Did the United States of America attack itself? 911

[lostinidlewonder]

I know you don't care. Everybody knows that already from other "discussions", so not need to emphasize that here. I merely stepped in because our valued American members deserve a bit more than just "sh*t" thrown around, but you don't seem to care about that either.
P.S.: The unseen heights in retrocognition reached by some authors in your sources  are nothing less than impressive. This topic, however, does not belong here. You have done yourself and the communtiy a great disservice by creating it and yes, I know you don't care about that either...

Paul

Lol take a chill pill.

[lostinidlewonder]

- An interesting read about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and their enrichment programs. Too bad they never found the huge stockpiles that the Bush administration said there was or found any of it prewar.


https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/05/wmd-m17.html
https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2010/12/09/the_wikileaks_vindication_of_george_w_bush/page/full/
https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=176713

https://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/iraqs_fm_history.html

[oxy60]

Ah yes, we now change the subject but still focus on the same target, the USA.

The United States has the most sought after citizenship in the entire world.

We have the most and freest processes for protests, objections, referendums and lawsuits.

If any of these theories had any validity then some US citizen(s) would have started something.



 

[p2u_]

Ah yes, we now change the subject but still focus on the same target, the USA.

I'm truly sorry, oxy60 but the topic starter gives the impression he is on a mission.

P.S.: The 9/11 Conspiracy guys from the sources quoted earlier either lie bluntly or are completely retarded. Some even go as far as stating that nothing happened at all on 911 - no planes, no victims, nothing. When you dig deeper, you even find that some of those who deny 911 also deny the Holocaust. I don't like the smell of it, that's for sure...

Paul

[lloyd_cdb]

off topic rant about being insulted, feel free to skip to the next quote which is on topic/

In regards to one of Paul's statements, it is quite insulting that people constantly target the US government as the center of all conspiracy. I live in an incredibly free nation, one that has provided it's citizens with great resources, constantly provides the world with foreign aid, and constantly sh*t on because a blogger on the internet can convince idiots that their statements are facts, even if they are clearly demonstrated to be blatant lies. I'll repeat: It's incredibly insulting.

Beyond oxy's comment, people seem to be blind to how history has unfolded. For the first 150 years of their existence the USA had an isolationist policy and stayed out of world politics. They only got involved after 2 world wars and the utter destruction of all of Europe caused by European hatred. Let's take a look at the history of international cooperation:

The League of Nations was originally proposed by Woodrow Wilson. For those who may not know, he was the president of the USA during WWI. When this failed to the keep the European powers from destroying each other, the UN was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1942 and held a meeting in Washington, DC between the major Allied powers. The UN was subsequently signed by the 50 member states in 1945 in San Francisco.

During WWI and WWII, 77 million people lost their lives. After the US began its involvement in world policy and most specifically human rights, the death toll has been less than 4m. The US has regularly been involved in preventing human rights violations and genocide, often times while the UN and European countries have stood idly by. None of this means I agree with every US policy or believe it justifies it. But the ridiculousness of many criticisms is just over the top and often times even childish. It's incredibly easy to criticize from the sidelines. It's much harder to actually act.

Just putting a blue box to give a break in my essay where my comments are actually on the original topic.

More on topic to 9/11, there have been mentions of the Bin Laden family and their involvement with prominent Americans. Another demonstrated lack of research or conscious ignorance of facts is that Osama Bin Laden was disowned by his family in 1994 for his radical views. The members of the family that had left the US after 9/11 departed 6 days after the flight restrictions were lifted, only after being screened by the FBI and the Saudi government. They weren't escorted or flown out on private jets. They left of their own accord without help from the US government. The Bin Laden family is involved with the Saudi royal family and owns a conglomerate corporation that is involved in oil, finance and construction. A last name doesn't make you a terrorist.

In regards to my comments about the cleanup of WTC, there is a difference between a plane crash in rural PA and a terrorist attack in the middle of a major city, especially given that it was obviously caught on tape. Piecing together how a plane crashes with no evidence except the debris is drastically different than watching an incident happen. The voice recording was recovered from the PA flight on September 14. Feel free to look up the transcription. I'm not sure you need 4 years to piece together what happened when you acquire definitive evidence within 3 days.

I realize 8.5 months can be deceiving. Again though, saying "rapidly" still means nothing if you fail to report numbers. It becomes a regurgitated statement originating from poor writing and/or research that becomes skewed by the telephone game. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge, research and evidence. Here IS a number. Fires from the WTC were burning until December 20. It took 3 months to be able to clean up specific areas. How exactly does that mean everything was cleaned up 'rapidly'. New York is also the financial capital of the world. Taking 4.5 years is simply not practical, nor does it actually contribute to any explanation of the situation. Within that time period the actual 9/11 commission was released.

Less than 20% of deaths are autopsied. It's drastically lower when the death is witnessed and the cause is known. The entire world witnessed 9/11. I'm not exactly sure what it is anyone would be hoping to find out by taking a look at some hot steel or crumbled concrete. Engineers determined how and why it collapsed and provided the physics behind it. Fact is, they DID investigate it (see below). Again, maybe I'm just failing to understand what evidence it is that you are seeking unless it's just to confirm your viewpoint.

Quote from ISRI, government certified steel recycling institute promoting ethical business practices:

"Most of the recyclable metal at ground zero is being sent to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the New York City Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal...

ISRI has issued an urgent notice to its members in the New York City metropolitan area, which explains that all scrap metal from the World Trade Center is crime scene evidence, and only those under contract with the City are authorized to haul it away from the site. The notice also explains where the various types of metals are going.

ISRI is also telling its members in the New York City area, who do not have contracts with the City to recycle metal from the World Trade Center, to contact law enforcement authorities immediately should they suspect that material hauled to their facilities originates from that site. "This is part of ISRI members continuing efforts to work with law enforcement agencies to make certain that recyclable materials are properly handled," said Wiener. "

In regards to the comment "most of the metal is being sent to...", this means the majority of the material is sent to that specific recycler, not that only part of it is investigated.

Uninvestigated and rapidly recycled? I'm not sure why I bother repeating this, but... Researching before making statements provides for an intelligent discussion. This doesn't mean you can't state an opinion. This means make your opinion worth something other than wasting all our time.

You cannot teach the mass how to read/write with a particular method, everyone will read/write in their own way and make their own conclusions. If one insists that others read/write in a particular way those others might actually tell you to bugger off and let them do what they like. It is totally fine to read/write different from someone else, there does not need to be a single way. That doesn't mean one is better than the other or anything else.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=41550.0

That link supports my point in entirety.

You clearly seem to misunderstand my point. I don't expect to teach people how to write in a particular method. I'm not discussing whether to underline or italicize a book title, which citation method to use or to use color vs colour. I'm talking about how to form intelligent points that actually support the opinions you are trying to convey. I was pointing out logical fallacies. They are called fallacies for a reason. It means they use incorrect logic while claiming to be a logical support of an opinion. It means nothing in regard to whether or not their opinion is correct.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I've never stated differently. Anyone is entitled to tell me to bugger off about what my opinion is. But stating that gives no merit to the formation of their argument. My comments were solely about making an argument that actually contributes meaningfully to a conversation. Those points were not HOW to support an opinion, but how NOT to support an opinion. If you don't understand what a fallacy is, then there is no point in having a discussion about how something tangible actually happened. Forming logical arguments to support a theory is the only way to give valid support to your opinion on tangible events, regardless of whether or not it's correct.

Tangible event requiring solely logical arguments: "This person was shot in the head".

(Currently) Intangible event where logic can contribute while emotional arguments are perfectly acceptable: "God exists".

Neither of us can prove our opinions on the second statement. Any argument is fair game unless you claim a logical support to your argument which actually violates the laws of logic, i.e. "God exists because you can't disprove it".

Again, it's not about correct vs. incorrect opinions. It's about claiming correct vs. incorrect logical arguments. "The US government is evil, therefore it hid evidence which obviously means it attacked itself" is not logic. "A memo signed by Bush ordered a US pilot to fly a plane into a the WTC. This pilot was seen boarding the aircraft and can be heard on the flight recorder" would be logic. This statement would directly prove that theory. But a non-conclusive but factual statement can support a theory, it just doesn't prove it. conclusively disproving is significantly easier than proving.

[lloyd_cdb]

P.S.: The 9/11 Conspiracy guys from the sources quoted earlier either lie bluntly or are completely retarded. Some even go as far as stating that nothing happened at all on 911 - no planes, no victims, nothing.

This is the ridiculousness that I keep pointing to, but:

When you dig deeper, you even find that some of those who deny 911 also deny the Holocaust. I don't like the smell of it, that's for sure...

This is just as bad an argument as some of the supports to their opinions. Character attacks don't disprove opinions. Denying one factually supported event happened doesn't mean their opinion is wrong on another event. Regardless, it is just ridiculously dumb.

[lloyd_cdb]

This will (hopefully) be my last comment (if I can restrain myself, no guarantees).

The reason I've used 'conspiracy' and 'paranoia' is simply due to the fact that factual evidence exists to disprove particular theories. Denying these are actual facts or failing to acknowledge them points to a person that simply wants their theory to be true, regardless of the evidence.

Paranoia:
"baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others."

Conspiracy:
"a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group."

The fact that the event is actually explained points to a person that suffers from:

Delusions:
"a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary"

[lostinidlewonder]

Well it is good to see different opinions, thanks!




The Pentagon is well defended with missile defense systems. However even with this elaborate defense system they failed to stop being attacked on 911. Why is this?

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_pentagon_missile_defense

Is it because they wanted to allow themselves to be attacked? It certainly can look this way. At least they let the flying projectile hit a part of the Pentagon which was mostly empty.

[lostinidlewonder]

When did Osama bin Laden die? Why is there no evidence of his capture or death, just like they paraded Saddam Hussein?

https://digitaljournal.com/article/323364
https://letsrollforums.com/pentagon-admits-has-no-t28390.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382828/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-picture-White-House-NOT-release-gruesome-photo.html

I'm confused, pentagon says there isn't any photos, then White house says they wont release them as if they have them.



Did the current President Obama lied to the nation saying that Osama was killed 2nd May 2011? Where they purposefully chasing a ghost all these years?

[daro]

Beyond oxy's comment, people seem to be blind to how history has unfolded. For the first 150 years of their existence the USA had an isolationist policy and stayed out of world politics. They only got involved after 2 world wars and the utter destruction of all of Europe caused by European hatred. Let's take a look at the history of international cooperation:

The League of Nations was originally proposed by Woodrow Wilson. For those who may not know, he was the president of the USA during WWI. When this failed to the keep the European powers from destroying each other, the UN was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1942 and held a meeting in Washington, DC between the major Allied powers. The UN was subsequently signed by the 50 member states in 1945 in San Francisco.

During WWI and WWII, 77 million people lost their lives. After the US began its involvement in world policy and most specifically human rights, the death toll has been less than 4m. The US has regularly been involved in preventing human rights violations and genocide, often times while the UN and European countries have stood idly by. None of this means I agree with every US policy or believe it justifies it. But the ridiculousness of many criticisms is just over the top and often times even childish. It's incredibly easy to criticize from the sidelines. It's much harder to actually act.

I'm sorry, lloyd, you make a lot of good points throughout your post, but the above is simply bizarre. Now, I'm the last person to ever deny that the US has been a major force for good in the world, but that 4m you claim barely covers the casualties in the two wars that the US itself fought in Asia after WWII (and doesn't include the 2m slaughtered in the Cambodian genocide, which the US didn't lift so much as a finger to prevent, though I suppose that's understandable given the political situation in America after the Vietnam debacle).

In the last 60 years, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Central and South America (nearly 300,000 in Guatemala alone, and nearly 100,000 in tiny El Salvador for chrissake) in wars against impoverished people by psychopathic dictators funded and armed by the United States, with some of the dictators, as in Guatemala and Chile, actually put in place by the US after the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government. (Of course, US involvement in Latin America began well before WWII, not only with the Spanish-American War, but also in the use of the US military to help the United Fruit Company murder any uppity peasants who objected to being worked to death on the plantations).

Over a million people were killed in the Iran-Iraq War, in many cases by weapons provided to the maniacs there by the US (and here again the US was instrumental in the genesis of that and other Mideast conflicts by virtue of overthrowing the Mossadegh government in Iran and installing a puppet dictator, which led of course to the rise of the ayatollahs and Moslem extremism). And don't forget the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in Iraq during Bush's personal war, not to mention the hundreds of thousands more who've been killed there since the fall of Baghdad.

You have also ignored the carnage in Africa as the various nations began overthrowing colonial and other oppressive regimes beginning in the '50's (around a million deaths in Algeria alone, well over that in Rwanda alone since the first Hutu revolt in the mid-'60's). In many of these places, the US again supported vicious rulers and assorted crazies by providing them with arms, and sometimes, as in the Congo and Angola, by actively and deliberately thwarting national aspirations, in the first instance by assassinating Patrice Lumumba, and in the latter case by funneling napalm and other weapons to the Portuguese through NATO to help them put down what was, for all intents and purposes, a slave revolt.

It really is one of those tragic ironies of history that in so many of these places, people desperate for freedom and human rights first turned to the US for assistance against the monsters, believing that the US would stand by its own ideals, and were refused outright, leading many of them to seek help from the only other place where quantities of weapons could be obtained, namely the Soviet Union, which then led to the disgusting spectacle of the US government justifying its own vile behavior by declaring that it was simply trying to stop “communism”.

[p2u_]

Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to make sure nothing got lost or quoted out of context, because I want to address your concerns seriously:

I'm not exactly sure what it is anyone would be hoping to find out by taking a look at some hot steel or crumbled concrete. Engineers determined how and why it collapsed and provided the physics behind it. Fact is, they DID investigate it (see below). Again, maybe I'm just failing to understand what evidence it is that you are seeking unless it's just to confirm your viewpoint.

Quote from ISRI, government certified steel recycling institute promoting ethical business practices:

"Most of the recyclable metal at ground zero is being sent to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the New York City Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal...

ISRI has issued an urgent notice to its members in the New York City metropolitan area, which explains that all scrap metal from the World Trade Center is crime scene evidence, and only those under contract with the City are authorized to haul it away from the site. The notice also explains where the various types of metals are going.

ISRI is also telling its members in the New York City area, who do not have contracts with the City to recycle metal from the World Trade Center, to contact law enforcement authorities immediately should they suspect that material hauled to their facilities originates from that site. "This is part of ISRI members continuing efforts to work with law enforcement agencies to make certain that recyclable materials are properly handled," said Wiener. "

In regards to the comment "most of the metal is being sent to...", this means the majority of the material is sent to that specific recycler, not that only part of it is investigated.

Uninvestigated and rapidly recycled? I'm not sure why I bother repeating this, but... Researching before making statements provides for an intelligent discussion.

Here is an objective source [a Committee hearing] that contradicts the ISRI statement you quoted about what happened to the steel debris during the first month:
Learning from 9/11 - understanding the collapse of the World Trade Center:

In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.

There are official standards for forensics at a crime scene that HAVE TO be followed, whatever the cause or the magnitude of the event, and whatever the number of pieces of evidence. Disappearing suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns is not something to take lightly. If the instructions are not followed strictly, any legal case afterwards may simply fall because of "fire scene spoliation". One may also feed unwarranted paranoia and conspiracy thinking.

As to your question what else one could have found in the rubble apart from the findings in the brilliant NIST report. James G. Quintiere, a fire science professor at the University of Maryland, gives his objective expert opinion about what objectively lacked in the investigation: QUESTIONS ON THE WTC INVESTIGATION (downloadable pdf document)

Paul

[pianoplunker]

Well it is good to see different opinions, thanks!




The Pentagon is well defended with missile defense systems. However even with this elaborate defense system they failed to stop being attacked on 911. Why is this?

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_pentagon_missile_defense

Is it because they wanted to allow themselves to be attacked? It certainly can look this way. At least they let the flying projectile hit a part of the Pentagon which was mostly empty.

Where are the missiles deployed around the pentagon ?  I looked at the picture and dont see any missiles anywhere. The missile defense that wanttoknow.info talks about does not seem to be available for shooting down airliners.

[oxy60]

What most people outside the US do not realize is that our legal system is different, really different than any other. (One of the big mistakes we make when traveling outside the US is to assume that other countries are the same. They aren't!)

If anyone in America thought/thinks that they were/are harmed by any event they will sue to collect monetary damages, if there is any money to collect. While this system becomes a pain on certain occasions it also serves as a check on whether there is anyone to blame.

In the case of 911 no one has sued anyone...

"The burden of proof always falls upon the moving party."

[lloyd_cdb]

I said I won't post anymore, but I feel obligated with two posts directed at me.

@daro - Very understandable. I rushed through this part with more emotion than my subsequent on topic points, and should clarify many of my comments. In regards to these rebuttals, some are likely to be opinionated responses influenced by nationalism so take some with a grain of salt.

that 4m you claim barely covers the casualties in the two wars that the US itself fought in Asia after WWII (and doesn't include the 2m slaughtered in the Cambodian genocide, which the US didn't lift so much as a finger to prevent, though I suppose that's understandable given the political situation in America after the Vietnam debacle).

Korea + Vietnam were ~3.5m on the higher estimate, excluding the estimates that weren't reasonable given every other estimate (i.e. 3 estimates between 1-1.5m for vietnam, 1 estimate at 3m). My estimate was based on the sum of the media centric major conflicts: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq/Afghanistan. Gulf and Afghanistan actually total less than 100k combined but are obviously highly publicized.  I also am guilty of slight exaggeration. The sum of the reasonable higher estimates is actually 4.2m.

wars against impoverished people by psychopathic dictators funded and armed by the United States, with some of the dictators, as in Guatemala and Chile, actually put in place by the US after the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government.

It really is one of those tragic ironies of history... people desperate for freedom and human rights first turned to the US for assistance against the monsters... and were refused outright

While valid points, these conflicts were cold war based. It's a strange conflict that is hard to compare to anything, since it wasn't a direct war but a conflict of positional influence. But yeah, can't fully argue against it. What I can argue is word choice in this. Both countries did have democratic leadership overthrown. In the case of Chile, it was due to the nationalization of the banks and mining industries as well as the annexing of the judicial branch by the executive branch. In cold war terms, this is exactly what the USSR did prior to communism. No justification, just reasonable explanation of the choice of involvement. Guatemala is ridiculous and there is no defense for it other than sheer speculation.

Over a million people were killed in the Iran-Iraq War, in many cases by weapons provided to the maniacs there by the US...

France supplied 25% of Iraqi weapons. ($5bn worth)
Italy provided several billion in funding to Iraq, while also selling sea and land mines to both countries.
Spain sold weapons and ammunition to both sides.
Soviet Union sold weapons to both sides. It was the largest provider of weapons to Iraq.
The UK supported Iraq with weapons and is believed to have supplied the components of the chemical weapons.
A Belgian company sold components of chemical weapons to Iraq.
West Germany sold weapons to Iraq.
Yugoslavia sold weapons to both sides. (10% of Iraqi weapons)
USA sold biological components and physical weapons to Iraq. Later secretly sold to Iran.

The US was obviously involved, but pointing them out is a bit silly even if it is specifically relevant to US politics.

You have also ignored the carnage in Africa as the various nations began overthrowing colonial and other oppressive regimes beginning in the '50's...

US was involved in Africa only with Liberia for 25 years while assisting African American slaves repatriate. It transitioned intentionally and peacefully to an independent democratic government that lasted until 1980 years.

This is exactly one of my points about ridiculous hypocrisy. USA wasn't involved in African colonialism. Is it our job to clean up after the mess other countries leave behind? Obviously if a European country decides to ignore their own mess that then leads to genocide, it becomes another 'opportunity' for the US to involve themselves. Any European critic of this is therefore ignoring their own responsibility and involvement. As an American, the hypocrisy is simply insulting. This is where I start to get heated and start to respond in frustration with "pull your head out of your ass".

My points were more of a global comparison than an all inclusive statement. Obviously the USA can't be responsible for the protection of every person in the world, nor will the be involved in every conflict. We will also have conflicts that can't be justified and are seen as failures. What I was specifically getting at is the criticism that constantly comes from people that have almost never lifted a finger, or even started conflicts and let others take responsibility. It seems absurd that they are willing to criticize people that try to help, regardless of whether or not every instance is sufficiently effective.

In summary, my original comments were not that we've prevented every death in the world since abandoning isolationism, but that we've done much more than many hypocrites. I'd never argue that some global involvement has significant political motivation. I do doubt that any of the conflicts are purely political, with the possible exceptions of several cold war conflicts. They are also often times at the expense of our own citizens. I despise much of the military spending. My brother is in the coast guard and his boat broke while assisting in the gulf oil spill. The cost for repairing a rudder simply fascinates me that half our states have cut education funding this year, many by almost half.

@paul

Long documents, too tired to read them. I'll respond another time .

[oxy60]

If anyone in America thought/thinks that they were/are harmed by any event they will sue to collect monetary damages, if there is any money to collect. While this system becomes a pain on certain occasions it also serves as a check on whether there is anyone to blame.

Plus we know real soon when a new medicine causes harm. I specify generics because all the problems have been ironed out. Even better are ones that are now available over the counter.

Some major clinics only write generics. It may not be cutting edge but you'll survive the treatment...

[lloyd_cdb]

I guess I lied. I'll keep posting, just on off topic discussions .

Plus we know real soon when a new medicine causes harm. I specify generics because all the problems have been ironed out. Even better are ones that are now available over the counter.

Some major clinics only write generics. It may not be cutting edge but you'll survive the treatment...

I take a brand name medication. It has less side effects while also having a higher efficacy level. This means I can take less of it for the same effect, resulting in a slower destruction of my liver.

The requirement for generics is that they have the same active ingredient, dosage and method of administration but do not need to contain the same inactive ingredients. In studies done by the FDA, there is on average a 3.5% difference in the rate of absorption between generics and brand. This variability goes in both directions.

Brand patents last 20 years but are filed during clinical trials. Due to the length of clinical trials, the average drug has only 11.5 years on the market before the patent expires and generics can be made. In a general sense, there really isn't any 'ironing out' that is happening before the generic comes out since it would need to go through FDA approval again if it's changed. The only issue is longer term side effects that may not have been been apparent in clinical trials. Basically what I'm getting at is just because it's labeled 'generic' doesn't necessarily mean it's any safer. It's simply cheaper.

For the haters of pharma companies:

Only three out of ten drugs that reach the market ever earn back enough money to match or exceed the average R&D cost of getting them to the marketplace. They make money on blockbuster drugs (Viagra) to make up for the drugs that you've never heard of for rare diseases or 3rd world country diseases (Coartem - Malaria, sold at cost by Novartis. Juxtapid - genetic cholesterol disease effecting ~300 people in the USA).

[p2u_]

What most people outside the US do not realize is that our legal system is different, really different than any other. (One of the big mistakes we make when traveling outside the US is to assume that other countries are the same. They aren't!)

If anyone in America thought/thinks that they were/are harmed by any event they will sue to collect monetary damages, if there is any money to collect. While this system becomes a pain on certain occasions it also serves as a check on whether there is anyone to blame.

In the case of 911 no one has sued anyone...

"The burden of proof always falls upon the moving party."

I happen to know your legal system well enough to realize that any case related to 911 CANNOT and WILL NOT be heard, ever. This has to do with the Government's right for secrecy in matters of Homeland Security and foreign policies, and I think that is fair enough.

My remark about "legal cases falling" in general was merely to illustrate what the international NORM is in serious and professional crime investigation. Spoliation at the crime scene is sometimes the result of negligence, but mostly, it is done to "limit the scope of the investigation", to prevent analysis of hypotheses you don't want the experts to test.

My remark was also meant to illustrate where all the paranoia and conspiracy thinking *really* comes from, because believe it or not: many, even those who are able to read 10+ words, come away very convinced when they see or read the junk that is being thrown at them in this context.

Paul

[p2u_]

As to many of the other comments... the engineering analysis of the failure of the twin towers, which I have read and which I am qualified to read and understand, is perhaps the most thorough analysis of a structural failure as I have ever seen.  There was nothing found to suggest that the collapse was the result of anything other than fuel fed fires of large intensity affecting the structural strength of columns in their vicinity.  Period.  I strongly recommend that you read the original report -- it is very long and very technical -- rather than depending on somewhat dubious internet and media sources.

I took the challenge. My conclusion in the light of what was investigated:
1) The collapse was structural BUT
2) The assumption in the report is that the structure was equally HEALTHY throughout and that everything was according to the technical specifications. I have my doubts about that (the places where the planes hit could have been weaker, which could mean they didn't hit there by accident and the outcome was predictable), but the evidence to disprove that hypothesis had been removed long before anybody could even have a look at it (see my reply # 110).

Paul

[daro]

@lloyd_cdb: I don't disagree at all with a lot of what you say; my beef was really only with what sounded like a gloss over a very significant part of our history and its consequences as if it was just an aberration, or worse, never happened. We can't forget it or downplay it or we'll never learn from it. More importantly, we have to remember it as it was for the people on the ground, victimized in such horrific ways, and in such horrific numbers by the savagery of the Cold War proxy conflicts fought by the US, Russia and China around the world, as well as the pre-WWII US government support of American business interests that turned a blind eye to unspeakably cruel exploitation.

And I certainly agree, one wouldn't expect the US to be responsible for cleaning up the mess the colonialists left behind, but we were always more than mere spectators, and not just because our foreign policy naturally gave greater consideration to Europe than it did to people who came from places that barely 1 in a 100 Americans could even find on a map.

US was involved in Africa only with Liberia for 25 years while assisting African American slaves repatriate. It transitioned intentionally and peacefully to an independent democratic government that lasted until 1980 years.

This is exactly one of my points about ridiculous hypocrisy. USA wasn't involved in African colonialism. Is it our job to clean up after the mess other countries leave behind? Obviously if a European country decides to ignore their own mess that then leads to genocide, it becomes another 'opportunity' for the US to involve themselves. Any European critic of this is therefore ignoring their own responsibility and involvement. As an American, the hypocrisy is simply insulting. This is where I start to get heated and start to respond in frustration with "pull your head out of your ass".

lloyd, in the 20th century, the US was very much involved in one way or another throughout Africa from Egypt to Angola, not just Liberia. For a particularly sordid example, the US provided weaponry to Moise Tshombe's maniacal mercenaries in the Congo, including C-130's, helicopters, hundreds of trucks, and even a few B-26 bombers with CIA-trained crews. The US also sent agents to the Congo specifically to assassinate Lumumba, and when that direct attempt failed, the US settled for providing funding, intelligence and security to the Belgian and Katangan officers who ended up doing the actual arresting, torturing and killing. (As a footnote, it was one of the American agents on the scene who was assigned the task of getting rid of the body). And after all that, it was again the US that helped the sociopath Joseph Mobutu take control of the country. (It does bode well for human progress, though, that at least the Belgian government did formally apologize to the Congolese people for their part in the murder of Lumumba, albeit 40 years after the fact).

In general however, I do think things have improved overall, in no small part due to American efforts since the day Jimmy Carter shocked the world by demanding that our concern for "human rights" should involve more than empty words.

[teran]

Even if the government did pull off 911, whatcha gonna do jack?

Nothing.

People think they're free but if people were dissatisfied enough to try and overthrow the government they'd call in the army and carpet bomb all of them to hell.

On the bright side, at least we have internet and plenty of clean water, can't expect too much from life!

[lloyd_cdb]

People think they're free but if people were dissatisfied enough to try and overthrow the government they'd call in the army and carpet bomb all of them to hell.

The democratic process is for exactly that freedom. People disagree on lots of things, but just because some are dissatisfied and disagree with a current administration gives them the right to try to overthrow it? That's a great recipe for longevity. Please refer to every military regime in history.

The USA is polarized, 49% want one thing and 51% want the other. Does that give the 49% the right to revolt because their specific needs aren't currently being satisfied?

[lostinidlewonder]

Is this proof Osama bin Laden died back in 2001?

https://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=500:osama-bin-laden-died-in-2001&catid=58:the-911-event&Itemid=115


His confession to 911 attack is a fake used to fool Americans?

https://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

It might not be as fake as this picture.

[p2u_]

Is this proof Osama bin Laden died back in 2001?
[...]
His confession to 911 attack is a fake used to fool Americans?

How is anti-US biased propaganda for sheeple going to help us in our objective judgement? The first site suggests the White House KNEW ALL ALONG Osama was no longer alive, but still kept "hunting" him "down" just for show. But I remember it was the Taliban coming out with statements all the time that he was "alive and well" (in 2004, 2005, 2007 among others). What are you trying to say?

Also: Who exactly "fooled the Americans" when the second site concludes that the tape must have been legitimate, and supports that thought by citing a conversation between Al Jazeera London bureau chief Yosri Fouda and TBS Publisher and Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer?

EDIT: I would also like to take this opportunity to refer you to the forum rules. Exercising your freedom of speech is OK, but thereby systematically insulting members of one Nation with misrepresentations (your cited data do not add up in the context of the whole picture) before an international audience is no longer acceptable. Besides, the picture you added (tinypic.com/b5lc8k.jpg) has no function in the discussion. It is not funny and the content seems to have no other purpose than to deeply offend certain forum members that do not share your views.

_{EDIT 2 [February 21, 2013]: I see now that you have added "It might not be as fake as this picture." to 1) give the picture context and 2) reverse the meaning of what you wanted to say initially with the second link, and make me look like a fool. If your cause is just and fair, LiiW, then why are you resorting to such cheap manipulative tricks to pass it on to the adience, huh?}

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Was there prior warning to the attack of 911? The official story says no, is this an obvious lie?

https://911proof.com/8.html

https://www.oilempire.us/warnings.html

[oxy60]

How is anti-US biased propaganda for sheeple going to help us in our objective judgement? The first site suggests the White House KNEW ALL ALONG Osama was no longer alive, but still kept "hunting" him "down" just for show. But I remember it was the Taliban coming out with statements all the time that he was "alive and well" (in 2004, 2005, 2007 among others). What are you trying to say?

Also: Who exactly "fooled the Americans" when the second site concludes that the tape must have been legitimate, and supports that thought by citing a conversation between Al Jazeera London bureau chief Yosri Fouda and TBS Publisher and Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer?

EDIT: I would also like to take this opportunity to refer you to the forum rules. Exercising your freedom of speech is OK, but thereby systematically insulting members of one Nation with misrepresentations (your cited data do not add up in the context of the whole picture) before an international audience is no longer acceptable. Besides, the picture you added (tinypic.com/b5lc8k.jpg) has no function in the discussion. It is not funny and the content seems to have no other purpose than to deeply offend certain forum members that do not share your views.

Paul

I'm sorry to say that this is the life of Americans visiting abroad. As soon as we sit down to ahve a drink, someone will come up to us and start on some subject with statements based on similar sources to what we have seen here.

I know a lot about the dark underbelly of many countries, especially those I visit regularly. I have those questions ready to counter any attacks.

It is generally the case that the citizens of my host country know very little about their own country. In some cases they don't even know their emergency number. More often than than you can imagine they dial 911!


   

[lloyd_cdb]

I'm sorry to say that this is the life of Americans visiting abroad. As soon as we sit down to ahve a drink, someone will come up to us and start on some subject with statements based on similar sources to what we have seen here.

I know a lot about the dark underbelly of many countries, especially those I visit regularly. I have those questions ready to counter any attacks.

I lived in London for 6 months. My first week I was staying at an upscale hotel and got screamed at in the hotel bar by an Irish man talking about Bush and Americans destroying the world. It's not even limited to the dark underbelly.

LIW, how about you just post every conspiracy ever created about the USA so we can just get them out of the way, instead of insinuating each one is related and gives prooof of the last one. It's funny that the presentation order can end up indicating different outcomes. Not sure if you just google 'American Conspiracy' right after people point out the terrible sources you are using.

[oxy60]

I lived in London for 6 months. My first week I was staying at an upscale hotel and got screamed at in the hotel bar by an Irish man talking about Bush and Americans destroying the world. It's not even limited to the dark underbelly.

LIW, how about you just post every conspiracy ever created about the USA so we can just get them out of the way, instead of insinuating each one is related and gives prooof of the last one. It's funny that the presentation order can end up indicating different outcomes. Not sure if you just google 'American Conspiracy' right after people point out the terrible sources you are using.

Many of the posters to this thread don't tell us their citizenship. I am sure there are some serious problems about their country we could discuss and attack. However we won't rely on some speculative rumors.

I was extremely lucky in London to generally avoid those verbal attacks. I lived in a serviced flat and worked with some very enlightened people. If the conversation (in a pub) turned  anti-American, I just popped a few questions about their system (thanks to the ques from my friends) and exposed how really stupid they were. Generally we agreed to disagree and had another round of drinks.

[lostinidlewonder]

What the US military are doing in Pakistan is quite confronting. Does this make the line as to who exactly is the terrorist blurred?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220828/US-drone-attacks-CIA-chiefs-face-arrest-horrific-evidence-bloody-video-game-sorties.html


Here is the highest rated comment from this story posted by someone from my own city:

"they hate us because we are free" said Bush , no they hate the USA because it kills indiscriminately, it is arrogant, it tortures, it imprisons without trial, it invades countries to steal their resources, it lies to give itself excuses to commit atrocities, it assassinates, it backs the genocide in Palestine, it creates terrorism for its own ends by promoting false flag attacks and it does it all with other people's money. So no surprises the drone attacks are just a game because Americans have been conditioned to look at the rest of the World as their playpen and the people who inhabit it as less than human and not up to American standards. Although we see the duality of American standards it is doubtful they do such is the brainwashing they appear to go through which only meets reality in defeats like Vietnam and Afghanistan but hey another lie like Pearl Harbour or 911 and its USA USA USA ! they never learn and continue their rapid decline into fascism.
- Graham Casey, Perth, 21/10/2012 10:18

[p2u_]

What the US military are doing in Pakistan is quite confronting. Does this make the line as to who exactly is the terrorist blurred?

Has it ever occurred to you, LiiW, that this could be propaganda, lies and halftruths? I have not seen even one forensics report that confirmed the actual cause of death. I have not seen even one forensics report that confirmed that the injuries were indeed the result of drone attacks. This is irresponsible journalism and what you are doing here is just as irresponsible.

_{EDIT: It is an utter disgrace that a non-political resource hosted on a server in Houston, TX, USA is being abused for this purpose.}

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Think that it is just conspiracy theorist who believe 911 is a cover up? Think again. Even former director of the FBI Louis Freeh believes that the 911 commission was a cover up.

https://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml

[lostinidlewonder]

A professional and respected architects perspective (as well as 700 other architects and engineers) who supports that the trade centers where brought down by controlled demolition.

https://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

https://www.presstv.com/detail/190668.html

[p2u_]

Think that it is just conspiracy theorist who believe 911 is a cover up? Think again. Even former director of the FBI Louis Freeh believes that the 911 commission was a cover up.

https://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml

When are you finally going to get your data right, LiiW? Here's the complete text of what Freeh REALLY wrote in his article for the Wall Street Journal: An Incomplete Investigation. Critical? Yes. Cover up? Fat chance!

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Historic Case to Challenge BBC's 9/11 Coverage


February 14, 2013
by Peter Drew
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

[lostinidlewonder]

Have a read of this website:

https://patriotsquestion911.com


Many important people who disagree with the official story of 911.

[p2u_]

A professional and respected architects perspective (as well as 700 other architects and engineers) who supports that the trade centers where brought down by controlled demolition.

youtube.com/watch?v=8INe7K9org4

debunking911.com/thermite.htm

presstv.com/detail/190668.html

Here's a little help for those who want to debunk the debunkers with lots of really well researched materials: wtc7lies

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Some history of false flag activities.

https://www.bollyn.com/america-the-target-9-11-and-the-history-of-false-flag-terrorism

Prior warnings? Could it have been stopped?

https://www.indexoftheweb.com/911.htm

[oxy60]

The case will be heard in a UK court? In a kingdom operating without a written constitution!

So, how does one become a judge in the UK?

[p2u_]

The case will be heard in a UK court? In a kingdom operating without a written constitution!

So, how does one become a judge in the UK?

Are you interested in joining the judiciary of the United Kingdom, oxy60?

Here's how: How do I become a judge?

Paul

[lloyd_cdb]

Many important people who disagree with the official story of 911.

"Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed." - from that website. (emphasis is mine)

The first person listed on the website is Major General Albert Stubblebine. His claim is that a plane never hit the building. There are eyewitness accounts of this happening. Are those eyewitness accounts less credible than a Major General? Of course. Until you actually take a look at WHO he is.

He was the basis of the book/movie "Men who stare at goats". He was a major proponent of psychic phenomena. His 3 year career as the head of intelligence was built on creating super soldiers who could turn invisible and walk through walls. He didn't just order research on this, he was actually a volunteer test subject. Yes, he ACTUALLY tried to walk through a wall. He made all his battalion commanders practice bending spoons with their mind. During his tenure he involved 2 unapproved civilian psychics and gave them exposure to sensitive intelligence, after which he was forced to retire. He was also a proponent of 'remote viewing': clairvoyance and extrasensory perception.

'I still think it's a great idea,' says General Stubblebine. 'I simply kept bumping my nose. It's a disappointment - just like levitation.'

Important? Sure. But 'important' can have many connotations...

Obviously this doesn't disprove the validity of every person on that list, but the inclusion (and promotion) of someone like that is an immediate discredit to the value of the numerical emphasis on supporters. Hardly conforms to the original claim of the website.

[lostinidlewonder]

Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report? This is a great example that shows the US authorities were aware of an attack.

https://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

[p2u_]

Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report? This is a great example that shows the US authorities were aware of an attack.

https://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

Funny that you give a link to a site that was set up to debunk 911 conspiracy theories. When you scroll down the page, you will see a reasonable answer to your question: timeline inconsistencies...
https://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta#Questioning_the_Mineta_timeline

Paul

[lloyd_cdb]

Some history of false flag activities.
https://www.bollyn.com/america-the-target-9-11-and-the-history-of-false-flag-terrorism
Prior warnings? Could it have been stopped?
https://www.indexoftheweb.com/911.htm

Your original argument was that the US attacked itself, giving multiple sources of 'evidence' that were quickly and blatantly refuted. Many of which were based on actual 100% lies giving 'support' to your theories. Now you are posting every criticism you can find in regards to the US, which isn't even in support of your argument but just to discredit the US. Your arguments change regularly and many of your articles contradict themselves. Many of your coincidental and often completely fallicious points are only an expression of hatred.

I am bring it up because the information now is as clear as ever. The misinformation spread is being revealed and the truths are standing stronger and stronger. The amount of high profile people who disagree with the 911 commission is very disturbing. The smoke has cleared, the bullshit is losing its power very fast thanks to the Internet.

You have constantly posted bullshit arguments that should be 'clearing the smoke' of your accusatory, contradictory and illogical beliefs. Instead, you search for more and more crap that attempts to support worthless arguments with worthless information, 'thanks to the internet'.

I have an idea. How about you post your links and subsequently actually make a point instead of simply indicating accusations in 2 sentences. Anyone can post a link. Put a tiny bit of effort in if you actually give a sh*t about the point of the argument vs. showing your only effort is to accuse others of being evil.

Honestly, I shouldn't even be arguing this like I stated earlier. But proving hateful people are actually stupid is somewhat entertaining.

[lostinidlewonder]

Why was there no interception of the planes given that the US NORAD where specially trained to deal with this? Why after investing so much into this defence is it simply not used?

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

[lostinidlewonder]

And this also highlights how the US defence were well trained to deal with the 911 attack, yet they authorities lead the people to believe that this act of terror was unforeseen and a complete surprise.

https://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a01multiplehijackings

[lostinidlewonder]

The White House Chief of Staff "walked away from Bush immediately" after informing him that the nation was under attack, without waiting for any response from the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military.  How did he know that the Commander would decide not to respond in any way to prevent further planes from crashing into buildings, but instead would continue reading a childrens book?  

Do you remember that image of Bush reading to the children after getting that whisper in his ear of the 911 attack?  Isn't that a very strange reaction?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI

[p2u_]

The White House Chief of Staff "walked away from Bush immediately" after informing him that the nation was under attack, without waiting for any response from the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military.  How did he know that the Commander would decide not to respond in any way to prevent further planes from crashing into buildings, but instead would continue reading a childrens book?  

Do you remember that image of Bush reading to the children after getting that whisper in his ear of the 911 attack?  Isn't that a very strange reaction?

No, not if you look at this from the children's perspective. I think he was instructed NOT to walk away because that could have caused quite some unrest among the children. Besides, he did not betray them to save his own [insert body part here].

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

What about the children whose father or mother, uncle or aunt, grandfather or grandmother, cousin or friend of the family etc etc were about to die on that very day?

[p2u_]

What about the children who's father or mother, uncle or aunt, grandfather or grandmother, cousin or friend of the family etc etc were about to die on that very day?

Do you want to say it would have made a difference if he had gotten up immediately and left for the White House?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

This is also an excellent read for gaining perspectives from high ranking officials.

Current and former high-level U.S. officials have recently and publicly stated that the 9/11 attack was not as it seemed.

https://911proof.com/7.html

[p2u_]

This is also an excellent read for gaining perspectives from high ranking officials.

Current and former high-level U.S. officials have recently and publicly stated that the 9/11 attack was not as it seemed.

https://911proof.com/7.html

I've been there too. Unfortunately, most of what is stated there makes it yet another hoax promoting site. With a minimum of logic, everything can be refuted for the same reasons as the information on your other resources. "I'll see it when I believe it". We are running around in circles. I'd be more interested to hear what the point is you wanted to make with all this.

Paul