Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Been my experience when seeking answers to difficult questions the best plan is to come at them from multiple perspectives.

9/11 conspiracy theories are focused on a central theme - controlled demolition - however there are many versions attempting to explain how that happened and whodunnit. It's like a railroad freight train, each car loaded with a different version, yet they are all on the same track.

The 9/11 Commission Report is tainted by conflicts of interest among commission members. The NIST and FEMA investigators made significant errors in the application of science and engineering principles - misrepresentations, misinterpretation of data, and mistakes in calculations that led to erroneous conclusions.

There is no evidence that NIST and FEMA investigators intentionally skewed their reports, but they did make some mistakes.

Moreover, best I can surmise from exploring 9/11 conspiracy theories is they are all focused on debunking the "official stories" noted above and replacing them with their own explanations.

Independent scientists, such as university science and engineering departments, who used the above reports as a starting point exacerbated the errors. As did science writers and journalists.

However, some independent investigators avoided getting embroiled in the science and engineering aspects and focused on finding out who did it and why.

There is more than sufficient evidence to, shall we say, implicate Al Qaeda and OBL. One example out of many is the itinerary of Mohammed Atta and Abudulaziz al-Omari.

For some inexplicable reason, these two rented a car and drove to Portland, Maine where they booked a flight on US Airways to Boston Logan with connection to AA Flight 11 bound for LAX. (negative print out of their booking posted below)

The US Airways ticket agent at the Portland airport who issued their boarding passes said later, after the attack and Al Qaeda terrorists were implicated, that Atta and al-Omari were acting suspiciously. Even at the time, he thought if anyone fit the bill as a terrorist, these two were it. For the rest of his life Mike Tuohey dealt with guilt, even underwent therapy.

At around 5 am on 9/11, Atta and al-Omari checked in with Tuohey. They were running late, so Tuohey urged them to hustle. They made the flight, but during the t***sfer at Logan, Atta's luggage did not make it aboard Flight 11. When the dots were connected, investigators examined the contents and found a four page letter written in Arabic that linked hijackers on three of the four planes.

So, with this, I have a recommendation. Two books. I suggest setting aside the official stories and the conspiracy theories and read these from an objective POV, then draw your own conclusions.

See No Evil by veteran CIA agent Robert Baer.
CIA operative Robert Baer paints a chilling picture of how terrorism works on the inside and provides startling evidence of how Washington politics sabotaged the CIA’s efforts to root out the world’s deadliest terrorists, allowing for the rise of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the continued entrenchment of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

A veteran case officer in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations in the Middle East, Baer witnessed the rise of terrorism first hand and the CIA’s inadequate response to it, leading to the attacks of September 11, 2001. This riveting book is both an indictment of an agency that lost its way and an unprecedented look at the roots of modern terrorism, and includes a new afterword in which Baer speaks out about the American war on terrorism and its profound implications throughout the Middle East.



And The Looming Tower by investigative journalist Lawrence Wright. (over 25 awards for non-fiction, including the Pulitzer)
A sweeping narrative history of the events leading to 9/11, a groundbreaking look at the people and ideas, the terrorist plans and the Western intelligence failures that culminated in the assault on America. Lawrence Wright's remarkable book is based on five years of research and hundreds of interviews that he conducted in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, England, France, Germany, Spain, and the United States.

The Looming Tower achieves an unprecedented level of intimacy and insight by telling the story through the interweaving lives of four men: the two leaders of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri; the FBI's counterterrorism chief, John O'Neill; and the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal.

As these lives unfold, we see revealed: the crosscurrents of modern Islam that helped to radicalize Zawahiri and bin Laden . . . the birth of al-Qaeda and its unsteady development into an organization capable of the American embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole . . . O'Neill's heroic efforts to track al-Qaeda before 9/11, and his tragic death in the World Trade towers . . . Prince Turki's t***sformation from bin Laden's ally to his enemy . . . the failures of the FBI, CIA, and NSA to share intelligence that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

The Looming Tower broadens and deepens our knowledge of these signal events by taking us behind the scenes. Here is Sayyid Qutb, founder of the modern Islamist movement, lonely and despairing as he meets Western culture up close in 1940s America; the privileged childhoods of bin Laden and Zawahiri; family life in the al-Qaeda compounds of Sudan and Afghanistan; O'Neill's high-wire act in balancing his all-consuming career with his equally entangling personal life--he was living with three women, each of them unaware of the others' existence--and the nitty-gritty of turf battles among U.S. intelligence agencies.

Brilliantly conceived and written, The Looming Tower draws all elements of the story into a galvanizing narrative that adds immeasurably to our understanding of how we arrived at September 11, 2001. The richness of its new information, and the depth of its perceptions, can help us deal more wisely and effectively with the continuing terrorist threat.

whole2th

Not mentioned--by most--are the TENS OF MILLIONS of displaced Iraqis, Syrians and more whose communities were destroyed based upon the big lies of 9-11.

The Kosher Nostra did 9-11 (including their shabbos goyim cohorts).

martsiva

Have you researched the ' Mossad - The Israeli Connection to 911' by Christopher Bollyn?? You really should - it`s an eye opener!!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Of course, Christopher Bollyn is a "raging anti-Semite". He was one of the first Jew h**ers to get into the 9/11 conspiracy game.

Christopher Bollyn is a former writer for American Free Press founded by Neo-N**i Willis Carto, notorious for his extremist ideologies in w***e s*********t and anti-semitic movements.

Israel and the Mossad had nothing to do with the attacks.

whole2th

Being anti-Kosher Nostra (Mossad, Khazarian mafia, Mishpuka) does not infer hatred of Jews any more than being anti-Mafia means one h**es Italians.

Here it is in a short, easy to read book:

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Why I’m Still Not Convinced by 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

By Peter Bolton

The final theory is, for me, not just the least plausible, but palpably fatuous in all of its dimensions. For starters, why on earth would you need to set off a controlled explosion if two commercial airliners had already flown into the towers at high speeds? There are some who believe that no planes flew into the Twin Towers at all, which is a level of lunacy that I frankly find hard to fathom (some even believe that the planes depicted on television news channels were holograms…) But, leaving aside these so-called “no-planers” (or as I call then, the “no-brainers”), the standard response from the non-no-planer MIHOP faction is that, since jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel garters that held together the towers, the conspirators needed to ensure the buildings’ full collapse via a controlled demolition.

Cuda2020

Indeed, I have to agree with you on this one, as far as how the buildings came down, and who was all a part of this collaterally, is another story.

3507

I agree.

3507

That's if investigators were allowed in, to find it.

What was to be found might have been "bomb parts" or some other kind of relevant evidence.

What I read (though I don't have any reference handy) is that investigators were not allowed in.

whole2th

And the debris--including fragments of human bodies--was hauled to the "Fresh K**ls" landfill in dump trucks which were tracked with GPS to assure none of the crime scene evidence was taken somewhere else.

Giuliani, a former prosecutor, must have realized that cleaning the crime scene post-haste violated principles of appropriate forensics and law. https://911justicecampaign.org/the-case-against-rudy-giuliani/

3507

I agree that the U.S. and other countries have trespassed in forceful ways, and that that is probably an underlying _reason_why_ the "9/11" attack happened.

We need to _understand_ more about why we were attacked.

Western Europeans and U.S. Americans have long histories of trespassing in forceful ways in many places around the world. Sooner or later there's going to be push-back, or blow-back, proportional to how those people feel about it. To combat terrorism, more than one thing is needed, but probably the most important thing to do is to stop committing injustices around the world. That's the right thing to do, and it will also reduce the retaliation.

When Osama bin Laden was finally caught (if we are to believe what we were told about _that_), what happened to his body? Why wouldn't that be preserved long enough for officials (such as security officials and autopsy experts) to identify it, photograph it, and examine how he died? If you caught and k**led a notorious criminal like that, wouldn't you want to show the body to prove it? But I heard they dumped it in the ocean and just gave us their own word about what happened.

When Saddam Hussein faced a "trial", what did he say in it? Who controlled the trial process? If it's a trial, wouldn't the accused person be allowed to make some speech in it? Where can we hear or read what he said?

When the WTC came down, were investigators allowed in to examine the rubble? I heard they weren't.

As 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis or from Saudi Arabia, and as Osama bin Laden had previously been connected with the royal Saudis, wouldn't it be wise for our security officials to interview at least the Saudi officials who were visiting the U.S. at the time, to ask questions about Osama bin Laden and the Saudi hijackers? But I heard that they were flown out of the country at the time when all _other_ flights were grounded, and that they were not even questioned at all.

Back in the months before the invasion into Iraq, I saw a very short news item which said the U.S. Administration _claimed_ to have evidence of WMDs in Iraq but was not showing the evidence. (More about _claims_, at the end.)

It looks to me like there's a big pattern of obscuring evidence all through 9/11 before and after it. _Eventually_ there was the international demonstration by Colin Powell, describing evidence, but that was only after everything had already been primed to attack Iraq; and I heard that the U.S. actually bugged places at the U.N. to help ensure they would know who would v**e one way or another about invading Iraq. And _later_, even the evidence Colin Powell had presented was found to have been insufficient evidence, but that conclusion was after the invasion had already happened.

The international inspections in Iraq were a good preventative measure to prevent war or the necessity of war, and those inspections were ongoing, but some people in the U.S. were impatient for war to begin. They should have let the inspections go on forever rather than resort to the war which was unnecessary.

If the United States were a non-nuclear country, and several other countries had nuclear weapons, but the U.S. didn't, and those other countries had arranged that we should never have them, how would we feel about that? The ONE country I know about which has ever misused a nuclear bomb has been the United States, and that bomb was the second one (and possibly the first one also) that it dropped on Japan in 1945, which was unnecessary and the U.S. should have known better, but was too careless about Japanese lives.

_Claims_ of having evidence are a dime a dozen, especially when the claims are made by untrustworthy Administrations or untrustworthy governments or untrustworthy nations.

Cuda2020

And aren't we and other countries doing the same careless thing, producing germ warfare. To think that can be controlled is the epitome of human arrogance.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

darn good thread you guys are having.. thanks..

I only want to add.. bombing Japan.. I had a gym teacher is high school who was on the ready for invade the main islands , along with many 1000 of others and he was strong is the belief that many many americans would have died it that type invasion had taken place.. would of Japan surrendered and the invasion not occured? I do not know, but he was grateful that the bomb was used and I am sure he never changed his mind on that..

so some of our view, mine at least, are based on looking back from now rather then seeing the problem from the time of war..

whole2th

Many WWII military personnel felt we should have continued to defeat the Soviet c*******ts--that we allowed the c*******ts to persist--like we allow the Taliban to persist and even arm the Taliban.

General Patton said we fought the wrong enemy in WWII. He died shortly after making that observation.

whole2th

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-did-the-perpetrators-do-9-11/

"In support of the alternative theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition type explosions is the lack of any serious forensic analysis of the fragments of masonry and steel. The debris was picked up hurriedly and dumped at sea and abroad where it could not be subjected to chemical examination. That fact alone smacks of conspiracy."

"That leaves two prime beneficiaries of 9/11, the state of Israel and a possible secret cabal in the US government made up mostly of neoconservatives that may have been tied to the Israelis and which wanted to use the American military might to remake the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly admitted that Israel had much to gain from the US joining his country’s war against Muslim terrorism, saying that “It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [and] strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.” And, of course, in Netanyahu’s view, the attack was conveniently attributable to Israel’s enemies."