Debunking 9/11 myths (long)

[law dawg]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

[Peter]

I love it when the voice of reason speaks up! Frankly most conspiracy theories are more complicated than the real version of events, but that in turn just makes them more appealing so the cycle goes on. I find them interesting to read but not believable. Except the Reptile Men under Dulles Air Force base. Now that is true, obviously.

I have been told I can be too lighthearted about serious matters so...

I do not believe that even the most oppressive of governments kill large numbers of their own citizens just too blame it on someone else. Truly oppressive governments just kill and make no excuses, the rest just dont. I also think that in some way it is demeaning to those who died to make up/popularise these stories.

Thanks Law Dawg, enjoyed the article.

[KRW]

Originally Posted by law dawg

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

Law Dawg, I commend you for at least looking at 9/11. The Popular Mechanics article is very old and has been debunked itself. In fact, Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics is behind the article. American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time the article was published. Coincidence? Doutbtful. Do a google with just "Poular Mechanics 9/11" and you get, of course, your article first. But then you start getting the articles that debunk PM. Here's an example.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_me..._mechanics.htm

I do honostly hope you keep researching.


KRW

[KRW]

Originally Posted by Peter

I love it when the voice of reason speaks up! Frankly most conspiracy theories are more complicated than the real version of events, but that in turn just makes them more appealing so the cycle goes on. I find them interesting to read but not believable. Except the Reptile Men under Dulles Air Force base. Now that is true, obviously.

I have been told I can be too lighthearted about serious matters so...

I do not believe that even the most oppressive of governments kill large numbers of their own citizens just too blame it on someone else. Truly oppressive governments just kill and make no excuses, the rest just dont. I also think that in some way it is demeaning to those who died to make up/popularise these stories.

Thanks Law Dawg, enjoyed the article.

I hope you do some investigation on this Peter. Don't just stop with an article cause it says what you want it to. Experts around the world debunk the official story useing logic and facts, "neither of which where in the official report". Some countries are even doing independent investigations on their own.


KRW

[Peter]

Taken on board KRW. And I quite see your point. The trouble with all these things (from Ancient Astronauts to 9/11 taking in Roswell and the assisination of JFK en route) is how can we research it ourselves? You end up sifting through masses of official sounding "research" done by other people with varying degrees of thoroughness/honesty and end up trying to apply common sense to it all.

I have to say common sense does not tell me that the US government killed large numbers of its own people, but I will look at all available evidence either way and am prepared to be swayed even if it takes a lot to do it.

[law dawg]

Originally Posted by KRW

Law Dawg, I commend you for at least looking at 9/11. The Popular Mechanics article is very old and has been debunked itself. In fact, Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics is behind the article. American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time the article was published. Coincidence? Doutbtful. Do a google with just "Poular Mechanics 9/11" and you get, of course, your article first. But then you start getting the articles that debunk PM. Here's an example.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_me..._mechanics.htm

I do honostly hope you keep researching.


KRW

What we seem to have is various people with different opinions. Some are experts, some are not.

Here are my thoughts:
I have seen the video of the terrorists passing through security. I have seen the manifests with their names on it. I have seen the seating charts where they sat. I have heard the cockpit recordings of them saying they have a bomb and that this is a hijacking. I have seen the planes fly into the buildings.

And, most importantly, I have heard OBL claim responsibility and take credit for 9/11. His confession is given greater creedence when one notes that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the trade centers in 93. That is considered prima facia evidence in my line of work.

I am convinced.

So, that said Ken, if you don't think al Qaeda did it, who did?

[KRW]

Originally Posted by law dawg

What we seem to have is various people with different opinions. Some are experts, some are not.

Here are my thoughts:
I have seen the video of the terrorists passing through security. I have seen the manifests with their names on it. I have seen the seating charts where they sat. I have heard the cockpit recordings of them saying they have a bomb and that this is a hijacking. I have seen the planes fly into the buildings.

Show me these manifests with their names on it. I found this on the CNN site.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...tims/main.html
Not one terroist name and the count is even wrong on all four flights, I counted.


Show me the videos of them passing security. Where are the recordings? Show me some proof please.

Originally Posted by law dawg

And, most importantly, I have heard OBL claim responsibility and take credit for 9/11. His confession is given greater creedence when one notes that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the trade centers in 93. That is considered prima facia evidence in my line of work.

Did he explain in his confessions how he did it? How did he get Norad to stand down? How did he know the miliatary were running several mock war games that day?

Originally Posted by law dawg

I am convinced.

So, that said Ken, if you don't think al Qaeda did it, who did?

Let's get an independant investigation going on the facts and see where it leads. Until then I'll ponder the question, "Who benifitted the most?"


P.S. What did you think of the article that debunked Poular Mechanics, did you even read it?

[Peter]

I read the article but, as I said earlier, it leaves me with the same problem. A collection of interesting and thought provoking "facts" which I have no way of verifying. And, yes, the same applies to the original Popular Mechanics article. And I think Al Queda stood to benefit very highly. Not in a sense of physical advantage but as a step towards their declared aims then, yes, they benefited.

If there are genuine discrepancies in the published version of events then by all means have an independent inquiry. As to how to arrange that I have no idea, and no conviction that it is necessary.

[KRW]

Originally Posted by Peter

I read the article but, as I said earlier, it leaves me with the same problem. A collection of interesting and thought provoking "facts" which I have no way of verifying. And, yes, the same applies to the original Popular Mechanics article. And I think Al Queda stood to benefit very highly. Not in a sense of physical advantage but as a step towards their declared aims then, yes, they benefited.

If there are genuine discrepancies in the published version of events then by all means have an independent inquiry. As to how to arrange that I have no idea, and no conviction that it is necessary.

Sheesh! I totaly missed your earlier post, sorry man! You're totaly right about investigating this for ourselves. We have to sift through so much info, biased reports, and some outright idiocy to even start putting together a resemblence of the truth. I personaly don't want to go down the rabbit hole until certain questions get answered. i.e. what happened to our Air Force that day, how did Al-Quida now what day our Air Force would be immobilized, what actually hit the Pentagon, why was all the prior knowledge overlooked, why haven't we gone after Usama Bin Ladin in an all out effort first and formost, etc. That's why I feel we need an independent inquiry that is unbiased. Not one trying to prove the "official story". The official inquiry was held back over a year, (compared to Pearl Harbor or the assissination of JFK that started within days) and starved of funds (compared to Clinton's investigation) and only tried to support the "official story" without even looking into all the anomilies that happened that day. (Like World Trade Center Building 7's collapse and the removal of the material from ground zero so quickly.) The list does go on. That's why I want an idependent study, to address these issues and shed some light on things that were neglected. If nothing comes from it great! But if it does, we need to find out whos' accountable for this.

The big questions I ask myself is, will I like the answers that comes from such an investigation and could I live with them no matter the outcome? I can't answer that til it happens.


KRW

[law dawg]

Originally Posted by KRW

Show me these manifests with their names on it. I found this on the CNN site.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...tims/main.html
Not one terroist name and the count is even wrong on all four flights, I counted.

Hm, those are lists of victims. I wouldn't put the terrorists in the victim collumn.

Show me the videos of them passing security. Where are the recordings? Show me some proof please.

I do counterterrorism for the government my friend. I get to see all kinds of things. However I am not telling you "trust me, I've seen it." I'm only saying that I am convinced.

That said, there is this : http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/news...2005/news3.htm

Did he explain in his confessions how he did it? How did he get Norad to stand down? How did he know the miliatary were running several mock war games that day?

A confession doesn't need a MO to be legit. The how is irrelevant. So is the why, for that matter. Also, NORAD never "Stood down" that I have seen.

P.S. What did you think of the article that debunked Poular Mechanics, did you even read it?

Didn't get past the first paragraph. When it said that this was an inside job and that the government killed its own people I killed it. That is patently ridiculous.

It is funny, these guys say that the govenment was so slick it could pull off the biggest, most elaborate scam in history that would need a level of sophistication that is unbelievable but that the same government was so inept that it missed that Iraq had no WMDs. So which is it? Is it that ingenious or that inept?