputed with incomplete and implausible explanations.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” seems much more calculated to enhance its power and enrich itself and its friends than to protect us against terrorism. For example:
On September 19th, more than ten members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country without being interviewed.
The war in Afghanistan was contemplated long before 9-11, and seemed to be aimed much more at occupying the country than at capturing top al Qaeda members.
Our prisoners of war are held indefinitely, subjected to a wide range of appalling conditions and abuses including torture, and don’t even have to be charged with a crime in order to justify their indefinite imprisonment – and yet, of 505 prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay as of November 2005, only four had been charged with a crime.
Of thousands of cases every year of warrantless spying by NSA on American citizens within the United States, only about ten per year have merit.
Finally, the war in Iraq was contemplated and very much desired by the Bush administration long before the 9/11 attacks, which were used by the administration to justify the war to the American people and to Congress, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

And now we have the Dubai port deal, which would allow a corporation from a country with strong ties to the enemy that we are supposed to be fighting in our “War on Terror” to provide security for our ports. This may not be the best evidence that the Bush administration’s ”War on Terror” has been a fake all along, but it seems to provide the evidence that is the most transparent to a large number of people.

To drive home the point of a fake pretext for our “War on Terror”, I’ll briefly summarize some of the most striking evidence for administration complicity in the 9/11 attacks, as discussed in Griffin’s book, and then talk about how our military couldn’t get a single airplane up in the air to defend our nation’s capital, despite more than an hour’s warning.


Summary of some striking problems with the standard version of the 9/11 attacks

Short selling of stock in United and American Airlines
Shortly before the 9/11 attacks there was an extremely high volume of short selling of stock in United and American Airlines, resulting in profits of up to $15 billion – thus suggesting advance knowledge of the attacks. Though the 9/11 Commission mentions this in their report, they claim that these transactions were innocuous, and yet the American public has never been informed of the results of investigations into this matter by the SEC, the FBI, or the 9/11 Commission.

Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings
The standard account of the collapse of the buildings says that the collapse was due to a fire that melted the steel framework. But this has never been known to occur in the past. Also, there was very little fire in the South Tower, and even if there had been it couldn’t have exceeded 1700 degrees F, whereas steel doesn’t melt until 2770 degrees F.

Furthermore, all three collapsed buildings demonstrated much evidence of controlled demolition collapses, including collapsing straight down at free fall speed, the turning of concrete into dust, absence of remaining steel columns after the collapse, video evidence of demolition waves, witnesses claiming explosions within the buildings, and much more.

Evidence for the existence of the 19 alleged hijackers
What evidence do we have that the 19 hijackers whose names were released to the American public did in fact hijack those planes? We’ve been told that their names were on the flight manifests, yet those that have been released have no Arab names on them. And furthermore, at least six of these men have showed up alive after 9/11.

Evidence for the strike on the Pentagon
We have three lines of evidence to support the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon: 1) The Pentagon told us that it did; 2) there are some eyewitness reports claiming that it did (I even know one such witness); and, 3) it seems like a good explanation for the fact that none of the passengers on Flight 77 were ever heard from again.

Compared with the above evidence, consider the evidence against Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: A photograph taken shortly after the strike on the Pentagon shows that the hole made by the strike was far too small to admit the entry of a commercial airliner. Of course that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the plane only partially entered the hole. But then, where did the plane go to? No plane is visible in photographs taken immediately after the strike, nor was any plane or large pieces of a plane found in the Pentagon or anywhere in the vicinity. The 9/11 Commission doesn’t even mention this embarrassing fact, though some have suggested that the plane was vaporized. But as with the WTC buildings, the fire could not have been hot enough to do that. Also, other witnesses noted a missile hitting the Pentagon, and the FAA noted rumors of Flight 77 crashing in Ohio or Kentucky.


How super-Flight 77 evaded the most powerful military in world history

Griffin goes into great detail on the inconsistencies and implausibility of the standard CM story regarding each of the hijacked flights, and why our military should have been able to prevent any of the airliners from hitting the WTC buildings or the Pentagon. I will talk here about the story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon because that is the most absurd of all the stories surrounding the 9/11 attacks. To do that, I’ll: 1) Note the original timeline for that flight, which strongly suggested government complicity; 2) Discuss how NORAD changed the original story to establish their innocence; and 3) Discuss how the 9/11 Commission further changed the story, and what one would have to believe in order to make sense of that story.

The original account of the events surrounding Flight 77
8:20 – Leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C., headed West.
Sequence of events leading to disappearance of plane:
 8:46 – Flight goes significantly off course.
 8:50 – Radio contact lost, FAA learns that flight is hijacked.
 8:56 – Transponder is turned off.
 8:57 – Flight is lost to FAA controllers.
Interval from 8:57 to 9:24 – Hmmm, seems like a long time for nothing to be happening
9:24 – NORAD gives order to scramble fighter jets for Langley AFB.
9:30 – Fighter jets from Langley become airborne.
9:38 – Pentagon is struck.


How the original account implicates the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and how NORAD tried to explain the problems away
The original version of events indicates several problems, suggesting gross negligence at best on the part of NORAD, and complicity at worst, for the following reasons:

1) Certainly the FAA would have notified NORAD once they confirmed that the flight was hijacked, if not four minutes earlier, when they first noted the flight having gone off course, as prescribed by standard operating procedures. That would have given our military all the time in the world to protect our capital. NORAD gets around this problem by claiming, incredibly, that they weren’t notified of Flight 77 until about 9:24.

2) But even if the FAA was totally negligent in its duty to warn NORAD of the hijacking of Flight 77, shouldn’t the military have sent up fighter jets anyhow, given that they knew that our country was under attack for almost an hour before the Pentagon was hit? And even if they didn’t get a plane up in the air long before they did, shouldn’t they have been watching closely and have been able to track Flight 77 heading for Washington D.C. (IF indeed that flight did head for Washington D.C.) long before it hit the Pentagon at 9:38?

3) NORAD claims that it issued an order to scramble fighter jets from Langley AFB immediately after being notified at 9:24. It is supposed to take two and a half minutes for a fighter plane to get to 29,000 feet after receiving a scramble order. Yet, even if NORAD is telling the truth about not being notified until 9:24, it still took six minutes for the fighter planes to become airborne.

4) Why would NORAD issue the scramble order to Langley, which is 130 miles away, when Andrews AFB is only 10 miles away? NORAD explains this away by claiming that there were no fighter jets on alert at Andrews AFB at the time. This claim is incredible, based both on common sense and historical documentation.

5) Even if we assume that there was no choice other than to issue the order to Langley rather than to Andrews AFB, and even if we assume that the fighter planes didn’t become airborne until 9:30, they still ought to have arrived in Washington, D.C. within 5 minutes, given a flight speed of 1,500 mph. Yet, according to NORAD’s account, the fighter jets were still 105 miles away when the Pentagon was struck. The math just doesn’t add up.


How the 9/11 Commission took the blame off the military (NORAD), and what you’d have to swallow to believe their revisionist account

Thus, there were so many problems with NORAD’s attempt to rationalize its actions within the framework of the accepted events surrounding Flight 77 that a reasonable person might suspect that NORAD had been given orders from above to stand aside and allow the attack to take place. Here is how the 9/11 Commission explained the situation in a manner so as to let the military off the hook:

1) As being notified of the attack by 9:24 would still have given the military plenty of time to get fighter planes up to defend the capital, the 9/11 Commission claimed that they were not notified by the FAA until 9:34, just four minutes before the attack on the Pentagon took place.

There are several problems with this account. First, it requires us to believe that the FAA personnel were so incompetent on that day that they couldn’t follow standard operating procedures which, as far as anyone knows, they had never previously so completely failed at. Second, there is a memo from an FAA employee, Larua Brown, which states that a phone bridge was established between NORAD and FAA within minutes of the first strike, and that the FAA shared information continuously with NORAD about all flights of interest during this teleconference, including Flight 77, as discussed in this NY Times article. And thirdly, Richard Clarke describes another teleconference which included the White House and the FAA, also initiated long before 9:24.

2) As for why the military was not able to track Flight 77 despite not being notified about it by the FAA, the 9/11 Commission explains this by saying that the transponder on the plane was turned off. So if it’s that easy to make airplanes escape our military’s ability to track them, how did we protect ourselves against the Soviet Union for 44 years?

3) But even assuming that our military knew nothing of the attack until 9:34, the fact that we had fighter planes from Langley up in the air by 9:30 still has to be explained. The 9/11 Commission explains this by saying that NORAD was notified of a phantom plane. This phantom plane was Flight 11, the one that struck the North Tower of the WTC at 8:46. According to this version, someone in the FAA (for which no publicly available evidence exists) notified NORAD that Flight 11 was still in the air and headed toward Washington. Consequently, the order went out to Langley to get fighter planes up into the air and headed towards Baltimore to intercept Flight 11 coming from New York. In other words, despite the fact that there were four hijacked planes reported on 9-11, the only one to which we responded by scrambling fighter planes, according to the 9/11 Commission, was a phantom plane. The absurdity of that notion requires no further comment.

4) But if we had fighter planes up in the air by 9:30, headed towards Baltimore, and since the 9/11 Commission admits at least that the military knew of Flight 77 headed to Washington by 9:34, then why couldn’t have those planes been directed to defend the capital? The 9/11 Commission explains this by saying that the lead pilot misunderstood the orders he received and headed east, towards the Atlantic Ocean, instead of north. Therefore, by the time NORAD became aware of the impending attack on the capital, those fighter planes were too far away to respond. Again, we are presented with no evidence to support this view.

Norman Minetta’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission
Supporting evidence for the theory that orders were given to prohibit any military response to Flight 77 comes from testimony before the 9/11 Commission of Norman Minetta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, regarding a meeting he was having with Dick Cheney shortly before the Pentagon was hit. Here is Mineta’s account:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

The 9/11 Commission interpreted this statement to indicate that Cheney had ordered the shooting down of Flight 77. But if that was the case, then why wasn’t it shot down, and even more important, how can NORAD claim that it hadn’t even been notified about Flight 77 until four minutes before the Pentagon was hit?


Conclusion

The 9/11 Commission accounts of all four flights involved in the attacks on our country of 9/11/01 attempt to rationalize how the most technologically advanced military in the history of the world could have failed to protect our country on that day. By utterly failing in their attempt to provide a plausible explanation, their accounts simply lend credence to the view, supported by a great amount of evidence, that our administration was complicit in those attacks.

Thus the pretext for our “War on Terror” appears to have been a sham. And the conducting of that war appears to be a sham too. Perhaps the Bush administration’s pushing of the Dubai port deal may be the nail in its coffin that exposes to the American people the whole sordid mess as a sham.

[Just Me]

1. An exceptional compilation. Nominated.

Great work!!! :thumbsup:

[Initech]

2. This is the new millenium version of JFK

No matter how many conspiracy theories are out there - and a lot of them could prove to be true - there will still be massive cover-ups by our government and the puppet media. It does make sense for the 9/11 commission to report false information (after all, Bush testified for what - a total of 3 hours?), but that's to prevent any bad information about Bush from getting out in the open (god forbid).

The question I keep asking - was someone from the Bush administration involved in 9/11 - and did they know about it in advance? Why did Bush continue to ignore threats from bin Laden? Why did Bush keep reading "My Pet Goat" to school children when he was handed the message that the country was under attack?

[KansDem]

4. That's the big question I have...

Why did Bush keep reading "My Pet Goat" to school children when he was handed the message that the country was under attack?

Why? Why? Why?

Why doesn't someone in the press ask him this? "Why did you sit and do nothing after being informed we were under attack?"

I can't imagine why his behavior on that day is simply ignored.

[Initech]

6. That part of what happened on 9/11 is the most mind-boggling

He's the PRESIDENT! It's his JOB to keep our country from being attacked! If you're the president and you're told that "our country is under attack", you get up off your ass and go be a hero. You do not sit and read "My Pet Goat" to school children.

I also want to know how a sitting war president can take an entire year's worth of vacation days during a time of war. I think that alone should be proof it's fake.

[Time for change]

11. I think that the administration was complicit in the attacks

They wanted to go into Afghanistan in order to ensure that Unocal's pipeline deal would go through.

And they had been planning an invasion of Iraq long before Bush was "elected".

The 9/11 attacks gave them the perfect excuse to do these things.

Once one accepts that they were complicit in the attacks, then their pitiful resposes all make sense.

[Canuckistanian]

3. K&R... bookmarked

Thanks, TfC!

[understandinglife]

5. Excellent, as always. Recommended. Bookmarked.

Peace.

[Bacchus39]

7. really dumb

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/wr-redl.html&h=576&w=967&sz=167&tbnid=x7j7fATJKIUTiM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=148&hl=en&start=55&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflight%2B77%2Bpentagon%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%7Clang_es%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN

some photos from the pentagon showing plane wreckage. Where are the planes from the WTC?? Oh, wait that is right we have video of that so it must have happened but the video of the Pentagon isn't as clear so it is a government conspiracy.

your theory still has not accounted for the plane and the passengers.

the slow reaction by the air force is another matter. my understanding is that the jets scrambled and actually started flying out to sea believing that it was an attack from overseas rather than from airlines on domestic routes.

[Time for change]

10. I'll try to address your concerns, but there's no need to call me dumb

First of all, the link you refer me to notes plane "pieces". But how do we know that those pieces aren't from a missile, rather than a plane?

What about the hole in the Pentagon, shown in photographs shortly after the hit? How do you explain such a small hole being made by a Boeing? And if only part of the plane went in, then what happened to the plane?

Certainly there weren't enough pieces lying around to account for a whole plane. The assumption is that the plane would have had to have vaporized. Do you think that the fires were hot enough to vaporize a plane?

And if so, then how was the military supposedly able to ID a number of the passengers by getting their fingerprints?

And why all the secrecy -- why did the FBI seize a video of the crash within minutes and refuse to release it?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

As far as what happened to the plane, perhaps it crashed in Ohio or Kentucky. Or maybe it was shot down by the military. Certainly if our government planned this they might have been able to shoot the plane down in some unpopulated area of the country and keep that information from the public.

I'm not saying that I know what happened. But it seems to me that there are an awful lot of questions that need answering, both with regard to what hit the Pentagon, and all the other events of 9/11.

[IronLionZion]

42. The video is the biggest question to answer

Why the hell did they only release 5 frames which showed only an explosion? Where's the rest of the video?

[MrSammo1]

17. your theory still has not accounted for the plane and the passengers.

Read page ten of Operation Northwoods and your question will be answered.

[Psyop Samurai]

22. so glad you took the time to post...

really dumb

yes, comparing the original post to yours, it's clear you possess the superior intellect

some photos from the pentagon showing plane wreckage.

odd that you linked to a site claiming the debris pictures to be frauds. ...this as an ostensible refutation of the original post. I'm not sure I follow the logic.

your theory...

hmm... I hadn't noticed a particular theory being advanced. what I got was evidence of fraud and cover-up. perhaps I should read it again.

...still has not accounted for the plane and the passengers.

I see. so it's incumbent on the poster not to expose potential fraud, but to provide you with a tidy story as to how that fraud was perpetrated.

my understanding is that the jets scrambled and actually started flying out to sea believing that it was an attack from overseas rather than from airlines on domestic routes.

well, that settles it then, doesn't it? *wink*

(added to list)

[MrSammo1]

46. ...still has not accounted for the plane and the passengers.

Physical evidence would account for the jets.

Which......for some reason.........the neocons won't show us.

Perhaps you can explain to the posters here why the government controlled media never felt the need to show the photos in question to the American people? Why have them slipped out on the Internet from a source not even tied to the Pentagon?

I'll tell YOU why. If they did, this whole big lie would have been over now. All of America would have seen the truth and heads would have rolled.

[Time for change]

47. I think you meant this reply to post # 7, right? n/t

[MrSammo1]

51. Well............Duh......on my part.......

It felt good to saying it anyway!

;o)

[drdtroit]

49. Then why were all the video tapes confiscated.

It's best to get ones head out of the sand. Sheeesh!!!
:patriot:

[we can do it]

60. Neither Has Your Comments - Show Us the Video of Pentagon Crash

We'll wait.

[RazzleDazzle]

8. I'm SO sick of these threads getting locked and moved

Fucking DLC-indoctrinated cowards. I had a lengthy post all put together and lost all of it. One of the things in my post was the link to Paul Thompson's excellent summary. Here it is, along with his intro. Paul actually addresses such cowards:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911coverup10pg

911 Coverup Facts: 10-Page Summary
Was 911 Allowed to Happen?
Summary of 911 Coverup Facts Compiled by Paul Thompson

To verify 911 facts, use links to articles on major media websites
Join in powerfully building a better world for all by spreading the word

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


9/11 was one of the most pivotal events in world history. Its impact will be felt for years to come. You owe it to yourself to go beyond the sound bites and the simplified official story. This is an extremely complicated story with numerous players and motives. The 9/11 facts don't all make sense or fit neatly together. It's a story full of espionage, deceit, and lies. But if there are forces out there tricking us, they can only succeed if we, the general public, remain ignorant and passive.

We are limiting our sources on this 9/11 facts summary to those one might call "mainstream." It's not that one can only trust the mainstream media. In fact, much of the best reporting today is coming from alternative media. But many people are initially very skeptical. Some of the 9/11 facts below may seem very hard to believe. Yet remember that each entry below is reported by respected major media sources and can easily be verified by clicking on the links provided to the original source. After seeing the importance of what’s being hidden from us, you will very likely want to join in working together to build a brighter future.


http://www.wanttoknow.info/911coverup10pg



It's riveting reading -- and all MSM.

[Time for change]

13. That summary has a tremendous amount of information in it - thank you

Yes, we can pick up tidbits of information from the MSM, put them all together, connect the dots, and we have quite a story. But we have to really work to get those stories (or somebody does), because for the most part the MSM (with some exceptions, such as Keith Oberman) is much more interested in keeping us in the dark rather than enlightening us, when it comes to things that threaten the status quo.

I wonder if the truth of this matter will ever make it into the history books?

[we can do it]

62. Me Too - I Am Withholding Any Further Donation Until It Ceases

[iconoclastNYC]

9. Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power

"What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold War? What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based on phony WMD threats?

What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life? What if our “enemy” represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam? What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair?

And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and today?

It happened."

Thom Hartman reviewing "The Power of Nightmares" http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm

[Time for change]

18. Wow, that's amazing

:wow:

I had never heard of that before. I certainly don't recall Nixon telling us that we don't need to be afraid of the Soviet Union any longer.

I think you should post this in GD if it hasn't been already.

[BelgianMadCow]

12. moved... okay... but I can't even recommend posts in here

that plain sucks imho

[Time for change]

26. I had seen some 9/11 posts on GD recently, so I thought it was ok

I think that the DU administration wants to try to prevent DU from getting too radical of a reputation.

It's very sad that that has to be done, but they may be right in doing it.

Anyhow, thanks for trying to vote for this.

[greyl]

31. I think the problem may be that scattered within

the helpful info in the OP, are a few assertions that have been proven absolutely false for a few years now.

The conclusion that the War on terror is a sham, doesn't depend on everything in the OP being true.

[Time for change]

33. Thanks - please tell me what assertions you are referring to n/t

[greyl]

34. The entire middle section.

"Summary of some striking problems with the standard version of the 9/11 attacks"


Also, look at the dates of what you've linked to. Why assume that someone who wrote something in 2001 believes the same thing today?

[Time for change]

36. Can you be more specific?

By telling me that my entire middle section is wrong, that doesn't help me much in understanding what you feel is wrong about it.

Can you give some details for 1, 2, or 3 facts that you feel are wrong?

Also, please note that my main source for this post, David Griffin's book, was copyrighted in 2005, not 2001.

And, you might want to take a look at my post # 35, because it might address some points you had in mind.

Thank you.

[greyl]

37. Compare your post 35 with the related info from this link:

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[EOTE]

38. Burden of proof...

That's a link, still not very specific. Rather than have the OP search through the site you list, can you provide some information from the site that directly contradicts what was said? It seems somewhat lazy to refute information in the matter you have. It seems akin to going into a JFK forum and refuting every theory with a link to www.jfkmyths.com. It would show far more critical thought by posting something which directly contradicts something in the OP.

[greyl]

41. Burden of proof indeed.

God forbid the OP follow a link and their curiousity, eh?

(btw, you drew a false analogy)

[Time for change]

40. In other words, you're telling me to go find out myself

Fine, I'll do that if and when I have the time.

But it seems to me that if you're going to tell me publicly that I have all my facts wrong I would think that you would be able to give me a single specific example and tell me why you believe your fact is right and mine is wrong. If not, then all you're doing is telling me that there is information out there that contradicts what I'm saying -- as if I didn't already know that.

This doesn't provide much basis for discussion.

[greyl]

45. Suit yourself, I'm easy.

You've said you based facts in your OP on a book and your OP was full of various weblinks so I thought you liked to read and do your own research.

"... if you're going to tell me publicly that I have all my facts wrong ..."

That's a fabrication. I never said you had all of your facts wrong.
I'm doubting your sincerity.

"all you're doing is telling me that there is information out there that contradicts what I'm saying"

Not so, that would be a meaningless statement. I provided a link which I know for a fact addresses many of the most troubling issues in your OP. I hoped that you would check it out for yourself with a critical mind. It's not like your OP was a concise argument that was friendly to discussion to begin with, ya know? It covered a hell of a lot of territory.

From the first page that will greet you when you have the time:eyes: to follow the link:

"The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less."

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[Time for change]

48. I'm sorry that I sounded confrontational about this

Yes indeed, I do like to read and do research, and that's what I do for a living.

Right, you did not tell me that I had all my facts wrong, just the entire middle section. My statement to that effect was not a fabrication, but rather somewhat of an exaggeration, and sloppily worded.

I feel that this is a very important issue, obviously, as I'm sure you do too.

I will check out the link.

If I find something in there that contradicts something in my OP, and yet I don't understand why you feel that the viewpoint provided in your link is more accurate that the statement in my OP, would you like to discuss that?

[greyl]

50. Sure, yes that's what I had in mind. :) nt

[Time for change]

68. Collapse of the twin towers

I had a look at the site you linked me to, especially with regard to my noting of Griffin's discussion of the fact that the standard view of the WTC collapse (that the steel framework melted) could not be accurate because steel doesn't melt at the temperatures that could have been achieved in the WTC buildings on September 11th due to an airplane crash.

As far as I can tell, nobody would disagree with that statement.

But the site you referred me to notes some alternative theories:

1) Asif Usmani, a structural engineer from Edinburgh University proposed a theory, suggesting that collapse could be initiated through thermal expansion with temperatures of 600-800 degrees C.... when there is a fire underneath the trusses and the steel gets hot...it expands quite a lot...

Then the site author goes on to state: This proves nothing, of course -- even Usmani only says that his conclusions are provisional.

2) Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing.
Mechanical simulation: The results show that the direct reason for the collapse is the softening of steel under fire and the chain reaction damage of floors under the impact.

Then the site author goes on to state: This is short on detail, so evaluation is difficult. It’s not clear who the study authors are, either.

[greyl]

75. Did you hit "post" before

you finished composing?

[Time for change]

76. I don't know what happened

I had written out 4 or 5 examples, and then a summary, so even if I had accidentally hit post early I don't see how I could have finished my narrative if I accidentally posted.

Anyhow, my point was this:

The issue that I was looking into at the site you referred me to pertained to this statement from my OP:

"The standard account of the collapse of the buildings says that the collapse was due to a fire that melted the steel framework. But this has never been known to occur in the past. Also, there was very little fire in the South Tower, and even if there had been it couldn’t have exceeded 1700 degrees F, whereas steel doesn’t melt until 2770 degrees F."

This is from the middle section of my OP, which you said has been proven absolutely false for a few year now.

Yet the site you referred to me cites four of five persons who describe what seems to be highly speculative and tentative theories which tend to refute my statement (which I was describing from Griffin's book, backed up by another reference).

Do you feel that your site proves Griffin's statement absolutely false, and if so why do you feel that way? I don't see how it does.

[sunnystarr]

14. Here is an excellent video

I picked up this link from a Huffington reader and was blown away at the comprehensive look into these issues. While I bought In Plane Sight this movie goes further. I sent it to friends and family and they too were blown away by it. Pass it on after you watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

[Time for change]

25. Yes, that is excellent indeed

I learn things better from book than audio/video.

But still, I think that it would be difficult to listen to this whole thing and not be greatly swayed by it.

[reprehensor]

15. The 9/11 Commission Report is a Whitewash.

http://www.gnn.tv/B12001

[Time for change]

20. It certainly was

I wasn't convinced until I read Griffin's book. It's a superb book.

[hootinholler]

16. No more recs...

At least I found it on greatest.

-Hoot

[Time for change]

29. Thanks for trying

I'm glad at least that they left it on the greatest page.

Our government has so much control over us that even the DU is compelled to (partially) censor people who say things that our government and those who take it seriously will find to be too radical.

[Jose Diablo]

19. There is a logical reason the FAA delayed in contacting NORAD

Maybe the guys went out the front door to have a smoke before contacting NORAD. All federal buildings are no smoking, isn't that right?

Plus, Lt. Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell (Tom Cruse) smokes too, doesn't he? He could have been having a puff also. That adds another 5 minutes.

:eyes:

Edit: spelling

[Time for change]

21. Yes, that's a pretty good explanation

Anyhow, it's a lot better than the ones that the 9/11 Commission came up with. :smoke:

[atomic-fly]

23. I keep going over this stuff.

There are so many holes, but you would think they would have exposed themselves somehow.
This will be like the Kennedy murder. The Mulder side of me sees the conspiracy, but the Scully side of me needs to study this more.

[Time for change]

24. Of course they have the MSM to help keep the lid on this

Anyhow, I would highly recommend Griffin's book.

Or, take a look at Sunnystar's video (post # 14, above)

:)

[corbett]

27. Loose Change II Giving Away Plain-Wrapper Copies At Cost!

Visit

http://www.loosechange911.com

Click

Order

and scroll to the bottom for details.

[Time for change]

28. Thank you -- I just viewed the video that Sunnystar supplied yesterday

It was absolutely chilling. I told my wife about it and she was very upset about it :scared:

This one looks likes it will be even more chilling.

[greyl]

30. No they aren't.

The advertisement says "at near cost" and that it is "Coming soon!".

[IronLionZion]

44. It's out now, just watch it on Google video for free nt

[IronLionZion]

43. Or just watch it for free on Google Video

:eyes:

video.google.com search for loose change 911

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Your cavalier disregard for the facts

(1) "A photograph taken shortly after the strike on the Pentagon shows
that the hole made by the strike was far too small to admit the entry of a
commercial airliner."
The hole was actually 90 feet wide. I think you can safety fit the vast
majority of a commercial airliner through that.
See here for a fuller discussion:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

(2) "nor was any plane or large pieces of a plane found in the Pentagon or
anywhere in the vicinity."
What's this then?


(3) "We’ve been told that their names were on the flight manifests, yet
those that have been released have no Arab names on them."
This manifest appears to have five Arab names on it.


(4) "Also, other witnesses noted a missile hitting the Pentagon."
Not this one again. Link please.

(5) "NORAD explains this away by claiming that there were no fighter jets
on alert at Andrews AFB at the time. This claim is incredible, based both
on common sense and historical documentation."
Let's see that historical documentation.

If you are trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement by mixing up the
few good points you make with a lot of crap, then you were completely
successful.

[Time for change]

35. My response to your criticisms

First of all, I would like to clarify that I did not cavalierly disregard any facts. Any relevant facts not included in my post were left out because I wasn't aware of them, and also of course I wanted to keep the post within a reasonable length.

Also, I make it clear both in the second paragraph of the post and in the paragraph right before the "Summary of some striking problems..." section, that I am basing much of my discussion on 9-11 on Griffin's book, and I don't pretend to have independent expertise on the technical issues that I discuss. Also, I note (or imply) that Griffin himself didn't pretend to have independent expertise on many of the technical issues he discussed, but rather his main point was that these were issues of controversy that should have at least been addressed by the 9/11 Commission.

Now, to address your individual points as best I can:

(1) You point out that there has been an analysis of the hole and other damage to the Pentagon purported to have been caused by Flight 77, which indicate that indeed this damage is consistent with a Boeing jet crashing into the Pentagon -- and you feel that this analysis is better than or supercedes the other analyses that contend the opposite viewpoint. I was not aware of this information, and at this point, not having any information on any rebuttal to that analysis, I'm not going to attempt an independent assessment of the photographs, which is beyond my technical skill.

One thing worth mentioning about this, I believe, is that the author of the article that discusses this analysis is anonymous. Could this have been written by a government official? In any event it is not clear to me why you prefer this analysis to others which have come to an opposite conclusion.

(2) You object to the quotation in my OP that no large pieces of a plane were found in the vicinity, and you combat that conclusion by showing a picture of something. It is not at all evident to me that the picture you provide represents a large piece of a plane (or any piece of a plane), as opposed to a missile. Is it obvious to you?

And anyhow, if there was nothing to hide, then why did the FBI seize the video of the event:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

(3) Griffin stated in his 2005 book that "the flight manifests that have been released have no Arab names on them". He provides references for that in his book, and I found another reference for that claim.

Yet you provide a manifest that has 5 Arab names on it. Can you explain the discrepancy? Was the reference you provided here released after Griffin's 2005 book? And whether it was or not, why would it differ from the manifests that Griffin has seen, which lead him to his conclusion noted above?

(4) You ask me for a link to my assertion that other witnesses noted a missile hitting the Pentagon.
I provided a link to that in my OP, under a hyperlink entitled "missile".
Here it is again, and it provides links to the statements of several witnesses who saw something that they believed not to be a plane:
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/oddities/911.html#Pentagon_witnesses_missile

(5)
a) General Myers himself said shortly after 9/11 that fighter planes were sent up from Andrews AFB within minutes of the attack on the Pentagon, and here is an article that supports that:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
But if they could be sent up AFTER the attack, why not before?

b) Griffin relates in his book a converstaion he had with Kyle Hence, co-founder of Citizens Watch, where Hence notes a conversation he had with Donald Arias, Chief of Public Affairs for NORAD's Continental Region. Hence notes that when he tried to press Arias on his contention that no figher planes were available at Andrews to defend the capital, Arias hung up on him. Griffin references this conversation with Arias with e-mails that he has in his posession.

c) Griffin notes that the U.S. military's website just prior to 9-11 stated the following about Andrews AFB, referring to its 121st Fighter Squadron: "This squadron, equipped with F-16s, was said to provid 'capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency'". And the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 provided "maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness." (NYT September 15th, 2001) And the District of Columbia Air National Guard website said that its mission was "to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness". (NYT September 12th, 2001). Griffin then goes on to describe on page 163 of his book how shortly after 9-11 these websites either came down or were changed substantially to indicate a lesser state of alert for Andrews AFB.

[Kevin Fenton]

52. Griffin's method is poor

Whilst he writes well and this may help gloss over some of the poorer passages in his books, it cannot hide that he is only as good as the authors on whom he is relying and they have a distinctintly uneven quality. Of them I would put Paul Thompson at the top and Thierry Meyssan very firmly at the bottom. I read one of Meyssan's books (Pentagate) and it was absolutely awful. Whatever you do, don't buy it.

(1) I prefer the www.911review.com position because they clearly demonstrate with photographs that the hole was 90 feet wide. The 90-foot wide hole is visible in the photographs (the link to the Guardian analysis is well worth following, even if it is a long article); as the 90-width can be seen, the hole cannot be 18 feet. 911review.com is one of the most highly regarded sites in the "9/11 truth movement" (and rightly so) and they believe (I don't, by the way) that the attack was a false-flag operation by the US government, so I really, really doubt they work for the government.

(2) There is also a discussion of the wreckage at 911review.com. You can find it here:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
The piece of wreckage I posted seems rather large for a missile - aren't they supposed to explode on impact? In addition, as far as I can see its curvature roughly corresponds to that of a 757 body. Further, we can see the red paint characteristic of the American Airlines logo.

Anyway, here's another piccy:


(3) I saw this manifest about a year ago, although I believe it was published in 2001. I assume that Griffin took his claim from an untrustworthy source and declined to check it.

(4) You said "other witnesses noted a missile hitting the Pentagon." However, as far as I could see, in the link you provided there were merely some witnesses to (part of) the event who compared the plane to a missile.
911review.com says it very well:
"Literature of the no-757-crash theorists is full of suggestions that eyewitness saw something other than a 757 fly into the Pentagon, such as a commuter jet or cruise missile. In fact only a few eyewitness recalled seeing a plane smaller than a jetliner, and none reported seeing a missile. In contrast there is an abundance of accounts describing a large twin-engine jetliner like a 757."
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html

(5)(a) Well, General Myers would say that wouldn't he.
The Terror Timeline says:
"A few minutes after 9:03 a.m., a squadron pilot at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland (just ten miles from Washington), hears that two planes have crashed into the WTC. He calls a friend in the Secret Service to see what's going on. The Secret Service calls back, and asks whether Andrews can scramble fighters. According to weapons officer, Major Dan Caine, who takes this call, the Secret Service agent then tells them “to stand by and that somebody else call.” Apparently anticipating the need, one commander has already started preparing weapons for the fighters. However, the weapons are located in a bunker on the other side of The Base, and the process takes time. The fighters don't take off for about another hour and a half (see (10:42 a.m.)). Apparently anticipating the need to launch fighters, one commander has already started preparing weapons for the fighters. However, the weapons are located in a bunker on the other side of the base, and the process takes time. Senior Master Sergeant David Bowman, 113th Wing munitions supervisor, says, “We were doing it as fast as we could, because for all we knew the terrorists were getting ready to hit us.” It normally takes three hours to get weapons from the storage sheds and load them onto the fighters. However, on this occasion, it is later claimed, it only takes 45 minutes. The fighters don't take off though for about another hour and a half (10:42 a.m.)."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:0jVlVMF3tpIJ:www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp%3Fid%3D1521846767-3239+Andrews+9/11+launch&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

(b) AFAIK Kyle Hence sometimes asks good questions and sometimes doesn't. I don't think this is any big deal. He hung up, so what?

(c) "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness" does not mean alert fighters. There was a system of alert fighters and it didn't include Andrews. There are lots of journalists and professionals who know this.

IMHO the main point that should be made in reference to the poor air defense response (the quality of the response actually deteriorated during the crisis) is that after 9:03 it was an absolute no-brainer that Washington was a potential target and it is hard to see why the national command did not realise this. The first non-alert fighter was scrambled at 9:29 (with the two alert ones from Langley) and non-alert bases who called and offered to scrambled non-alert fighters were not urged to do so. What on earth were they doing?

[MrSammo1]

53. I prefer the www.911review.com position

which just like all the websites that shill for the government. Never mention the missing vertical stabilizer mark.

Or that fact that a passenger jet can't be flown several feet off the ground at high speed!

[Time for change]

54. I'd like to get down to the heart of the matter

I didn't claim in my OP that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, rather I gave some evidence for and against that. You've provided some additional evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon that I wasn't aware of. I don't have the technical expertise to weigh these arguments against each other (certainly not without a great deal of additional research), but in any event the argument for government complicity in the attacks doesn't require that it was a missile instead of a plane that hit the Pentagon.

And neither was Griffin claiming absolutely that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but he was pointing out lines of evidence that he felt suggested that it did, and he was saying that the 9/11 Commission should have addressed those issues.

I think that the crucial question is, as you point out in your last post, that after 9:03 (if not before that) it was an absolute no-brainer that Washington was a potential target, and yet it was not until 26 minutes later that the first plane was scrambled to defend our capital.

My OP also contains a good amount of other information on the government's response to this threat, what appeared to be a 9/11 Commission coverup of the military's failure to respond, etc.

I'm not sure what your position is on this. Are you saying that this indicates just incompetence on the part of our military, or do you agree that it indicates government complicity?

[Kevin Fenton]

55. The difference between incompetence and MIHOP

Is under two hours (i.e. when did the administration start to take advantage of the attacks - before 8:13 or after 10:06?). Generally, even the people here who don't think the government was complicit, think they manipulated the attacks for their own purposes, but that they started to do this after the last plane crashed. I would suggest that this is a false dichotomy and that excluding the period from 8:13 to 10:06 is acually excluding the most likely solution.

To my mind, the defence of incompetence applies to some extent (i.e. the US government is not great, sometimes it gets things wrong), for example, if it took General Arnold a few minutes to decide to go ahead and launch the first planes, then I don't see anything underhand in that. OK, it could have been faster, but, before the second plane was hijacked, it didn't seem to be an unusual emergency, so what was the hurry. However, the defense of incompetence does not apply to everything (for example, a possible attack on Washington is a no-brainer). So often (actually, always) the debate between CTers and debunkers is framed in such a way that there is a choice between incompetence being a defence for nothing and incompetence being a defence for everything - IMHO it is a defence, but only a a specific point, after that you have to ask questions and draw conclusions.

I'm not suggesting that the WTC wasn't demolished by explosives (if you ask me, there's no way a building with a safety factor of at least 2.6 (even after the impact damage) was destroyed by a 56-minute office fire), but that the no-757 argument at the Pentagon is an absolute donkey that doesn't even stand up to casual scrutiny. The same applies to most (but perhaps not all) of the arguments about the poor air defence.

[Time for change]

56. I'd like to see if I understand your position correctly

You agree that the WTCs were probably brought down by explosives -- which I assume means that you also probably believe that our government was behind that.

And you agree that the inability of our military to protect us against the attacks is strongly suggestive of government complicity in the attacks.

But your main, if not the only major area of disagreement with my OP is whether a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon?

[Kevin Fenton]

58. It's like this...

There are two explanations as to why the WTC was blown up. There is the false-flag operation to stimulate war and there is the "explosives were there anyway" argument, which I favour (and which Griffin ignores, the way he ignores all other explanations for government malfeasance). Basically, after the 1993 bombing (the bombers tried to collapse one tower onto the other, which would then fall onto Lower Manhattan itself - just try imagining that) it is argued that a decision was taken to plant explosives, so that a tower could be taken straight town, instead of faling sideways in the event of repeat. This seems a better explanation to me because the demolition is so obvious (i.e. it looks obvious to me) - I'm amazed they've got away with it. Actually, I'm not sure they will. There must have been a company in the WTC that was used as cover to get the explosives inside. I had a look at the elevator service company, as many of the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts and nobody would notice explosives being placed in an elevator shaft. This is what I found:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x60799
The funny stuff starts in 1994, which provides (OK, inconclusive) support for my argument.

Yes, would say the poor air defense responsive is suggestive (but not proof) of government complicity, but that does not necessarily imply foreknowledge. In fact, the worsening quality of the response implies the opposite.

[Time for change]

59. Collapse of the WTC buildings and military response to Flight 77

That's a very interesting story about the explosives in the elevator shafts. But I am totally confused as to the motive you ascribe to it. You attribute this idea to the "powers that be", and you suggest the primary motive was to prevent the building from falling over sideways in the event of a terrorist attack, if I understand you correctly.

So, are you saying that this idea was implemented by the Clinton administration or by foreign terrorists?

And are you saying then that this was done to save lives in the event of a terrorist attack? That sounds incredible to me, especially in view of the fact that when a terrorist attack did occur the response was to detonate the building (according to your theory), in a situation where (from everything I understand about this) had there been no explosives in the buildings, they probably would not have collapsed at all.


With regard to the military response to Flight 77, it seems to me that there are so many unanswered questions:

1) You agree that the military must have known about the attacks by 9:03 at the latest. Then why didn't they get a figher jet up in the air before 9:30?

2) Why were all those false versions put forth by the military and the 9/11 Commission to explain the lack of military response, as discussed in my OP?

3) You say, regarding Andrews AFB that "'combat units in the highest possible state of readiness'" does not mean alert fighters". Then why did they change their websites shortly after 9/11?

4) Do you think that the pilot of the plane had the required skill to hit the Pentagon where it was hit (That, as I assume you know, is another one of the arguments for the Pentagon being hit by something other than Flight 77, though I didn't discuss it in my OP).

5) And what about the meeting that Minetta had with Cheney shortly before the hit, testified to before the 9/11 Commission (discussed in my OP). The 9/11 Commission interpreted Cheney's orders as meaning orders to shoot down the plane. How could that possibly be? The military claims that they weren't even aware of Flight 77 until 9:34 -- yet Cheney is apparently right on top of the situation all along, telling the young man who kept on interupting his meeting that "the order still stands". Doesn't it make more sense that his order was carried out, and that order was to allow whatever happened to happen?

[Kevin Fenton]

61. Lots

You understand me correctly - better to lose one tower, than both of them and half of Lower Manhattan.

The Clinton administration.

I really doubt the buildings would have collapsed, if it were not for the explosives. However, it appears that the impacts set off some of the explosives (for example, falling elevators caused overpressures and that set them off) and it may not have been possible to determine the extent of the damage caused by this. So, safety first.

(1) NORAD logged a plane hitting the North Tower at 8:48, so they must have known by then. (According to the official account), although they perhaps didn't realise the full gravity of the situation until 9:03. There were five fighters airbourne before 9:30. The two from Otis at 8:52 and the three from Langley at 9:29. (Actually, there might be more they're not telling us about).

(2) They were trying to cover up that:
(a) They had been a bit slow initially; and/or
(b) They shot United 93 down; and/or
(c) The second part of the response seems to have been delayed for some reason.

(3) The Andrews website was changed because it was misleading, embarassingly so. Many people believe that it means they have fighters on alert, but it doesn't and they didn't.

(4) The pilot undoubtedly had the required skill to hit the building, as he accomplished it. However, it wasn't Hani, because, although he had a ticket for the flight:
(a) There is no record in the SABRE system of him checking in;
(b) There is no reported sighting of him at the airport;
(c) He is not present on the surveillance video - the person the 9/11 Commission say is Hani is clearly much taller, fatter, has a beard and a different hairstyle;
(d) His remains were not identified at the Pentagon.

(5) There is some dispute about the timing of "the order still stands", another report (I forget which one) puts it later. It could be an order to shoot down, not shoot down or blow up the WTC. We don't know.

[Time for change]

64. I'm very skeptical about all this

You answered my question about why the military couldn't get a fighter plane up in the air until 9:30 with a very technical (though possibly correct) but unsatisfying answer, so I'll try again, since this is a very important question IMO: Why couldn't the military get a figher plane up in the air to defend the capital before 9:29? AND, in view of the fact that they didn't, don't you find Minetta's conversation with Cheney extremely suspicious?

With regard to the towers, I'm sorry, but I just can't picture the idea that the explosives that resulted in the worst single day disaster in our country's history were put there because those who ordered it thought it would make us safer. I don't doubt that they were put there prior to the attacks, in fact I strongly believe that they were. But for safety reasons?

It seems to me much more logical that our government had them put there, not for safety reasons, but to justify two wars that it badly wanted long before 9-11-01. The military's resonse (i.e. lack of response) to the attacks strongly supports that theory IMO.

[Kevin Fenton]

65. Technical answer

The official explanation for the failure to launch a plane to defend the capital before 9:29 is that they just didn't get round to it. I find this explanation unsatisfactory and had previously suspected that there might be some kind of malign intent in this.

However, having seen the interview with Gen. Winfield today (although it was originally broadcast 3.5 years ago - I'm a little slow, sorry - I posted it in the forum with a transcript) the warning light that starts flashing in my head when I've been promoting an argument that's going to turn out wrong has come on and I'm a little worried about this.

Suppose, for example, that other planes (on a training mission, that could be launched quickly even though not on alert) were sent to Washington, but sent after United 93 when it was hijacked (at 9:28, the FAA notified NORAD that it was the sort of plane that was likely to be hijacked about 10-15 minutes before it was actually hijacked). These planes then shot the damn thing down, so there has been a news blackout on them. This is just something that occurred to me today, so please don't place any great weight on it.

However, at 9:25 (or so) Richard Clarke (who was co-ordinating the response (this is on p. 5 of Against All Enemies by the way), asked General Myers whether NORAD had scrambled fighters and AWACS. General Myers replied "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but ... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now." He goes on to say that there should be combat air patrol over Washington in 15 minutes, i.e. before 9:45. The three dots are generally recognised as representing a redaction - a portion of the text deleted by the official censor. It is generally presumed that they represent a reference to some sensitive wargame that Clarke could not mention. However, looking at them again, it seems to me that they might also represent something like "we've diverted three fighters from a training exercise and". Would this solve our little problem?

"I just can't picture the idea that the explosives that resulted in the worst single day disaster in our country's history were put there because those who ordered it thought it would make us safer."
Why not? Try harder. They're incompetent. If you can picture explosives as part of a false-flag operation, then why not as a safety measure? With reference to the fact that there was no way to guarantee there would not be a repeat of the 1993 bombing, what other options were there? (That's not a rhetorical question, I expect you to suggest an answer).
Are you the sort of conspiracy theorist who beleives in little green men and that the moon landings were faked? (me neither) Yet you believe the WTC was demolished with explosives. (me too) How come? My answer is that the evidence is too much for us to disbelieve, even though we would quite like to. If it is so obvious that it is clear even to the likes of us (who generally don't go for conspiracy theories), then there must have been some kind of screw up and an explanation needs to be advanced. This is my explanation.

"It seems to me much more logical that our government had them put there, not for safety reasons, but to justify two wars that it badly wanted long before 9-11-01."
(1) I would argue that this is the wrong approach. The evidence should be followed wherever it leads, logic should not be used to prejudge the results. Logic doesn't dictate, evidence does. Logic is something that gets bolted on to evidence later.
(2)(a) Obviously, they wanted a war in Iraq, but, equally obviously, they didn't want a war in Afghanistan. They didn't send many troops there in the first place and they're all leaving now.
(b) The Bush administration was demonstrably developing other plans (for example havng a fighter shot down over Iraq, WMD, rehashing the ficticious link to Ramzi Yousef yet again) to give them a pretext to invade Iraq. if they knew 9/11 was coming, why did they bother with these plans?

[Time for change]

67. I see four reasons to favor the theory that the Bush administration had

the explosives planted rather than the Clinton administration:

1) Motive: I disagree with you that motive doesn't constitute evidence. It's a different kind of evidence than physical evidence, but it's evidence nevertheless. Certainly detectives who investigate crimes for a living consider motive to be an important clue, though it can never constitute proof in and of itself.

And I also disagree with you when you say that Bush didn't want to invade Afghanistan. They had plans for that long before 9-11, and it was important to them because they wanted the Unocal pipeline deal to go through.

2) Capacity: The Bush administration has proven its ruthlessness over and over again. And if you say that that doesn't constitute evidence, I disagree. Why shouldn't it constitute evidence? If mother Theresa and Hitler were alone in a room, and a dead body was discovered, and they both accused the other of the murder, who would you believe, regardless of what other evidence was available?

3) It fits with the whole story. You have to consider the whole context. The government response to the 9-11 attacks was so incompetent (that is, if they weren't complicit) that it strains credulity. You note yourself how unsatisfactory their explanation for their failure to defend the capital is.

Also, you haven't responded to my question about how the conversation between Minetta and Cheney fits in, except to say that maybe the time given for their meeting was off a little. But if the time was off, then what sense does Minetta's testimony make?

4) The motivation for the Clinton administration doing this seems quite bizarre to me. You ask me what I would have done. That's difficult to answer with certainty because I don't have all the facts. But I would assume that the likelihood of the towers toppling over horizontally (or coming down at all in the absence of explosives) would have been considered to be so low that it wouldn't have been worth even considering. And how many additional people would have died had they toppled over horizontally. Twice as many? I have no idea. But if the explosives had gone off sooner then perhaps tens of thousands would have died.


And against all that, what evidence is there to suggest that the Clinton administration had the explosives planted?

[Kevin Fenton]

69. Unocal, etc.

"And I also disagree with you when you say that Bush didn't want to invade Afghanistan. They had plans for that long before 9-11, and it was important to them because they wanted the Unocal pipeline deal to go through."
There were no plans to invade Afghanistan, just plans to step up covert action there, plus more assistance to the Northern Alliance. No oil pipeline has been built in Afghanistan and it never will be. The deal died years before 9/11 and Unocal is now a partner (10% stake) in another Caspain oil pipeline (Baku - Tiblisi - Ceyhan). They got involved in that when Afghanistan fell through in the late 1990s.

Minetta
It could just as easily refer to a shootdown order or order to demolish the WTC. You want me to dig the staffer's account out?

"I would assume that the likelihood of the towers toppling over horizontally (or coming down at all in the absence of explosives) would have been considered to be so low that it wouldn't have been worth even considering."
I wouldn't assume that. If the bomb is big and powerful enough and in the right place, then it can be done. The 1993 bomb cost a few hundred dollars. If Yousef had spent more on the bomb and less on first-class travel, he might have been successful.

"And how many additional people would have died had they toppled over horizontally."
It's not just the people (who had a valuable set of skills), or even the value of the property that would be destroyed, but the value of the information (none of which was backed up offsite in 1993) that would have been lost. How much is the information stored in Lower Manhattan worth? For example, the NYSE was damaged by the collapses anyway, think what would have happened if the South Tower had fallen towards it. If Yousef had been successful, he would have completely destroyed the US economy. That must have scared the hell out of them.

[dailykoff]

70. They couldn't have gotten near the NYSE

or Wall Street. Even if WTC 2 tipped at the base, didn't break up, and fell flat like a tree in the right direction, it would barely make it to Church Street, let alone Broadway or Wall.

Sorry Kevin, the prophylactic explosives idea is preposterous for more reasons than I care to list. The explosives were placed in the days preceding 9/11.

[Kevin Fenton]

71. Map

Here is a map with the NYSE and the centre of WTC Plaza:

Based on this map, or any other you care to find, how far do you think it is from the SE corner of WTC 2, to the NYSE building?

"It would barely make it to Church Street,"
With reference to the fact that the South Tower was 1,362 feet and it was about 400 feet away from Church Street, would you like to rephrase that?

[dailykoff]

73. 1) Too far, 2) No

but thanks for asking. I'll figure out the actual distances for you later.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kevin Fenton]

77. Afghanistan, Cheney

Afghanistan
I am absolutely not disputing that the US intended to step up action against Afghanistan before 9/11, indeed, a (rather watered-down) plan had already gone to Bush. However, the plan was being pushed by the counter-terrorist people (like Richard Clark) - it had nothing to do with oil.

"How can you say it can just as likely be a shootdown order?"
Well, this is what Minetta said. How can you say his testimony is accurate, but then dismiss his conclusions?

"Despite the fact that Cheney was obviously right on top of this, the effort to shoot the plane down was either non-existant or unbelievably incompetent."
It depends which plane you mean. The effort to shoot down American 77 was non-existant. The effort to shoot down United 93 seems to have been more successful though.

"And with regard to your supposition that it could just as likely refer to the demolition of the WTC, how does that make any sense given the relationship of the order to the repeated reports on how close the plane was."
OK, that's a good point. I am suggesting that Cheney was dealing with both of these issues (surely you agree) and that he could have been discussing them with the same staffer. I'm not saying this is the most likely option, but how likely is it that he would have been discussing the order to allow American 77 to hit a building in Washington in front o so many witnesses?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73789

[Time for change]

78. Response

The threat to Afghanistan to give them a "carpet of bombs" rather than a carpet of gold" that I referred to in my last post did not have anything to do with terrorism. It was about oil:
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166

How can I say Minetta's testimony is accurate and then dismiss his conclusions?
I see no reason not to accept his testimony. What motive would there be to lie about that?
With regard to his conclusion: I saw the video of his testimony. The conclusion that Cheney was referring to a shootdown order is not Minetta's, it is the conclusion of the 9-11 Commission. In fact, it seemed to me that they specifically tried to get him to conclude that Cheney was referring to a shootdown order, and he refused to speculate on what Cheney was referring to (Gee, I wonder why?)

What plane was Cheney referring to?
Well, the meeting was taking place right about at the time that Flight 77 was said to be approaching Washington DC. The young man reported the plane is 50 miles out, then 30 miles, then 10 miles. That doesn't sound like United 93 by any stretch.

Why would Cheney be discussin the order to allow American 77 to hit the Pentagon in front of so many witnesses?
1) As far as a know, Minetta was the only witness.
2) He had little choice. A decision had to be made immediately. What could Cheney say - let's talk about it later?

[Bushwick Bill]

63. I like this argument.

When you mentioned it before, I always scoffed, but here's why I like it. The demo advocates always point to that weekend before the attacks when there was a "powerdown" or whatever as to when the explosives would have to be placed, but I have to think it would be impossible to wire up buildings of that size in a couple of days.

[Kevin Fenton]

66. Thank you

However, I really doubt you need a powerdown. You would probably need a powerdown to do it properly (you would actually need to vacate the building for some weeks to do controlled demolition properly), but both towers threw debris several hundred feet in various directions, so it wasn't done properly. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this was due to too many explosives, too few, poor placement, detonation of explosives on impact, too much stuff left in the towers, poor timing, restrictions on placement due to the need for secrecy or what. If I had to come off the fence, I'd probably go for not enough explosives in the perimeter.

[MrSammo1]

57. but that the no-757 argument at the Pentagon is an absolute donkey that do

Well.........what happened to the vertical stabilizer mark. It's nowhere to be found on the precollapse wall.

How is it possible to fly a passenger jet a few feet off the ground at high speeds?

[The Straight Story]

81. This may clear it up some

There appears to have been MANY different lists released:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flight_11_passengers.html

I can see where this could cause confusion depending on which source one used.

[The Straight Story]

80. About the differences in Manifests

I had heard somewhere that one was release without the names of the hijackers out of respect for the families or it was because someone who had released them found it crappy to do with the names of the killers on them (ie, they were not passengers at all, but terrorists).

Will see if I can dig that up in a bit when I get back.

[rman]

72. ah yes, the infamous smoke and water jet covered hole

It's only a 90 foot hole if you assume all of the facade that's not visible due to smoke and water jets, is a hole.

[IronLionZion]

39. You know what makes a nice round hole in a building?

And doesn't leave any wing pieces or engines or tails lying around.



A cruise missile

Watch Loose Change, you can see it free on Google Video.

[rverne8]

79. Griffin's book will go down in history as the best account of 9/11

Griffin has recently, March 30, 2006, published a transcript of a lecture that summarizes the most salient points of his research. I have found interesting, (in a disturbing kind of way): main stream cable, broadcast and corporate owned print media are ignoring these critical findings. Also, for explicit details on the fall of the buildings and the physics involved see this article authored by Griffin as well as an article by a professional engineering and physics scientist from Idaho State University, Steven A Jones.
Recent criticism of Griffin's writings make astounding claims about the lack of hard science behind his careful analysis of the fall of the towers, but the footnotes to his book point in every instance to hard facts and statistics.