It's a lesson I learned myself years ago, although it doesn't always stick with me. It's easy to accept as authentic something that we agree with, or that fits with our preconceived ideas. But such acceptance is no guarantee of truth. Thus, I've learned that we ought to research with equal thoroughness those ideas that strike us as accurate as those we doubt.
As you noted, fortunately the truncated quote you've been using is fully faithful to the original. I'm sure that President Jefferson wouldn't criticize the use of ridicule against any unintelligible proposition, even though on that occasion he suggested its application to one particular "Abracadabra."
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
Your argument does not make any sense. 1. I'm talking about the rate at which the building fell. It doesn't matter what the end distance is. We just replace 158 meters with 226 meters for both the examples of the building falling and the object falling. It is still the same rate at which it is falling. And if so it's still only about a 1 second difference from freefall speed even if we do include your obviously irrelevant argument. Seriously 52 floors in 7 seconds? that means that every second there were 7.4 floors taken out through a domino effect. The pancake theory is just utter hogwash, which is the official story. If you watch a video of it it is obvious that the resistance for all 54 floors was taken out at the same time, just like when they do a demolition.
I find it funny that you seriously think that by giving me some useless information, it instantly debunks everything I said. You need to present to me scientific explanations of why this happened and back it up with logic and science. But of course the people who respond on this thread probably have no degree in anything, and havnt even taken classes in physics.
Your argument does not make any sense. 1. I'm talking about the rate at which the building fell. It doesn't matter what the end distance is. We just replace 158 meters with 226 meters for both the examples of the building falling and the object falling. It is still the same rate at which it is falling. And if so it's still only about a 1 second difference from freefall speed even if we do include your obviously irrelevant argument. Seriously 52 floors in 7 seconds? that means that every second there were 7.4 floors taken out through a domino effect. The pancake theory is just utter hogwash, which is the official story. If you watch a video of it it is obvious that the resistance for all 54 floors was taken out at the same time, just like when they do a demolition.
I have seen several demolitions and see no merit in your argument.
First any slowing down of a free fall would tend to happen more toward the bottom end of a building, the taller the building the more pronounced the deceleration. However, the actual rate of fall toward the base was obscured by dust. How do your sources account for a rate of fall toward the base when such a rate was completely obscured? Are your sources claiming superman vision?
Second the very structure of the buildings were such that the weight was primarily carried by exterior walls rather than interior pillars in order to maximize floorspace. A brilliant idea that did not foresee the massive energy a modern airliner filled with jet fuel would impart upon the external steel framework, which easily led to melting. For such a building design, the exterior would easily achieve a near free fall acceleration due to gravity.
The physics I have seen used in proposing the normal explanation is quite solid IM(somewhat professional)O.
Third, it appears to me that you have a great desire to promote a rather elaborate conspiracy theory that would require a level of sustained secrecy that has never been observed in history. Such a scenario violates not just Occam's razor, but also my direct experience in people keeping secrets, both within the field of military intelligence and in my personal life. I think it is you who may benefit from some use of critical thinking rather than your present audience. An excellent start would be to examine the data to hypothesize a conclusion instead of starting with an 'infallible' conclusion and then trying to twist all evidence in support.
I find it funny that you seriously think that by giving me some useless information, it instantly debunks everything I said. You need to present to me scientific explanations of why this happened and back it up with logic and science.
You are the one making the assertion of a massive, unnoticed, and virtually impossibly still secret conspiracy. The burden of providing any evidence to support your hypothesis is upon you, not your detractors. Besides, as Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
But of course the people who respond on this thread probably have no degree in anything, and havnt even taken classes in physics.
You are not only obviously ignorant of the education level of the average person in this forum, but are now resorting to insults as if you are somehow unconsciously aware you are unable to logically respond to their criticisms.
Besides, such a put down is somewhat an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. If it were not, you should be accepting my reasoned observations as gospel as my 367 semester units of college in obtaining four undergraduate and graduate degrees are mostly comprised of coursework in engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences.
{ABE} I also strongly suspect that a controlled demolition would have left a different seismic footprint than a point demolition. Were all the seismologists within a few thousand miles/km in on the conspiracy?
Edited by anglagard, : left out exterior building free fall
Edited by anglagard, : add mathematics, obviously implied, but someone unfamiliar with the other two fields may require a measure of enlightenment.
Edited by anglagard, : add space for grammermetrical purposes
Edited by anglagard, : clarity
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
Did you not say in Message 26 the building fell in 7 seconds?
Did you not say it fell to the ground?
Did you not say the building 226 meters tall?
Did you not calculate t(s)= (s/.5g)1/2 for 226m gives 6.8 seconds?
So, does it not follow that when it is learned that the building didn't fall to the ground but into a rubble pile 67 meters tall that it must now be determined how long it takes to fall to that elevation not the ground that it didn't fall to? After all, if you were walking on the 102 nd floor observation platform of the Empire State Building and you tripped on your shoe lace you'd not expect it to take 8.8 seconds to hit the floor would you?
Well then, t(s)= (s/.5g)1/2 for 159m gives 5.7 seconds would seem to me to be the counter argument to yours.
And if we extend the argument that it took 7 seconds (not 6.8 seconds) to fall those 159 meters then we had 19% of that time to crush its shell, and there is nothing left of your argument but your inability to understand it or the new one.
If you watch a video of it it is obvious that the resistance for all 54 floors was taken out at the same time, just like when they do a demolition.
It's not obvious. Claiming so is a short cut to deluding yourself that it is. You should learn some math and physics so that you can delude yourself the hard way. I'm sure you'd find it more satisfying.
You need to present to me scientific explanations of why this happened and back it up with logic and science.
You haven't understood the scientific explanation any more then you understand the math you presented in message 26.
The reason you haven't remove the initial velocity, v, from the equation form the git-go is because you're not comfortable manipulating simple algebraic equations. You didn't even remove it after you declared v=0. This is the same reason you didn't immediately solve for t: you didn't know how.
But of course the people who respond on this thread probably have no degree in anything, and havnt even taken classes in physics.
If you want to pitch the poo you'll find me game. You should realize that you've just been schooled by someone who won't be allowed to take physics until he's in the 10th grade.
Don't be a dufus.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
We just replace 158 meters with 226 meters for both the examples of the building falling and the object falling. It is still the same rate at which it is falling. And if so it's still only about a 1 second difference from freefall speed even if we do include your obviously irrelevant argument. Seriously 52 floors in 7 seconds? that means that every second there were 7.4 floors taken out through a domino effect.
{made boner in bold for emphasis}
Objects do not free fall at constant velocity. That's why it is called the acceleration due to gravity.
Edited by anglagard, : Bold the boner
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
But of course the people who respond on this thread probably have no degree in anything, and havnt even taken classes in physics.
Name calling; the last refuge of those with nothing of substance to say.
Pray tell, where did you get your physics degree, doctor?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
Look At pictures from other airplane wrecks, and how could even an experianced pilot fly a jumbojet 6-10 feet off the ground flying at a minimum speed of 300 MPH
-explosives were heard in buildings even before the plane crashed.
A strange statement. Do you have any evidence for this?
If this is meant to be connected to the "controlled demolition" that conspiracy theorists fantasize about, I would point out that in a controlled demolition, the building falls down when the charges go off, not an hour later.
-molten steel at bottom of the buildings
There is no evidence for whatsoever that the metal in question was steel; nor, of course, is it a characteristic of controlled demolitions.
-rate at which they fell, seriously building 7 wasnt hit,
It was hit by debris, and it caught fire.
and it fell in exactly the same way.
You mean ... downwards?
buildings are made to be able to take a lot of resistance.
That was an odd sentence.
-employees having lots of evacuation practice procedures
Well duh. Evacuation practice is common in large buildings, and since terrorists had tried to target the WTC previously, it would seem prudent.
, and even interviews of survivors saying they heard lots of weird noises the weeks before it occurred
Evidence?
-a huge terrorist insurance taken out just 2 months before 911
You mean, when the buildings were purchased?
Of course the buildings were insured. This is normal practice.
-stock market predictions, where people put money on airlines failing at a much higher rate than usual. It shows someone knew prior to 911.
Al Qaeda, for example.
Now please explain to me scientifically, how it is possible for a 100 story building to fall that fast without using explosives to get rid of the resistance at the bottom and middle of the building.
There's this stuff called "gravity".
Also please tell me the evidence we have that linked Osama Bin Laden to 911.
Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. The hijackers left martyrdom videos. Their connections with al Qaeda have been proven. KSM admitted to planning 9/11 with OBL.
I've read the 911 commission report and its overall scientific bullshit. Anyone who has even taken a basic college physics class can figure this out.
But apparently they've all been bribed or intimidated into silence.
I Want to get other peoples thoughts on the 9-11 conspiracy. I am somewhat neutral but lean a little bit towards the conspiracy theory.
Why is it that people like you start off pretending to be "neutral" when you know that a minute later you're going to be reciting Conpiracy Theory dogma like it was Holy Writ and screaming with rage at anyone who dares to question it?
I also feel there is a 911 "issue". And many engineers, architects, scientist, etc, want a better investigation done because frankly the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore.
I gotta run but enjoy this video and I'd love to get into this with anyone willing debate it. I am not neutral on this, I'm on the side of a conspiracy. I don't think one guy in a cave thousands of miles away could orchestrate this type of act.
NORAD does not fuck up 4 times in one day!
Bush, Cheney and Rice, on national tv, said that NO admin ever predicted planes would be used as weapons, however, CNN reported that 2 years before the attacks NORAD conducted simulations with planes used as weapons, and one of the targets was, you guessed it, The World Trade Center - this was repoted on mainstream news.
Furthermore, on the cover of the 1997 FEMA Terroism Response Manual there is actually a picture of the Trade Centers with a bulls-eye on it!
Also, Operation "Mascal", conducted on Oct. 2000 simulated a plane crash into the Pentagon.
No one ever predicted planes could be used as weapons? BULLSHIT. So why the lies?
Also, the director of Pakistani inteligence, (ISI), Mahmood Ahmed, ordered Omar Saeed Sheik to wire 100K to Mohammed Atta. This was also reported on CNN. However, no inquiry as to why General Ahmed ordered the money to be sent to Atta was ever conducted. - On the morning of 911 government officials were having breakfast with General Ahmed in Washington.
The 911 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was "of little significance".
Finally, some of the hijackers are ALIVE - at least 6.
Enjoy this video and the quote bellow it and I'll brace for the responses.
quote:
Date: May 28, 2009 9:05 PM Subject: Top military brass met 2 discuss what really happened on 911
Active and retired top military brass met to discuss what really happened on 9/11
Online Journal 5/28/09
By Wayne Madsen
WMR has learned from a well-informed source that in the months after the 9/11 attacks, a group of retired and active duty military officers, with ranks as high as general, met in an informal and hush-hush working group to discuss what actually occurred on September 11, 2001.
WMR has been told that those who met did not believe, in whole or in part, the official line that 19 Arabs nationals armed with box cutters hijacked four U.S. passenger planes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The officers included veterans of Marine Corps Special Operations.
The officers concluded that it was impossible for the military’s command and control, intelligence, and other defense systems to cascade in a total failure on the morning of September 11. They quietly set out to find out what actually occurred that morning and who or what influenced the total failure of defense, intelligence, and air traffic control systems.
The officers were forced to hold their meetings in secret because of retaliation brought against those who revealed information embarrassing to the Bush administration about both 9/11 and the concocted war against Iraq.
It is now being reported that investigators for the 9/11 Commission drafted a memo in April 2004 stating they believed that the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lied to commission investigators by indicating the military’s readiness was sufficient on 9/11. Commission staffer John Azzerello is reported to have given the memo to Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a leading neocon, who then buried it.
Commission investigators wanted a strongly worded criminal referral on NORAD and FAA perjury sent to the Justice Department but Zelikow downplayed the complaint and later told Phil Shenon, the author of The Commission and New York Times reporter, that he did not know of the criminal referral issue at the time.
The 9/11 Commission documents about the perjury of NORAD and FAA officials corroborates the concerns expressed by the retired military officers about the true version of events on 9/11
- Oni "PSCT"
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
I also feel there is a 911 "issue". And many engineers, architects, scientist, etc, want a better investigation done because frankly the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore.
Ah yes ... like all those lists of creationist scientists. Except that those are longer. Moreover, the signatories to the various "new investigation" petitions have said no more than that they just want that: a new investigation. Find me a petition where they say that this is because "the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore".
---
Have you ever seen a controlled demolition?
Have you ever heard a controlled demolition?
If anything like that had happened, the evidence would indeed be "too much to just ignore". But it didn't.
I am not neutral on this, I'm on the side of a conspiracy. I don't think one guy in a cave thousands of miles away could orchestrate this type of act.
Yeah, it's like thinking that one guy in a bunker thousands of miles away could orchestrate the invasion of Russia. Except that that involved 4.5 million people instead of nineteen, and no-one, but no-one, claims that OBL had operational control.
Really, where is the difficulty here? Even as arguments from incredulity go, you seem to have precious little to be incredulous of. All Al Qaeda had to do was recruit the hijackers and give them their marching orders. Where exactly is the difficulty?
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes’ notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings ... The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03. The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower ... NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77. Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11 ... NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude.
I guess that's why no-one has blamed NORAD for "fucking up".
Bush, Cheney and Rice, on national tv, said that NO admin ever predicted planes would be used as weapons ...
You do not quote these statements, but it sounds to me like they were covering their incompetence or negligence in not putting into place procedures to deal with it.
Maybe also they just didn't know about the anxieties of the Clinton administration when they made those statements --- did you?
In any case, it seems to me that if the government planned the attacks and then wished to shift the blame onto Al Qaeda, they would have taken the opposite line.
CNN reported that 2 years before the attacks NORAD conducted simulations with planes used as weapons, and one of the targets was, you guessed it, The World Trade Center - this was repoted on mainstream news.
Furthermore, on the cover of the 1997 FEMA Terroism Response Manual there is actually a picture of the Trade Centers with a bulls-eye on it!
Also, Operation "Mascal", conducted on Oct. 2000 simulated a plane crash into the Pentagon.
No one ever predicted planes could be used as weapons? BULLSHIT.
So, you have evidence that the intelligence community was (a) worried about terrorists using planes as missiles (b) worried about the WTC as a target ... and you're using this as evidence that no such thing happened?
Also, the director of Pakistani inteligence, (ISI), Mahmood Ahmed, ordered Omar Saeed Sheik to wire 100K to Mohammed Atta. This was also reported on CNN. However, no inquiry as to why General Ahmed ordered the money to be sent to Atta was ever conducted. - On the morning of 911 government officials were having breakfast with General Ahmed in Washington.
The 911 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was "of little significance".
You're not painting a very clear picture. Bush ... had officials ... who had breakfast with a man ... who may have told another man ... to send money to another man ... whom conspiracy theorists claim is innocent.
Does that make Bush guilty? How about Kevin Bacon?
Finally, some of the hijackers are ALIVE - at least 6.
Then their behavior is most singular. They stand accused of an infamous mass-murder, and all they have to do to clear their names is prove that they're alive. Merely to come forward would automatically prove their innocence.
Why don't they do so? Why has no conspiracy theorist managed to locate them?
Oh yes, 'cos they're dead. I guess that's why the news organization that reported that they were alive later conceded that they were wrong.
Enjoy this video ...
I dragged the slidey thing forward to get to where Gage started talking, and the first words I heard out of his mouth were "into its own footprint".
I don't think I need to hear any more. Anyone who can be that wrong is scarcely to be taken as an authority.
... and the quote bellow it ...
"WMR has learned from a well-informed source ... WMR has been told ... It is now being reported ..."
Most enjoyable.
Moreover, your quote works against your own thesis. According to the allegations, NORAD claimed that they were prepared to meet such a threat but were lying 'cos really they weren't.
Weren't you the person who asserted that NORAD couldn't fuck up? Now you're producing (unsubstantiated) allegations that they did.
How this would prove that the government was behind 9/11, I don't know.
---
Tell me, are you familiar with the phrase "Gish Gallop"?
You think WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Dr. A has already explained why it doesn't look like a controlled demolition, so I'll take a look at whether it even makes any sense to think it was controlled demolition.
Like most CTers, you present a list of anomalies with no coherent theory to tie them all together, or to account for known facts. What are you suggesting, two planes were flown into the towers to camouflage the intentional destruction of WTC7? After the planes crashed, someone saw an opportunity and wired WTC7 for demolition? The terrorist attack just happened to coincide with the completely independent plan to bring down WTC7?
I don't dispute that the WTC7 collapse superficially resembled a controlled demolition, certainly more so than the collapse of the towers. Thus, it seems to me that the first question one needs to ask is what kind of damage to a building causes it to collapse in that general manner, and is there any reason to think that WTC7 suffered that kind of damage as a result of the plane crashes? Have you asked those questions, and looked into possible answers? Or did you simply think, "Wow, looks like a controlled demolition, that must have been what it was"?
Any conspiracy theory has to account for the fact that two planes flew into the towers. It has to account for the fact that no legitimate media outlet is questioning the explanation that the planes caused all the damage. Incorporate these facts into a controlled demolition theory and I'll listen to what you have to say. Otherwise, your "explanation" raises more questions than it answers. That's almost never a good sign.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
This whole business about "controlled demolition" strikes me as absurd to the highest degree. A controlled demolition isn't something that you can just set up easily. It requires days, even weeks of work on the building to be demolished. First they remove everything that is not nailed down; all the furniture and fittings. Then they remove a lot of the stuff that is nailed down; floors, ceilings, doors, partitions etc. Then the entire building is filled with cables connecting the explosives. These cables are substantial and highly visible. Finally, the explosives are put in place, not just in one site, but in multiple sites. The whole process is long and complicated and completely impossible to hide.
It would be quite impossible to do all the necessary work in a building which housed thousands of workers without them noticing. It simply isn't realistic.
In my opinion Richard Gage is nothing more than a self-serving lying asshole who is seeking to profit from tragedy.
Mutate and Survive
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
Ah yes ... like all those lists of creationist scientists.
Or...like all those scientist 500 years ago trying to investigate the claims by the church.
Moreover, the signatories to the various "new investigation" petitions have said no more than that they just want that: a new investigation. Find me a petition where they say that this is because "the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore".
quote:5. COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7: The unexplained and little-reported free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which raises the possibility of an intentional demolition. (See, Appendix A5)
Have you ever seen a controlled demolition?
Have you ever heard a controlled demolition?
Yes, on 911.
If anything like that had happened, the evidence would indeed be "too much to just ignore".
You're right, thus the Petition.
Look at your video and look at tower 7 fall...who is ignoring what here, Dr.?
All Al Qaeda had to do was recruit the hijackers and give them their marching orders. Where exactly is the difficulty?
I have not claimed that "Al Qaeda", whatever that actually means, wasn't involved. I have also not claimed that Bush and Cheney planned the attacks.
I guess that's why no-one has blamed NORAD for "fucking up".
No-one? I suggest you read the Petition.
Your quote writes:
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes’ notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings ... The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03. The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower ... NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77. Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11 ...NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude.
The highlighted portions are complete bullshit - I don't know where you got that information from, but here's NORAD's timelines directly form them.
United Airlines Flight 175 — Boston enroute to Los Angeles: FAA Notification to NEADS:0843 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11):0846 Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2):0902
American Flight 77 —Dulles enroute to Los Angeles: FAA Notification to NEADS: 0924 Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s): 0924 Airline Impact Time (Pentagon): 0937(estimated)
You do not quote these statements, but it sounds to me like they were covering their incompetence or negligence in not putting into place procedures to deal with it.
Maybe also they just didn't know about the anxieties of the Clinton administration when they made those statements --- did you?
Sorry, these statements are from live news interviews. You can search youtube if you like and listen to them. However, this was reported all over the mainstream media, I'm surprised you don't recall hearing them say this stuff.
The biggest bullshit was the Bush/Cheney testimony to the 911 Commision. The conditions set up before hand, layed out by the Bush/Cheney admin, was against the requests of the Commision. The Commision requested them to be interviewed seperately, Bush and Cheney choose to do it together, and did. No media coverage. No transcripts. And what was printed in the end was only what was approved by the Bush/Cheney admin.
Smells like something is "fucked up".
In any case, it seems to me that if the government planned the attacks and then wished to shift the blame onto Al Qaeda, they would have taken the opposite line.
I don't think they planned the attacks, all I'm saying is there is some serious cover-up involved in all this. Also, who has financially benefited from the aftermath of 911...? Bush and Cheney - something isn't right, I won't make the leap to them being the orchestrators, but they are covering up something, and they've equally made a lot of money due to it.
So, you have evidence that the intelligence community was (a) worried about terrorists using planes as missiles (b) worried about the WTC as a target ... and you're using this as evidence that no such thing happened?
My post wasn't structured properly, since I was in a bit of a rush. I'm using it as evidence against the Bush, Cheney, Rice statements that NO administration had ever predicted planes could be used as missiles. Clearly that is not the case.
You're not painting a very clear picture. Bush ... had officials ... who had breakfast with a man ... who may have told another man ... to send money to another man ... whom conspiracy theorists claim is innocent.
Not quite.
From the Petition:
quote: PAKISTANI ISI: The alleged connection of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Agency ("ISI") to financing the 9/11 plot, with its implications leading back to possible American connections in our intelligence agencies and other officials. (See, Appendix A3)
From Appendix:
quote:As the hijackings of September 11 began, Pakistani Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, then director of the ISI, was in a breakfast meeting at the Capitol in Washington, DC with Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) and Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), then the chiefs of the House and Senate committees on intelligence, respectively.
In the weeks after September 11, news reports in the Indian and European press claimed Ahmad and his agency authorized the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta through the intermediary of a veteran ISI asset, Omar Saeed Sheikh.
At a press conference May 16, 2002, following revelations that the White House had received warnings of possible hijackings in the United States prior to September 11, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was asked about the alleged ISI connection to financing the 9/11 plot.
In the spring and summer of 2002, Goss and Graham were the prime movers of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the first major 9/11 investigation by a legislative body. Their 858-page report, published in 2003 with about 25 percent of the overall text redacted, fails to pursue, clarify or mention the allegations of Pakistani financing for the 9/11 plotters and the allegations of an ISI connection to al-Qaeda, at least in the unredacted portions of the text.
A year later, in its final and authoritative report, the Kean Commission also ignored allegations of Pakistani ISI financing for the alleged 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 Commission Report flatly states, "We have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding" to the alleged 9/11 plotters (p. 172). This is unlikely, as groups such as 9/11 CitizensWatch repeatedly supplied the Kean Commission with the available evidence of an ISI funding connection at various times during the 18-month inquiry, for example supplying Commission staff with the well-documented timelines at Center for Cooperative Research - Find Your Bill of Sale Template Online. The 9/11 Commission Report goes so far as to suggest that the issue of terror financing is irrelevant: "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
Two dramatic but under-covered U.S. news-media revelations further indicate an unusual triangular complex of relations among the Bin Ladin-connected networks of "al-Qaeda," the ISI and Pakistani military establishment, and U.S. government agencies and their covert networks:
a. CBS Evening News, 1/28/02: On the night of September 10, 2001, Osama Bin Ladin was receiving dialysis treatments at a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, hospital workers report.
b. =yellowThe New Yorker, 1/28/02: In November 2001, U.S. forces in Afghanistan cleared an air corridor between the besieged Taliban stronghold of Kunduz and Pakistan, allegedly allowing safe passage and escape to possibly thousands of ISI personnel and al-Qaeda fighters in advance of taking the town. This is one of many cases in which U.S. forces or authorities were apparently ordered to allow the "terrorists" they were meant to pursue to escape.
(See, newyorker.com/fact/content/?020128fa_FACT and also, Appendix B2)
And of course, like all good cover-ups, they follow in the footsteps of the Kennedy assasination:
The financing of the alleged 9/11 plotters was connected in early stories to Omar Saeed Sheikh, a mysterious figure who reportedly has a history of working with the ISI. He is on death row in Pakistan, awaiting execution after conviction for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh's name dropped out of news reports alleging Pakistani ISI financing of terrorism after November, 2001.
Is that a little clearer, Dr.?
Does that make Bush guilty? How about Kevin Bacon?
Both can be accused of bad acting.
Then their behavior is most singular. They stand accused of an infamous mass-murder, and all they have to do to clear their names is prove that they're alive. Merely to come forward would automatically prove their innocence.
Why don't they do so? Why has no conspiracy theorist managed to locate them?
Oh yes, 'cos they're dead. I guess that's why the news organization that reported that they were alive later conceded that they were wrong.
Ok, tell you what, here's the proof that a major news network reported 4 of them alive (the BBC) Hijackers Alive, then you show me your evidence of them admiting they were wrong.
Fair enough? - Then I'll concede. However, if you can't then will you concede?
Weren't you the person who asserted that NORAD couldn't fuck up? Now you're producing (unsubstantiated) allegations that they did.
One more litte tid-bit of information about that:
quote:In May 2001, Cheney took charge of a counterterrorism task force under his purview. On September 11, he was the highest official involved in a command capacity during the period of the actual attacks. At an as-yet unspecified time after the first plane crash at 8:46 a.m., open phone-lines were established between the White House (where Cheney and Transportation Secretary Mineta were present), the Secret Service, FAA and NORAD (FAA, 5/21/03; Cheney on NBC, 9/16/01). The 9/11 Commission Report presents only short and highly selective passages from transcripts of these conversations. An investigation would if necessary issue subpoenas to obtain these transcripts and examine them towards clarifying the actual sequence of events and command structures for both: the pre-scheduled wargames and the defense response to the unfolding attacks.
How this would prove that the government was behind 9/11, I don't know.
I hope the information I have provided at the very least makes you skeptical as to the Bush/Cheney involement and cover-up. "Behind it", may not completely, but I would say the evidence points to them being involved in a major capacity.
Further, there is a huge media gap between the info that we receive and the info that actually exists. There is a clear cover-up here, that, I will admit, I beleive is being orchestrated by Bush/Cheney.
They defied the requests of the 911 Commision - they demanded no transcripts - no media coverage - they allowed only what they wanted printed. Also, they have benefited in a massive way in the aftermath of 911.
A full investigation needs to be done.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
™ Version 4.2
