BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???

Subject: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:35 AM

Well, well, well...

I reckon this is more a commentary of the brain-dead tea baggers that now make up the base of the Republican Party but...

...seems that everytime I turn on the TV there's some Repub pundit, like Dick Cheney, saying that the US wasn't hit by terrorists during the Bush administration???

Like what gives here???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:47 AM

Maybe some of that bird shot ricochetted off of Whittingon's face and up Cheney's nose or in his ear and struck his brain?

Snork...

Bush was reading to children in some elementary school when the 1st and 2nd planes struck.   Maybe he is not considered to be administrating when he visits schools?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:50 AM

A school is probably the last place they expected to find him.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 09:14 AM

I sure as hell didn't imagine it....wish I had.....still can't believe it happened, or what has happened to our world since that dreadful day...

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM

The efforts to brainwash us into believing it happened under some other president has begun. These people are true fascists.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:13 AM

That's right, Bobert. We imagined it. Also the USS Cole, those buildings in Africa, the attack on the quarters in Saudi Arabia, the little tiff in Iraq, the first attack on the World Trade Center, the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, World War 2, Vietnam....

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:24 AM

When I started teaching in 1977, my American freshman class knew nothing - I mean nothing, do you understand me? - of the Vietnam War except that communism had been involved somehow and our side lost.

That was only four years after the U.S. withdrawal, less than two after the fall of Saigon.

A little math tells me that 9/11 was, year for year, much longer ago than that.

So draw your own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:24 AM

What Carol said... but ;no they are not the F word.


Hypnosis works best when reinforced with repetition. Repetition followed by some form of silence implies a tacit approval of the phrase. Often the intentional but patently false phrase is said quickly enough so that the following sentence gives no time for reaction to allow any contention.

The Republic party relies on psycho neuro linguistic techniques far more than the Democratic party. They craft rules of what is appropriate and what is not. They scold loudly at any disruption or interuption of Darth Cheney or the cross dressing Guilliani if anyone should disagree with thier quick interjections that all attacks have happened under Clinton and Obama or that they pal around with terrorists.

To challenge every single lie every time they repeat the big lie becomes tedious, so the lazy interviewer lets it pass. George Stephanopolis lets it pass as do most interviewers. Then there are those who are paid to not only let the ie pass but to praise spokes liars for the right.

Tedious or not, setting oneself up to be the interrerupter by pointing out the lie does WITH REPETITION nullify the intended post hypnotic suggestion.

Until Democrats understand and use psycho neuro linguistics, instead of just reacting to those who do or those who cry out "you lie" falsly, the left wing will remain in the position of answering to an argument defined by their opposition , instead of shaping and stating their own truth first.

To succeed you must; Defuse the big lie, accuse the opposition of any sin of your own first, Define your purpose with repitition AND Deamonize the hysterical opposition politely-obliquely- or directly.

Its so basic but so important that any success of an organized populace movement depends on this one basic fact.

You don't need a minister of propoganda to fhetoricly use truth as a weapon to your nearly insane critics. But you do not play into their hands either. Use the hypnosis tools for yourself instead of only defending against them a day late and a 'holler' short.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:25 AM

Maybe what they mean is that they did it themselves...

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:27 AM

I meant 'populist'

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:40 AM

Oh, and of course...they do not define themselves as "terrorists". Therefore, they would feel they were speaking quite truthfully in saying that the "terrorists" did not attack the USA during the Bush administration.

Remember...it's only OTHER people who are "terrorists". No matter what it is that they do. What they do is not nearly as important as who they are. Bad people, that is...evil people. People with brown skin, facial hair, and unpronouncable names. ;-) Not good people..."like us". Good people (like us) don't do bad things. We may kill thousands or even millions of the bad people and we may ruin entire societies, but we do it only for the most laudable of reasons...and only in self-defence, naturally. Because we are GOOD people. Our motives are always good, and our methods may seem severe at times, but they are the only means of securing freedom, liberty, and all those other good things like that.

If you're not with us, you're against us.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:46 AM

Notice cerefull that no one here has dared bring up any of the forbidden questions. To do so we have to hide it in humor or parody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO4qGWtP2a0

Still one of my all time favorite forbidden questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxx0GXJEeko

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:48 AM

They're fascists by every definition of the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:49 AM

Maybe just another "Groundhog Day"( the movie) scene we and the Bush folks are liv'in..

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:55 AM

over a million views/internet hits http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&feature=related


OK suppose they are fascists. Notice how well they use linguistics, hypnosis and propoganda. Notice how they accuse the left of being fascists -RUle #2 accuse the opposition of your own sins first.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 12:02 PM

Rapaire, it looks as if you think that the Cole and Marine attacks were terrorism, nonsense, the military are a legitimate target. Don't confuse attacks on civilians with attacks on the voluntary armed forces.

Not that we didn't imagine them too...

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 12:10 PM

That is correct. The military are a legitimate target in any conflict, including a guerrilla action by non-governmental forces, so an attack on American military forces cannot be characterized as terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM

Giuliani later 'explained' that he meant there'd been no terrorist attacks during the Bush Administration since 9/11 but he also forgot Reid, the Shoe Bomber.

If the attempted attack by Abdullaetc, the Groin Bomber, was what prompted Giuliani to bring up the subject, you'd think its similarity to the Shoe Bomber would have come to mind.

As for the Infowars link that Donuel posted and the apparent discrepancy of reported events, somebody, somewhere has to pursue it. Because it will come out someday, whatever the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 01:38 PM

Did Cheney say that? I thought it was Giuliani, myself. Actually, Politifact.com identifies five post-9/11 terrorist attacks within the US, one of which was Reid.

For any of the varied parties in all this to call anyone else a fascist (or a Fascist) demonstrates the usual total lack of understanding of what that word means.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM

Also the beltway snipers and as mentioned in the article below, the anthrax terrorism.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/08/2010-01-08_hey_rudy_remember_sept_11.html

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 04:17 PM

The beltway snipers were not connected in any way to ANY administration. Their 'terrorism' was a personal thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"As for the Infowars link that Donuel posted and the apparent discrepancy of reported events, somebody, somewhere has to pursue it.

It was pursued, explained and refuted many times. Some folks just like the rumor better.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 04:35 PM

They were domestic terrorism on US soil. Isn't that way Rudy was talking about? The think he said did NOT take place on Bush's watch. The lesson to be gained was that terrorism could be successfully dealt with on a "law and order" basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 04:41 PM

Cheney was a lying sonuvabitch then. What makes you think he's changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 04:47 PM

NB: That wasn't addressed to anyone in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 04:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM

>>Cheney was a lying sonuvabitch then. What makes you think he's changed?

He is talking a lot more.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 05:00 PM

Excellent, Donuel. Thanks for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 05:51 PM

IF you merely feel that there are forbidden questions that can not be asked anymore, then the fear and intimidation of the prior administration is still pumping poison to every cell of your body and mind.

Every witness of the Pentagon attack on 9-11 that I have spoken with, has a different description. Some say the landing gear was down others say it was up, Some say they saw a small commuter plane others saw a cruise missile. Some saw a jetliner.

Whatever the FBI saw on 46 surveillence cameras, they only release one in which nothing was visible except for a orange explosion. Why is that? Did they do that to encourage rumor? Why would they do that? Or is there another reason?


Bill
Questions are not an indictment or proof of another explanation, they are questions. I see unanswered questions, at least to my satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 06:13 PM

If one wishes to do an operation like this and subsequently cover it up, then one of the most effective tactics possible is to provide a large number of apparently conflicting visual circumstances so that many different witnesses will see many different things (all of them actually seeing something, but not necessarily the same thing). You then allow all of these different things to be chased around by people until the situation is so confusing that no one knows what to believe, and every theory can be scoffed at.

Muddy the trail, in other words. Drop lots of red herrings around in all directions. And provide some credible-sounding false witnesses and false "evidence" as well.

Make sure that some of the theories which your false evidence will give birth to are so weird that it serves to discredit ALL theories by association, other than the offical one.

The reason the FBI only releases one almost completely useless film from one camera when they should have had film on a great many others is simple. They've been instructed to conceal evidence that would clear up a great deal of the muddiness, and would also consign several popular theories to the grave.

In my opinion. (I said that for Bill's benefit.) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 06:14 PM

"...they only release one in which nothing was visible except for a orange explosion."

No, there was one set of images which showed the very front of the jetliner. I have posted it before. (ALL those cameras took pictures at 1 second intervals...there was NO regular video) Dozens saw a jetliner...including a couple of pilots who knew exactly what it was.

and...that video titled "Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" is simply, NOT proof of any such thing. It has been explained many times. There are many sudden loud noises that are not 'bombs'. I understand why concern about bombs might be genuine, and why it would be investigated, but the evidence showed other causes.


Questions are fine....ignoring answers which don't support one's pet theory is not. If there are disagreements, by all means, ask the questions which will help resolve confusions: but rhetorical questions designed to merely cast doubt bother me a lot....(as some may have gathered.☺)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 06:31 PM

I saw the whole craft in that Pentagon video, and it is not a jetliner. It does not in any way resemble a jetliner.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 06:39 PM

Bill, I posted at that time and the wheel assembly that was shown to the world was not the same wheel that should have been on that airliner.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 07:18 PM

*sigh* The wheel assembly WAS the correct one... there were photos comparing what was found and what the airliner would have used... I looked at 7-8 pages explaining it all.

"I saw the whole craft in that Pentagon video..." ?? WHAT video do you reference?

As I said, there was no standard video: there were only frames from a couple of security cameras...one second apart. I, personally, downloaded the one showing the nose of an aircraft and played it, frame-by-frame, and saved the one frame with an image of the nose, and it certainly was consistent with the size of a 757 nose, though it would not be identifiable as a specific aircraft if that frame were the only evidence. That's why the eyewitness reports from qualified pilots who SAW it fly over the highway were relevant.

*shrug*.. I cannot compel anyone to agree, but believing the various conspiracy theories requires accepting such a complex set of other assumptions that it boggles the mind! Just explaining where the 757 with all those people went if it DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon requires so many other theories that .... well,I'm at a loss for metaphors.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM

Bill, do you feel that you have been truthfully informed by your government as to the events that took place on 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:04 PM

Everyone knows that it was a remotely piloted Piper Cub (with Dick Cheney on the joystick) that hit the Pentagon. American flight 77 was translated through hyperspace and then blasted by the Klingons.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:04 PM

?? What a leading question, Bruce. The only way I can answer that is that I see no reason for 'them' (meaning the Bush admin. and the 9/11 commission) to lie about the basic facts. (meaning what hit what and the laws of physics)
Did the Bushies dissemble about their lapses in judgment and careless attention to warnings? Oh, no doubt! Did they PLAN 9/11 and utilize a cast of thousands to create a massive hoax? ...no...

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:06 PM

*tsk*...no, Art.. Cheney couldn't have done it. He was at Guantanamo, getting the cells ready!

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:09 PM

Fair enough, Bill. Thanks.

Art: Sarcasm don't mean shit to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:09 PM

Bill D, I was referring to the apparent discrepancy of reporting the collapse of a building before it fell. I have read that allegation before and I have NOT heard it explained.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:15 PM

999, what gives you the idea that I was talking to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:15 PM

"On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm."

A federal agency (button, button, who's got the button) says it was because the heat from the two burning buildings caused unacceptable stress to the metal of Building 7 which led to the collapse. That still doesn't explain the time differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:16 PM

Art, if you weren't, I apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:25 PM

Yeah, like the bombs and bullets and boobytraps and mines and IEDs and discriminate between military and civilian, between adults and children. The burning of the churches in Mississippi in 1960s were just as much an act of terror as the latest truck bomb in Baghdad. The raids by Mosby in the Shenandoha Valley against farmers were just as much terrorism as the bombings of Dresden and Kyoto, just as much as blowing up a biergartren patronized by GIs and Germans or kneecapping an Italian politician or a Mafioso gunning down a rival. Hell's bells, the Boston Tea Party was intended as a terrorist act!

To cause terror -- reason terrorism exists -- means you kill the innocent, you kill a doctor because she treated the wounds of your enemy, you disembowel a schoolteacher for teaching "wrong ideas,"
you hack the arms off a child because he was vaccinated by the "enemy of the people" or by "an infidel."

You (literally) shoot at me, I consider you a terrorist and I'll return fire if I can, whether you carry a banjo or a bayonet.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:44 PM

Good grief. You mean one can shoot a banjo? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:47 PM

You have led a sheltered life, Eb.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 09:32 PM

lol You are amazing, Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,Rapaire
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 09:33 PM

I think, Ebbie, that some might consider a banjo a weapon of terror.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 09:33 PM

Sorry. I was speaking to Guest/999.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 09:59 PM

I don't find banjos terrifying...just a bit annoying. (unless very well played, in which case they're okay)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 10:00 PM

Oh...that was my opinion, okay? ;-) Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:09 AM

Banjos, no. Bagpipes, on the other hand...

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:25 AM

WHAT video do you reference?

A video from a security camera at the Pentagon. I watched many times in slow motion, and I saw the front, middle, and back end of the craft, and it never got any taller than that bit that you call the nose of a jetliner. It stays the same diameter as that from front to back.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 08:41 AM

Carol, were the fire crews, who found body parts, luggage and wreckagefrom the plane all part of the conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 08:47 AM

It's hard for a lot of people to accept that their gov't would somehow be involved in the mass murder of their own citizens as an excuse to declare unending war on a tactic (terrorism)...
you have to dig deeper and find out who profited the most on the money trail...

I'm glad that people are still asking these questions...

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 09:12 AM

It is always easier, somehow, to imagine vast complicated conspiracies than to accept the simple explanation - that (for reasons understandable to them) a dozen or so people hijacked four airliners and flew them into three buildings. Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the best one.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 10:49 AM

I do not get you Bill, You never ever see chem trails, yet I counted 17 this morning alone. Yet you see airplanes that I can not.

IF you are in posession of more than the only officially FBI released picture of the Pentagon Impact, you either have classified information, a hoax, or an extremely rare and valuable image.
There is a video of a plane in the sky with no ground identifiers or time signature that was claimed to be the DC terrorist plane but I have dismissed it for lack of any proof of authenticity.

Art, if you examine 'all' the events and circumstances of that fateful day, there is nothing simple about explaining all of it, Occams razor or not.
If you limit the events simply to planes that crashed, there is proof of three horrendous airliner crashes that day. The 4th crash at the Pentagon is odd due to having no identifiable American airline debris. Sadly the people on that flight have never been seen since or DNA matched either. The official scenario is not disproved however, it is merely incompletly supported by evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 11:24 AM

Donuel, try this.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 11:43 AM

If I lived in the U.S. and I firmly believed that the government conspired to and actually attacked my country back in 9/11 I'd certainly wouldn't be chattering away about it on some public WWW 'folk' forum ... I would have gotten the Hell out of Dodge ages ago, become an expatriate in some other land and loudly joined some solid world movement to make the world fully aware of what my country did, and make them fully accountable. Believe me if it was true there would be an solid credible movement of expats out there blowing the horn for justice.

The U.S. government has done some evil acts but I do not believe the U.S. government conspired to and directed the attacks on 9/11 .... that is absolutely ludicrous .... I do though believe a few high lords in the incompetent government machinery (and Bush was not one of those lords) were fully aware of what was going on and turned a blind eye and jumped at the opportunity afterwards.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:13 PM

In this video, which runs for 3min, 12 sec., you see at 1:27 the nose of an aircraft consistent with an airliner. At 1:28 there is a fireball. I have not seen any video that shows anything of the rest of the plane.

The attempt by this guy to 'see' something like a fighter plane in large, 'enhanced' photos is ludicrous.

I repeat: in order to claim that it was NOT the hijacked airliner, one must not only discount: 1)the trained pilot(s) who identified the 757 as it approached and 2) the pieces OF airliner (with some markings) found on the lawn and in the building, but must also construct a plausible scenario for the whereabouts of the original airliner and all those people.

READ the page(s) that artbrooks notes....the questions are answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM

Donuel... " You never ever see chem trails,"

Never said that. Of course I *sometimes* see those vapor trails. I lived in Wichita in the 50s & 60s, near Boeing and McConnell AFB. I am quite familar with trails.    "Chem"? *shrug*...They were always called vapor trails.

Now, I don't go out regularly looking for them.....and I'm still not sure exactly what significance you attach to the phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:41 PM

(sure, Little Hawk...banjos....right. Disclaimers about banjos, but generalized assumptions about US military and world trade policies. A pattern? Do I see a pattern? Does anyone care? Are there way too many rhetorical questions? Do enquiring minds really want to know? ☹)☜

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: pdq
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:57 PM

The visible trail behind a jet aircraft is known as a "condensation trail" which can be shortened to "contrail". It ain't "chemtail" or "chem trail".

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:02 PM

The physical damage done to the Pentagon does not look to me even vaugely like it was hit by an airliner. It looks impossible to me that an airliner did that damage which is shown in the photos of the outer walls, not to mention the inner areas. What does it look like might have done it? A bunker-busting cruise missile. What does the thing in the video look like? A small white craft of some kind, possibly a cruise missile.

Some witnesses said they saw something that looked like a cruise missile. Others said they saw an airliner. Others said they saw a small commuter plane. All of those vehicles may indeed have been present doing a very close pass near the Pentagon at around the same time...in order to deliberately confuse the issue and muddy the trail...but the damage to the building does not look at all consistent with a hit by an airliner.

I think that some people in the government were involved. I certainly don't think the entire government was involved, just a rather small cabal of well-placed people, that's all.

I think the operation may have been timed to take advantage of an actual Al Qaeda operation as well...which would be very convenient for a group of people in the neo-con movement who wished to have an excuse for wars in the Middle East. Find out about the approaching Al Qaeda operation....keep tabs on it and let it go ahead...add your own parts into it to make sure the damage is as you want it...cash in opportunistically on the whole thing when it happens.

That's just one possibility among many. There are others. The airliners (or other large planes) can be remotely controlled by computer and flown into a building. We have the technology to do that. No hijackers are needed.

Mohammed Atta's passport was found on the street on 911, having supposedly survived the crash, fireball, etc...how convenient!!!

Now...suppose it was a made-in-America conspiracy by a cabal of highly placed people in the neo-con movement or the Bush administration?

Would the many other people in the US government expose that to public knowledge later even if they found about it and knew it for sure? Would they bring the perpetrators to trial?

No! They would not. They would continue to cover it up any way possible, because to officially expose it would utterly tear the country apart and would throw America's entire foreign policy and their war on terror into utter confusion. It could cause a crisis of confidence in the USA that would put the country in something near a state of revolution.

Would a present government risk all of that? Hell, no. They'd continue to cover it up by any means possible in order to maintain the status quo and "protect" the country. It would be "the secret that CANNOT be revealed". And they would do anything to maintain that secret, including the manufacture of false evidence and false testimony.

But there is one form of evidence that cannot be denied, and that is the live film and photographs taken on the day that it happened. There one finds "the smoking gun". People invariably interpret that evidence in such a way as suits their inner desire or their established beliefs (which are congruent with their inner desire).

The simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct explanation in any given situation. It's only the correct explanation when the simplest possible thing WAS what DID happen...which is certainly not always the case. If it was, wouldn't the world be a wonderfully simple place? ;-) Occam's Razor is bullshit endlessly trotted out by people who wish to cleave to some conventional view of things. A few thousand years ago they'd have been using Occam's Razor to prove that the Earth is flat or that bleeding is the best remedy for most ailments or that the Sun rotates around the Earth or something else simple like that. Instead of "simple", how about saying "simpleminded"?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM

I just formulated a winning theory that accounts for the reports of World Tower #7 collapsing before it fell- it was a simple case of insurance fraud.

New York wanted to get rid of the building, you see, but it would be a very expensive action. However, if they could pass it off as a consequence of an act of terrorism the cost of imploding it would be covered. See?

The BBC jumped the gun - it was a matter of timing failure. I'm surprised that New York hasn't sued...

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:12 PM

I'd also assume that the thousands of Washingtonians who watched an airliner heading for and crashing into the Pentagon knew what a 757 looks like.

Or did that plane crash elsewhere, with the debris and passengers secretly carried away right after the equally secret missile hit? Or did the plane veer at that last minute to land at a secret base with the passengers and crew now "taken care of"? Or were the so-called "witnesses" in the pay of certain "agencies"? Will we ever know?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:25 PM

I tried to count the number of hypotheticals that would be needed IF LHs list of possible scenarios were to be treated seriously. It is about 7-8 directly, but those imply a dozen or so more. A guide is needed to examine possible 'theories'.
THAT is what Occam's Razor is about. It is part of the scientific method, whether it is directly identified as such every time it is employed. Occam's Razor is not some sneaky trick to get you to ignore 'truth' or real evidence...IF real evidence actually can be found. "Real evidence" does not mean treating wild speculation as 'just as valid' as that pesky and limited "conventional view of things".

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:54 PM

I'll put this very simply, Bill. Occam's Razor works perfectly if you happen to be right about something. It doesn't work at all if you happen to be in error about something.

The simplest explanation for an event is not always the right explanation...though it frequently is, of course. But sometimes it most definitely is not.

If the simplest explanation were always the right explanation for things that occur, then nothing strange, unusual, bizarre or extraordinary would ever have occurred in the entire history of the world. ;-)

People use Occam's Razor as a common debating tool not because it proves anything at all, but because it makes them feel clever and allows them to dismiss with an airy wave of their hand any interpretation of an event other than their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:02 PM

I heard a commentator on Fox News say, regarding the attempted bomb detonation on the airliner in Detroit, that the Obama administration needs to examine the reasons "why we were hit again". Another example of a way to use words dishonestly and prop up an agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:08 PM

Oooops, forgot to sign in, again(slaps self in the head)


Bobert:"...seems that every time I turn on the TV there's some Repub pundit, like Dick Cheney, saying that the US wasn't hit by terrorists during the Bush administration???"

He's probably right. Maybe they weren't terrorists....but provocateurs, acting on behalf of his administration, and international bankers!

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:08 PM

Ha! What an idiot. It's like a German announcer in 1943 asking, "Why have we been hit again? (by the French or Greek resistance, that is) Who is to blame for this?????"

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM

That was a response to L.E.J.'s post about the Fox announcer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 03:17 PM

Fact is we weren't "hit again", LH. Fox News knows that full well. It's for the same reason that Obama's name was spelled "Osama" in several Fox scrolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 03:52 PM

Yes. As you say. It's standard propaganda technique, devised to twist people's minds in one direction or another.

Subject: No terrorist attacks during GWB's administration?
From: Genie
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 04:07 PM

Ernie, an attack quite parallel to the "underwear bomber" happened on Dubya's watch, less than 4 mo. after 9-11-01 (Richard Reid).   
And not all the Repub. attack dogs have used the term "hit."   Several different ones - Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, Mary Matalin, Dana Perrino, etc. - have said things like "there were no terrorist attacks" or "we were not attacked," etc., while Bush was President.

Not only did the 9-11-01 attacks happen on Dubya's watch, but also the anthrax attacks, the DC snipers who terrorized Washington DC for weeks, Richard Reid's foiled "shoe bombing," and the foiled liquid explosive bomb plot that led to our not being able to bring bottled water on board an airplane.   

Donuel is right:
[[To challenge every single lie every time they repeat the big lie becomes tedious, so the lazy interviewer lets it pass. George Stephanopolis lets it pass as do most interviewers. Then there are those who are paid to not only let the ie pass but to praise spokes liars for the right.

Tedious or not, setting oneself up to be the interrerupter by pointing out the lie does WITH REPETITION nullify the intended post hypnotic suggestion.

Until Democrats understand and use psycho neuro linguistics, instead of just reacting to those who do or those who cry out "you lie" falsly, the left wing will remain in the position of answering to an argument defined by their opposition , instead of shaping and stating their own truth first.]]

Democrats MUST learn to stop being so obsequious in the face of not-so-subtle and not-so-innocent "misstatements" and distortions by their opponents.
They NEED to interrupt when the Repubs use terms like "the Democrat Party" -- before the public gets so used to this intentional distortion that even their own start adopting it.
They NEED to call public attention to real incompetence, bias, corruption & violations of the law by previous (and current) office holders - of whatever party.   If they don't, they leave the impression that these instances of incompetence or corruption either didn't occur or were too minor to matter.   Then, when the Republicans, predictably, attempt to make mountains out of every molehill of a gaffe or happenstance on a Dem's watch, they will probably succeed, in the eyes of the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 05:03 PM

Little Hawk.... I will risk life & limb here by saying, re: Occam's Razor.

You simply don't GET it. Occam's Razor does not 'work' or NOT 'work'.

pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate (there are other formulations in the Latin) means: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question."
{My bold emphasis.)
In most of the 9/11 alternative/conspiracy theories, they are not even equal in other respects. When one IS semi-plausible, such as people thinking they hear 'bombs' in the building collapse, THEN Willie of Occam **suggests** that as one investigates the evidence....ALL the evidence.... one should give credence to the simplest explanation unless & until better evidence is found!
Now is it possible that better evidence can sometime BE found to support even non-simple theories? Yes...of course. Then, at that point, the new theory, even if more complex, can become "equal in other respects" and be followed until it either gathers more data, or fails in some respect.

What *I* and others are struggling with is the desire of some to just declare a theory 'equal in other respects' because of personal 'suspicions' or, as is happening with many 9/11 theories, because they are just repeating already disproved stories without bothering to really understand why they were disproved.
(One example of this is the 'melting point of steel' confusion in early claims that the towers should not have fallen 'simply' from the impact & fire....they didn't want to hear that the insulation was knocked off the steel, and that the steel was not CLAIMED to have melted, but only to have been weakened! Metallurgical experts showed what happened, and thus not only removed the equal in other respects requirement, but also provided a simpler explanation, like Occam would have wanted.)
There are similar situations regarding the Building 7 collapse...photos, analysis of building design, eyewitness reports, etc... which show that 'interesting' hypotheses were properly investigated and, in the end, refuted.

(remember..I didn't bring up Occam this time...I was just commenting on the best actual evidence as reported by experts)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 06:00 PM

The problem with the use to which you advocate putting Occam's razor, though, Bill, is that determining which of the hypotheses is less equal than others is often highly subjective, especially in the case of 9/11 where much is being guessed in the absence of physical evidence, and just as subject to being biased in favor of one's own prejudices.

For instance, you say that the explosions people heard has been explained. Well, maybe they have been to your satisfaction, but they have not been proved. So you are simply selecting the set of hypotheses that you like the best based on your own prejudices. Others don't find the answers provided by your preferred sources to be very credible.

And you can't use your perception of your experts being more credible than other people's as a logical argument, for two reasons - one is that determining who is more credible is also subjective, and even if you do have more credible experts, that is not proof that they are right. I have in the past shown you the kind of logical fallacy you would be using with an "I have better experts than you" argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 06:17 PM

I don't know why I didn't pay more attention before to WTC Building 7 and its collapse. Just now I stumbled onto video in which the owner of the complex, Larry Silverstein, talks candidly about his decision to "pull" the building.

Does anyone know how insurance works in a case of this sort? The hypothesis is that Building 7 structure was sufficently compromised that it was uncertain whether it was sound, i. e. usable.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 06:24 PM

Ebbie, you should also spend some time looking into who would benefit from the collapse of towers, and how, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM

What Carol said.

I am simply tired of people trotting out "Occam's Razor" to support their own favorite prejudice, whatever that may be. It makes them sound like they have some kind of superior reasoning ability to other people, which is their intent when they use it.

I don't claim to know for sure what happened on 911, nor do I know for sure which theory is closest to the truth, but I doubt the government's official line in a great many respects, and I think they are covering up a number of things....for a number of reasons, and those reasons would be pragmatic.

I don't expect to ever know for sure what happened (in a complete sense). I have suspicions, and that is all.

If they are doing a coverup (for any one of a great variety of possible reasons), then they would be quite willing to present false evidence, false witnesses, and numerous "experts" to back it up.

Are they doing so? I don't know. I have no way of knowing for sure. And neither does anyone else here. We don't move in those circles, you see.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 06:44 PM

I am a little tired of fantastic, house of cards theories, if you looked at what was even physically POSSIBLE you would hear less talk of the razor.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 07:08 PM

Me too, sweetie, me too.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 07:11 PM

So even eight years later we can't know what truly happened because certain interests, with unlimited resources and countless dupes, are making sure of it. Is that right?

If so, identical reasoning makes it likely that Iraq had plenty of WMDs--atom bombs, the works. I mean, the Pentagon "admitted" they couldn't find any. Why would they do that? Surely not to make themselves look bad. And why are the Obamans falling so seamlessly into line? Could it be that...? And that would mean....

Hot damn! I just figured it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 07:19 PM

I have read a great deal - both official and speculative - on the incident itself, CarolC. By and large I tend to agree with the 'experts' who say it is entirely possible to have buildings come down in the way that has been promulgated but also listen to the 'experts' who say No Way. In other words I feel strongly that the answer is 'Maybe'.

One question that has not at all been satisfactorially addressed, to my mind, is even if, as appears, Silverstein gave the OK to bring it down, who and when had the time and ability to plan and place all the demolitions needed to bring down a burning building? The implosions that I have read about took hours and hours over a period of days while demolition experts pored over floorplans and logistics.

It is certainly strange, to my mind, that each of the three buildings came down in its own footprint so perfectly. On the other hand, if it WERE planned, I'd think they would have seen to it that there was some slopover. After all, 2,000 lives are not a negligible number; if you were caught your punishment could easily be execution. I would think you would make sure that the incident was as non-suspect as you could manage.

Frankly, I do not believe that it was a governmental endeavor. If it WAS planned it would have to be a much smaller group of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 07:56 PM

One thing that convinces me that this event occurred as reported is that, in over eight years, nobody has ever leaked anything to the allegedly "liberal" media and there has never been any falling out among the perpetrators of any of the alternative scenarios. Anyone who knows anything at all about demolitions would tell you that doing this with conventional explosives would take massive amounts of demolition material and a significant number of people laying the charges. This article, written by a genuine professional demolition expert, states pretty definitively that explosives were not used.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 07:58 PM

"Well, maybe they have been to your satisfaction, but they have not been proved." and "...determining which of the hypotheses is less equal than others is often highly subjective, ..."

A serious point is this: Some experts looked at various scenarios and helped the 9/11 commission decide among those. One principle of logic is that when someone has an alternative theory to the one carefully explained by the commission, those who disagree must provide other explanations based on facts, science and causality better than or equal to that of the commission. Briefly, "the burden of proof is on the asserter".
Given this standard, almost all of the hypotheses put forward to discredit the 'official' findings are, themselves, subjective interpretations and opinions based on supposed evidence already dealt with. Even if someone is not convinced and STILL is suspicious, it is hard to see exactly by whom, and under what auspices, their ideas can be evaluated.
Carol...you said earlier "A video from a security camera at the Pentagon. I watched many times in slow motion, and I saw the front, middle, and back end of the craft,...". I saw no video which showed a 'craft'. I posted a link to the only video *I* know of which showed any of the item, and on that site were examples of blow-ups where someone 'thought' they could see 'something' that looked like an F-15. How can anyone investigate such a claim? It is a vague, fuzzy shape with odd colors. It was done by someone who WANTED to find anything other than a 757....so they did. Believing it requires us to figure out how an F-15 got there, (or a cruise missile), who HAD either of those, why most eyewitnesses saw a 757, and what happened to a 757 if it did NOT hit the Pentagon.

Little Hawk said earlier: "The physical damage done to the Pentagon does not look to me even vaugely like it was hit by an airliner. It looks impossible to me that an airliner did that damage which is shown in the photos of the outer walls, not to mention the inner areas."

See? "does not look to me" ... That's an opinion. That opinion has been thoroughly explained and disproved. Have you, Little Hawk, or you, Carol... read/seen/studied the technical reports on shock waves and their effect on the interior structure of the various rings of the Pentagon? I have..several times. One does not just 'look' at the hole in the wall and the interior damage and compare it to the shape of an airliner and their guess as to what damage 'should' look like. Structural analysis of an airplanes wings and what would happen to those wings as they met concrete walls is not a matter for armchair hypothesis. (and they DID have pieces of 757 big enough to identify...some right on the lawn. There are pictures taken within the hour that show those pieces)... so, how does anyone seriously investigate further the idea that it 'might' have been 1)an F-15, 2) a cruise missile, 3) a small 'other' airplane with a missile attached, or 4)some other strange, unexplained gadget? What do we do with those 757 parts while we are 'investigating'? (Yes...I have seen the occasional supposition that aircraft parts were 'planted' during or after the explosion! Sheesh!)

NO ONE can force you to accept or believe the official report if you are convinced that 'someone is deceiving us' or that they were just stupid in their studies, or that the plot was SO clever...etc.. but the official version laid out one scenario with what they considered to be as close to 'proof' as could reasonably be managed. Alternate theories have an equal "burden of proof". So far, I have not seen any.....and I have read and watched most of the claims.

So...we just agree to disagree?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM

The U.S. government or eve some rogue faction of the government would not be able to pull off that kind of stunt ... lets face it ... all governments the world over are incompetent but the U.S. government (past and present) wins the Darwin award in that category ... why do you think they get caught all time with their pants down (quite literally with Bill Clinton) ... fer chrissake they (U.S. military or even Blackwater) can't handle a war in the mideast .. being constantly outsmarted by a bunch of rag tag militants.

Problem is people just can't comprehend and will not accept how a bunch of delinquent teenagers led by a son of a desert road builder living off in some remote camp in in some far off backward place pulled off a very simple (but not so brilliant) well planned attack against the mightiest country in the world.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 08:04 PM

The official reports are as full of conjecture as all of the alternative theories, Bill D, so you're right, we will continue to disagree. You will continue to cling to the version that makes you feel the most comfortable, and I will continue to question.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 08:14 PM

Ebbie... "It is certainly strange, to my mind, that each of the three buildings came down in its own footprint so perfectly."

Not if you study exactly what happened....and in the case of building 7, it didn't 'exactly'. Building 7 burned internally for several hours, and had a central atrium on the lower floors. When the collapse came, it was when weakened walls failed, and it actually tilted to the front a bit, where there was less support.

As to Silverstein.... read this page and this page ...and especially all the detail in this page!

That's a lot of reading, links and videos...but it DOES clarify stories if you take the trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 11:05 PM

OK, Bill D, that third article clarified it for me. Thanks.

What an awful day that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM

It was a terrible, horrible day! I despair that that there are minds who would do something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 07:29 PM

Fire and Ice
-Robert Frost

SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,      
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 10:56 PM

ahhh... yes Frost! If I remember correctly, Dante's 9th circle of Hell was ice....

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:15 AM

'"On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm."'

Was there an answer given for this stuff, Bill? Art? Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 10:35 AM

BBC's response was "there was no conspiracy, it was a mistake"
they also lost the tapes of this broadcast... hmmm, but copies were made by viewers... so BBC goes ESP or else they were fed exact info and jumped the gun to air it... either way it seems like they were played...

there was a lot of other fuzzy timeline stuff going on... some things altered in the Kean Commission report

anyhow, the 'co-incidence theorists' had a field day

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 11:19 AM

The conspirators - so crafty are they - made sure the overseas media had a report of the collapse in their hot little hands half an hour before it happened so that proof of the conspiracy might be broadcast "accidentally."

Minds like steel traps. Am I being too subtle here?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 11:57 AM

when George H.W. Bush fell suddenly ill and collapsed at a state dinner at the home of the Japanese Prime Minister back in January 1992 CNN had apparently pretaped an announcement that he had died... this was apparently done so they could be the first to announce his death publicly via TV ... but as we all know George senior did not die.

If he had died and CNN mistakenly or intentionally announced it on TV before the official recording of his death ... well, all I can say there would be all kinds conspiracy theories revolving around that.

just a thought for a 'maybe' answer to G99's post above.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: The Lorax
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 11:58 AM

Everything you wanted to know about 9/11 as an inside job:

http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=94

- The Lorax.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:02 PM

One thing people are forgetting is that the emergency personnel on the scene told everyone to evacuate the building because it was going to be pulled down, and Silverstein even admitted that he gave the order for it to be pulled down.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM

And it was going to be "pulled down" with what?

"One thing people are forgetting is that the emergency personnel on the scene told everyone to evacuate the building because it was going to be pulled down."

The emergency personnel on the scene told what people?

The emergency personnel/emergency teams were "pulled" out of the building because there was absolutely nothing they could do, they had no power, no water, no means of fighting the fires.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM

100 Up

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:24 PM

well there ya go ..... it was pulled down. After all the physicical trauma to the building and the contamination as a result of the aircraft explosions and the twin towers collapse it was probably a rational decision at the time .... hectic, confusing, horrific as that immediate time was.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:44 PM

If you read the articles Bill D linked to - especially Link 3- you'll see that 'pulling' did not refer to the physical pulling down of the building but rather, as Teribus said, the pulling of all fire fighting efforts.

As for why and how BBC got the information that the building had collapsed before the event, I have no clue. Maybe a message had flown across the ocean to the effect that the building was unsound and they were 'pulling' personnel? And someone passed it on expecting that it had already collapsed?

I don't know. I have seen no credible explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 12:50 PM

Bruce... it took me 2 minutes to find this BBC account of what actually happened- including what happened to the 'lost tapes' and why they made a premature announcement.

The tapes were not lost... they were put on the wrong shelf. They were found.

quote: "The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?"

He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie."

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

Carol...."the emergency personnel on the scene told everyone to evacuate the building because it was going to be pulled down, and Silverstein even admitted that he gave the order for it to be pulled down."

That is factually incorrect, based on 'interpretation' of various conversations. Withdrawal of emergency personnel was based on **concern** regarding structural integrity, not on 'planned demolition'. There are many follow-up interviews with fire officials explaining what was said & what was meant.

Read this page. Read all of it...in detail.... watch the videos... look at the pictures.... study the diagrams of the building. Note the relevance of what Silverstein said in relation to the fire commanders who were in charge. IT WAS NOT UP TO SILVERSTEIN to decide what to do, and to continue to base a conspiracy theory on 2 words spoken by someone in the heat and turmoil is ridiculous, especially when you then have to construct an elaborate secondary theory to explain how anyone could have known the building would NEED to be demolished and finally, how anyone was able to wire a huge building for controlled demolition without arousing suspicion.

I will assume, however, that those who are emotionally committed to conspiracy theories will glance at those links and simply repeat..."well, I'm not convinced. There are just too many questions..." etc.

Yes, you will still find other sites which ignore the explanations I have noted and continue to repeat endlessly the same inconsistent and factually incorrect stories that fuel this controversy. Why not? The truth is often less interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: bankley
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:07 PM

either way it was the biggest snuff movie made on US soil

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:10 PM

??and the relevance ot THAT comment, bankley? That was uncalled for.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM

Bill D, I'm still missing information that I can understand. In that latest link you posted, there is a long series of comments that various people posted in response to the linked article. Their questions are also mine.

Here is one person:

"Still doesn't shed any more light. If Reuters "picked up from a local news story" that, then why not explain which local news story was referenced and how that got from "the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse."?

"Why did the story go out without confirmation?"


And here is another person's take on it:

"More seriously, you write that Reuters wrongly reported a "local news story" and withdrew the report as soon as it became clear that the WTC 7 had not collapsed. Now, this piece of information surely leads to more questions than it answers?

"1) At precisely what time did Reuters pick up that story?

"2) What was the original source of the "local news story", and at what time precisely did that local news outlet become aware of the report of the collapse?

"3) At precisely what time did the BBC pick up the Reuters story?

"4) At precisely what time did Reuters withdraw the story?

"5) At precisely what time did the BBC become aware that the Reuters story was false (though of course it turned out to be true!)?

"6) At precisely what time did the BBC inform its listeners/viewers that the televised report of WTC 7's collapse (before it had collapsed, with the building still standing and clearly visible in the background) was wrong? "

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 03:34 PM

Hmmm.. Ebbie, I don't know those exact times. I am not sure all those exact times are on record. I DO know I am too busy in the shop to do the extended searches for data that 'may' not exist.

   I thought the the BBC issuing the explanation that they had read a non-confirmed report was enough... but obviously, people will still ask.
   Some of MY questions are: Did anyone know at the time (20+minutes before the collapse)that there WOULD be a collapse? Is so, they must have been privy to the 'plot'. Then, if they did, why would they leak a report to Reuters and thence to BBC, knowing that such a report would ruin their carefully planned and secretive demolition?
   I can't imagine anyone at either Reuters or BBC being 'in on' a plot, and I can't imagine anyone who was in on the plot ruining the story by predicting the event. The only people who had serious info on what was happening were the firefighters and emergency personnel on the street....and I imagine someone overhearing some of them talking about the danger of a collapse, and then repeating that story in the presence of a reporter to Reuters and the story getting muddled in transmission from 'in danger of collapse' to 'has collapsed'. This is a MUCH more likely scenario than the conspiracy folks would have us believe.

I dunno... but I DO remember getting a phone call a few years ago from someone who had heard from someone else that *I* had died! Turned out that a "Bill Day" who **carved** (not turned) bowls had died, and A told B that they saw my name in a story....and...ummm...and B wanted assurance that it was really ME they were talking to. There's always room for more questions in a REALLY complex event, but unless someone finds a 'smoking gun', *I* have a cut-off point.

(If I get time, I'll look into some of those when & what questions)

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 06:42 PM

Bill, the fact that people do not necessarily agree with government explanations does not necessarily make them conspiracy theorists. I think it was Kissinger who said, "Even paranoids have enemies." He was right.

Your last post fell outside your usually brilliant logic parameters, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM

I'd sure like to be able to say that 9-11 was a figment of my imagination. After 8 years, it's still hard for me to believe that such a thing could happen. I saw the towers from Newark a month before they were destroyed, and I saw the same view without the towers a while later. And it's still hard to believe.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 07:46 PM

Nine years later, people in the rescue 'business' still mourn the loss of life that took place, the acts of bravery by rescue personnel and people untrained for rescue work who were for sure out of their element.

I recall seeing a news broadcast when a passenger plane crashed through the ice of a Washington D.C. river (Potomac?). The film crew showed a fellow on the water surface who pushed a lady onto the ice from which she was rescued. The next picture was of an empty place where the guy used to be. He drowned. "Bravery" is much more common than most of us suspect. Much of it goes unnoticed.

Few years back a fellow hauled two people out of a car. He was passing the scene and he grabbed a mother and her infant from a burning vehicle. He was only found to be thanked by the mom because the police made a special effort to track him down--something they were able to do because he needed medical care for fairly severe burns on his hands and arms.

I dislike words like 'brave' and 'hero' because they are most often products of the situation. None of us know when our nerve will break or even if it will. Guts is dealing with natural fears and handling them. I am frankly as impressed with people who struggle to feed their kids and/or themselves, deal with poverty and want, live with hopelessness and despair--if anyone's looking for bravery or heroics, they are to be found in common people, daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 07:51 PM

But.... it is the conspiracy theorists who push the 'alternative' ideas of what happened, which make folks who are NOT specifically "conspiracy theorists" ask the same questions over & over.

What *I* was doing was explaining why I tend to discount theories which provide no real answers, but only insinuate, dismiss and otherwise doubt, the 'official' answers. (My "logic parameters" can get slippery when I get frustrated with re-hashing the same questions...☹)

It also seems to me that, as I suggested earlier, making counter claims should require new data/evidence/proof...etc., rather than mostly repeating assertions that have BEEN answered. Just saying "I don't believe it." is not much of a position....even if one generally DOES have suspicions about the government and politicians.

I guess I wonder what it would take to satisfy the 'honest doubters'. Careful explanations about building structures, confused news stories and problems with planning controlled demolitions don't seem to convince many. My guess (that's guess, as in IMHO) is that shrill and repetitive denials simply get more attention than slow, reasoned explanations.

The only other thing I can say is that I know it IS possible to be right about something, even when the official version disagrees with you... (the Earth turned out NOT to be flat), but most of the 9/11 alternative theories are logically flawed in the way their 'evidence' is gathered, promoted and analyzed.....and flawed logic usually is an indication that the conclusions might also be flawed. (They used flawed reasoning to assert the Earth was flat.)

Contrary to what some seem to think,*grin*, I do NOT automatically assume the government is giving me the straight dope on everything... but neither do I assume they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM

Wild speculation vs. scientific explanation. ??


The offical explanation is not only full of wild speculation, it ignores all of the verified thermite found in the rubble of all three buildings in NYC.

When you start with the premise that the official explanation is the acceptable scientific view, you have already thrown Occam's Razor out the window.

There are the facts and there are the reasons why certain people cling to official decrees despite known evidence that has been excluded from the official animated video.

That official video is a gross misrepresentation and a virtual cartoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 08:28 PM

According to the FEMA report, there were no manual firefighting operations in building 7. So "pull" could not have referred to pulling any firefighting efforts in that building, since there weren't any.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:12 PM

I just reread the FEMA Report, and I can find no such statement. Please tell me where it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:19 PM

Just an aside here....

How about a whole series of these threads? Like...

BS: Did we imagine George Bush got elected in 2000?

BS: Did we imagine it AGAIN in 2004???

BS: Did we imagine there were WMDs in Iraq?

BS: Did we imagine that Chongo died?

BS: Did we imagine that Amos is a man of few words? ;=)

BS: Did we imagine that Fox News is objective?

BS: Did we imagine we were in a "just war"?

BS: Did we imagine that a choice between voting for the Democrats or voting for the Republicans constitutes a healthy and thriving democracy?

BS: Did we imagine we could convince any other person on this forum to change their mind regarding their presently held beliefs (or suspicions) about what happened on 911?

Etc....

I didn't imagine any of the above! How about you? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:39 PM

Western civilization is based partly on the idea that minds can respond logically to logical arguments.

Not all minds. Just those that are open to reason and can conceive of the possibility that their "gut feeling" about something might be wrong.

I see both kinds here.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:48 PM

All people respond logically to any argument, as follows:

If they like it, they agree with its logical propositions, and add some more of their own.

If they don't like it, they come up with some other logical propositions from an opposing angle. ;-)

All people also respond emotionally to any argument, as follows:

If they like it, they get enthusiastic and chime in with much satisfaction.

If they don't like it, they get sarcastic, irritated, lofty, contemptuous, fed up, disgusted, astounded...etc. ;-)

Very predictable stuff, logic allied with emotion. They're like the right and left paws of Pavlov's Dog...or Charlie McCarthy's dummy.

Oh, one more caveat: The people on both sides of the argument are quite firm in their confidence that the logic is all theirs...and the emotion is on the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:51 PM

"the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

That IS from the FEMA report.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 10:28 PM

"The offical explanation is not only full of wild speculation..."

What, precisely? That seems like an example of what I was referring to as "..provide no real answers, but only insinuate, dismiss and otherwise doubt".

"...it ignores all of the verified thermite ..." verified by whom?

documentaion please. The official sources provided THEIR documentation.

I have read BOTH sides of the issue until my vision blurred.

READ the link I provided about the firefighter's plans, communication and statements afterward.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 11:03 PM

Thank you, 999. With the specific text, I can find that in the report. That doesn't say there were no firefighters in the building, of course, and they were certainly all around it.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 12:22 AM

That remark that no firefighters did entry in Building 7 doesn't ring true to me. I have seen it blogged all over the net, and it's purported to be from the FEMA report, but I too looked through Chapter 5 of the report and that's really all I could find that mentions firefighters specifically.

Firefighters know--and have for a long time--that fire (with a normal fuel load) doubles every 30 seconds. (That should be taken with a grain of salt because if there's restricted O2 supply or other factors (sprinkler systems) then the doubling isn't accurate.) Anyway, we also know that fast attack is essential to saving lives/property. They put the wet stuff on the red stuff kinda thing. There are really only four ways to put a fire out. Reduce the heat, reduce the fuel, reduce the oxygen, interrupt the sustained chemical reaction. Do any one of those things (or combinations thereof) and the fire goes out.


I haven't much time at this moment, but I'd request if you do/don't nail down where that 'no ffs were in the building', please post it here, OK, or message me. Thanks, Art.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 01:06 AM

On the subject of no firefighting efforts being conducted in building 7, what I have been reading is that their efforts were needed much more urgently in other places. They were more focused on rescue than on putting out fires.

On the subject of the term "conspiracy theory", it's all conspiracy theory. The only real difference (beyond the kind of semantics that some people employ to smear those who don't agree with their pet theories), is that some people accept the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory and others don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 10:28 AM

from the page I noted above:

""Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned."

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 02:32 PM

"There were four engines"

No offence meant, but lest you are not aware, engines refer to trucks that pump water.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 05:46 PM

Yes... I assumed that. Does the rest of it make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 06:07 PM

Indeed it does, Bill. Other than very obvious stuff, buildings give off other signs that things inside are not right--that is, the structural integrity is compromised.

Standpipe systems provide a method wherein one can attach an engine (pumper) hose to an already built pipe that goes up the building, and then ffs can carry empty 38/44 mm hose (standard length of 15 m per hose roll)--all of that would translate to 1 1/2" x 50' for y'all) which are one heckuva lot lighter than charged lines and easier than dragging already joined lengths of hose up x-number of flights of stairs. However, if the mainlines feeding the hydrants were already over-taxed, then the idea goes nowhere. Besides, even a big engine can pee away all its water in under five minutes and then the tank's empty.

Feed the red pipe (siamesed) with 65 mm (2 1/2") hose from an engine. (Remember, the engine--if it's spouting/pumping water needs constant refill

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 08:15 PM

Got called away.

Anyway, I can see from that report why and interior attack was just not in the cards. And of course exterior was out because there's only so high a stream can reach.

I apologize if you knew all this stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Did We Imagine 9/11???
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 08:59 PM

Of course, I didn't see all the implications in the report, but just the words of the guys who were there on the ground helped me understand what they were up against. Too much fire, too little time.