Pentagon attack alleged witness Stephen McGraw

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT December 7 2007, 11:03 PM

Pentagon attack alleged witness Stephen McGraw

CIT interviewed former DoJ attorney turned Opus Dei influenced catholic priest (ordained 3 months before 9/11) Stephen McGraw on our first research trip with Dylan Avery before we knew about the north of the citgo witnesses.

image source: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/mcgraw1.jpg

The entire interview is available in our 10 minute presentation here:

From the Law to the Lord
(Featuring Stephen McGraw)


Google Video Link

I'd like to first say that when investigating a psychological black operation of mass murder it makes perfect sense to question testimony that supports the official story while giving more credence to independently obtained evidence that refutes it.

McGraw is a perfect example of how previously published accounts are used to support the official story without confirmation and investigation.

He has been cited quite often as a witness to the light poles being clipped by the plane because of this quote:

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car."

But he is not saying that he literally "saw" it happen and in our interview he clarified how he did NOT actually see the plane hit any light poles at all and merely deduced this after the fact.

Now this would be quite odd since he was allegedly in the perfect position to see poles 3, 4, and 5 right in front of him. Here is his alleged point of view:

image source: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/route%2027/route27lie25.jpg

But it actually makes perfect sense since the plane was north of the CITGO station and could not have hit the poles.

Another curious point that we didn't bring up in the short is the fact that although McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery.....he chose to abandon this commitment to get out of his car and offer his prayer "services" to the chaotic rescue effort at the Pentagon.

image source: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/287a.jpg

What about the poor family waiting for him at the cemetery? How could he abandon them? Why would he bother getting out of his car at all with such an important commitment?

We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC despite the attack.

Middleton and his co-workers at Arlington continued to work Sept. 11 as Washington offices closed and buildings emptied. The cemetery crew had no choice. Funerals were scheduled and burials had to be completed, chaos and all. source

Caustic Logic has published another CIT hit-piece focusing on our analysis of Stephen McGraw available here.

I have posted a complete retraction to this deceptive attempt to cast doubt on our motives available here.

But it boils down to this.....

CL is insinuating that McGraw's testimony directly refutes the evidence proving the north side of the CITGO station approach even though McGraw specifically SAYS that he did not see OR hear the plane approach at all and only knew of it when he had a "sense" of it flying over his car.

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars."

Because the north and south flight paths virtually converge on route 27 McGraw does not claim to be a witness to what side of the station the plane flew.

CL's blog is pretty much devoted to casting doubt on CIT personally as this paragraph blatantly reveals:

The issue is not whether or not McGraw, or Opus Dei, is suspicious but rather why do they try so hard with this witness while giving the others a free pass on the background check? I think the reason is plain to see. Perhaps these odd X-factors were known as they sought out a few token south path witnesses who could be found just as suspicious after their carefully-screened ‘verification.’

He is leaving the reader with pure speculation that our investigation has been deliberately deceptive without presenting a bit of evidence to support such an outrageous attack.

He is deliberately shifting the suspicion away from the McGraw and on to us, the independent citizen investigators trying to fight for 9/11 truth.

What's odd about this is that CL himself has accused all of the CITGO witnesses as being deep cover government agents who were planted to spread disinfo!

So ultimately he is suggesting that we should trust witnesses who support the official story while writing off the ones who refute it as government operatives!

This is the entire basis of his argument.

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know, 9/11 An Inside Job

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: coughymachine December 4 2007, 6:44 PM
Source: Prison Planet

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

I know, I know, Prison Planet is not well thought of, but they are quoting the former Italian PM who was originally speaking with an Italian Newspaper, Corriere della Sera.

As I have in the past, and will do again here, for anyone who doubts the US government has been involved in acts of civilian terrorism, look into Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension.

9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details, Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: An Urban Ledgend June 19 2007, 10:13 PM

* Note: This is a very long topic, which I joined quite late on.

The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

While details remain scant for obvious reasons, we can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.

What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.

The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.

Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.

Source

Boy, I cant wait for the interview in the Final Cut. Debunkers will just hate the part where it says explosions going off in building7 before either Towers collapse! Go think of a good excuse for that!

Iran welcomes US nuclear report

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: rhyknow December 4 2007, 12:20 PM

Iran has welcomed a major US intelligence report which suggests its government is not currently trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate says it is now believed Iran stopped its weapons programme in 2003.

Tehran has always maintained its nuclear programme is being developed purely for peaceful purposes.

But the US and other Western powers say Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran is currently under UN Security Council and unilateral US sanctions.

But the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the question of sanctions remains active because Iran is still defying Security Council calls for it to suspend uranium enrichment.

The standoff is now likely to continue indefinitely but at a lower temperature, he says.

----
Full Story & Source
----

Fundamentally Freund:Five reasons 2 bomb Iran

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: Mithra November 28 2007, 6:48 AM

Have America and Israel suddenly gone soft on Iran's nefarious nuclear-weapons program? Despite sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gleefully pressing forward with his efforts to build a bomb, which Israeli military intelligence now believes he will succeed in doing by 2009.

Indeed, just last Friday, the would-be Hitler of Persia boasted about how Teheran had "defied" Western opposition, and was now "moving toward the peaks of success step by step."

Yet even as Iran continues to progress down the dangerous road to an atomic arsenal, the tough talk emanating from Washington and Jerusalem in recent months has suddenly and inexplicably melted away.

And this should have us all very, very worried.

It was just last month that US President George W. Bush declared at an October 17 press conference that, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Bush's statement was followed four days later by an equally emphatic Vice President Dick Cheney, who told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."

Now, though, something appears to have changed. Various reports in recent days seem to indicate that US policy may have taken a sharp and terribly treacherous U-turn in the direction of acquiescence.

According to the Britain's Sunday Telegraph, the US Defense Department has begun updating its deterrence policy based on the assumption that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons.

The paper quoted a Pentagon adviser as saying that while "military strikes [against Iran's nuclear facilities] might set the program back a couple of years… current thinking is that it is just not worth the risks."

Similarly, Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times last week (Nov. 12) that a preemptive attack against Iranian nuclear installations is not "in the offing."

And, as Reuters reported, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is said to have instructed cabinet officials to draft proposals for how to deal with "the day after" Iran obtains the bomb.

WHAT IS going on here? Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence? It is possible, of course, that these reports are merely part of the overall game-plan, and that they are aimed at lulling the Iranians into a false sense of security prior to a surprise attack on their nuclear installations.

Alternatively, it might reflect the shifting political realities in the US, where public opinion, goaded on by the mainstream liberal media, has turned against the war in neighboring Iraq.

But whatever the reality of the situation is, one thing should be clear: Iran can not and must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

This is not an issue with shades of grey - it is about as black and white as they come.

And here are five good reasons why:

1. An Iranian nuclear arsenal would transform the strategic dynamic of the entire Middle East, shifting the balance of power squarely in the direction of radical Shi'ite fundamentalism.

An atomic Iran will be able to threaten the region and the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction, and they will use that leverage to further their fanatical and revolutionary aims.

2. A nuclear-armed Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel, and ultimately to the West too. Iranian leaders have repeatedly and explicitly promised to wipe Israel off the map and to strike at the United States.

Teheran has been backing up its words with actions by steadily improving its ballistic missile capability. The Shihab-3 missile, with a range of 1,200 km, can hit all of Israel as well as US military targets in the Middle East. Iran is busy developing the Shihab-4, with a range of 2,000 km, that will put parts of Europe within striking distance. Teheran is also striving to build even longer-range intercontinental missiles that can hit the US as well. All of these weapons have the ability to deliver atomic warheads.

3. If Iran goes nuclear, it will inevitably tilt the neighboring Arab states further in the direction of extremism, as they seek to mollify the nuclear-armed ayatollahs. Whatever limited chances there might be of drawing at least some Arab states into the moderate camp are likely to be stymied rather quickly.

4. Failure to take action against Teheran will trigger a region-wide nuclear arms race, as countries throughout the Middle East will seek to achieve strategic and military parity.

A number of states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have already announced plans to build their own nuclear power plants, and others will undoubtedly do so as well out of fear of being left behind. Permitting Iran to go nuclear essentially paves the way to a Middle East that will be brimming with atomic weapons.

5. If Iran were to develop "the bomb," what is to stop them from putting it into the hands of one of the myriad anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist groups that they support, such as Hizbullah or Islamic Jihad? Do we really want to take a chance that terrorists might at last be able to get their hands on nuclear weapons? This is not some "neocon nightmare scenario" or "warmonger wishful-thinking."

It is the cold, hard reality staring us all squarely in the face, unless Washington or Jerusalem takes military action, and soon.

CRITICS ARGUE that an attack on Iran would be logistically difficult, politically dangerous, and would result in some very serious consequences.

But as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the New York Times (November 9), "The choice is not between the world as it is today and the use of force. The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons." And when looked at in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that there really is no choice at all: the US and/or Israel must bomb Iran. They must act to remove the nuclear sword from the hand of the Persian executioner.

And they should do so now - before it is too late.

Link

Bring All Your Different Theories Here.

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: NGC2736 November 27 2007, 2:55 AM

Bring All Your Different Theories Here.

As many of you know, two weeks ago I did a piece on 9/11 for ATS Premium about the Islamic Fundamentalists and the CIA connection starting with the war in Afghanistan between the CIA/Mujahadeen and the Soviets. This was a background piece on the whole 9/11 story, of just one of the groups involved.

What I would like to do next is look into the different theories that have grown up over the years. I'm NOT here for a discussion thread at this time, but rather to ask anyone interested to provide links to what you consider the best theory for what happened that day.

Please give me links that I can follow to a site or a thread that gives a clear presentation of these ideas, without me having to wade through months of back threads trying to glean information during often brutal arguments.

Much like a forensic investigation, I want to view all the evidence, no matter who makes the claim, or how unusual the theory. I have ruled NOTHING out on this, as I have made clear in the Premium thread. I simply want the best evidence with the least wasted time finding it for EVERY theory.

But please, again, this IS NOT the thread to convince me or anyone else the merits of a theory. Just point me to the spot that seems best to you to tell the story of what you think took place, and why it took place.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this research.

ATS Premium: The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: NGC2736 November 13 2007, 4:16 PM

ATS Premium: The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism


Introduction.

Let's forget all the silliness that has grown up around 9/11. Those wild eyed fairy tales of holograms and mini-nukes are not taken seriously by those of us with common sense. Some of us even wonder if these ridiculous ideas are being actively promoted as a smoke screen to keep everyone from taking a hard look at the reasons behind the attack. The powers that be love for the world to see these stories of ghost planes and Nostradamus and shapeshifting reptilians That way, anyone who speaks of 9/11 without piously standing shoulder to shoulder with this administration's policies and declarations on the matter can be wrote off as another nutcase.

It's downright unpopular to ask certain questions. Just to wonder if 9/11 was the result of US policies in the '80s and '90s can be a problem. Ron Paul said that it was "blow back", and he was immediately attacked as being unpatriotic. It is political suicide to ponder, out loud anyway, if the years of meddling in Islamic governments business resulted in them bring the fight home to American shores. But the question won't just go away, because a lot of people ask themselves if America played a role in the radicalization that portion of Islam that became Al Qaeda. Did America play Russian roulette with Islamic fundamentalists?


The Mudjahadeen Connection and the USSR's "Vietnam"

On July 3, 1979, President Jimmy Carters administration took a step towards ending the stalemate of the Cold War. A then secret directive was issued to funnel support to some anti-soviet "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. It was all part of the game between the western powers and the old USSR. Just another move where pawns bled and died in proxy wars, as each side sought some advantage or the other.This time the idea was that America could use the growing civil unrest in Afghanistan to draw the Soviets into their own version of Vietnam. A war they couldn't win.

Western leaders felt safe in pushing a war half a world away. These "freedom fighters" could bait the Russian bear into open fighting, thereby draining the USSR of resources and the will to struggle. It would cost the Americans very little, and if it worked, the payoff would be a greatly weakened Soviet Union. It's doubtful that the planners of this venture were sure it would even work at all. But these were the days of the likes of Oliver North, and any plan was worth a shot.

Surprisingly, it worked like a charm. Before the year was out, the Russians came to Afghanistan to spread their form of Christmas cheer. The government in Kabul had been on the verge of losing control, and as a good client state, had invited the USSR to come and restore order. We may never know just how the CIA, America's chosen "front man" for this covert action, spent their money, but it's a pretty safe bet most of it went into destabilization of the Afghan government and causing civil unrest.


The US War Machine Playing Both Sides Against the Other

This was the start of an almost decade long war, and the CIA was hip deep in making sure it was a bloody one. Within weeks, then Secretary of Defense Harold Brown was dealing with China for weapons to be sent to Pakistan, and on to Afghanistan, to be used on Russian "peace keepers". To be sure that there was no shortage of arms, an additional $15 million was soon spent with Egypt for arms and ammunition, and ferried on US planes to the conflict.

We should take a moment to look at just who all these arms were being sent to. The group we were arming to the teeth in an effort to extract some "payback" for our own humiliation in Vietnam was a group calling themselves the mujahadeen. Taken as a whole, these "freedom fighters" were far from being upstanding citizens, by any stretch of the imagination. They were scarcely more than gangs, led by self-styled war lords. Gangs which for years had been fighting among themselves for control of the lucrative opium trade.

Mujahadeen translates into "holy warriors", a misnomer if ever there was one. While religion was a part of their overall life concept, it seems that money and power was as great a motivating force. Calling them holy warriors is like saying the L.A. gangs are Catholic Conservatives just because some of them wear crosses. A good example is is one well known leader of the time, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He was most widely known for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, according to a report by Tim Weiner.

Historically, Afghanistan has been an isolated crossroads. Despite some modernization in the cities, it remains on a feudal level even today. In such an atmosphere religion too often is a tool of oppression and control. War lords use these kinds of tools to control their domain. The more brutal the slant taken by the clergy, the better the tool for the leaders. In such a setting, it is small wonder that Islam would be bent to use of these barbarians.


Radicalizing Islam for Strategic Benefit

But radical religion fit well with the goals of the US. Russia could be seen as a decadent society, and battling them could be seen as a holy work. Compared to the lifestyles of most people in Afghanistan, the Russians were too modern, too open, too evil. And with the money and guns that America supplied through the CIA, the power base of the war lords was growing. And as they grew, their ideas on what was right in a religious context grew. It was a vicious circle that America was feeding.

In a 1998 interview, Zhigniew Bresenski, one of the players of those days, spoke in an interview. He said, "What was more important in the world view of history?... A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and an end to the Cold War?" Only a few short years later the WTC would fall at the hands of those same "stirred up Muslims". One has to wonder how he felt about it by that time.


The Plot Intensifies in The Reagan Years

During the Reagan years money and arms flowed like water. According to Ronald Spiers, then ambassador to Pakistan, the CIA sent a river of men and money, along with arms from China and Egypt, and even Iran. Assault rifles, land mines, antiaircraft guns, and grenade launchers; they sent anything and everything to keep the heat on the Russians. Pakistani General Mohammed Yousaf estimated that he saw over 10,000 tons of these items pass through Pakistan in 1983 alone.

And in March of 1985, the Reagan administration upped the ante some more by signing the National Security Decision Directive # 166,29. Now the CIA sent satellite data, even intercepted Soviet communications to the mujahadeen. America sent targeting devises for mortars, long range sniper rifles, and later even stinger antiaircraft rockets. And tons of the urban terrorists friend, C-4 plastic explosives.

It goes without saying that the US didn't just hand these over to a bunch of feudal barons barely out of the horse age without training them in how to get the biggest bang for the buck. While there isn't a much available information, logic assures us that there must have been a lot of training in the use of all these things. The CIA spooks surely spent time prepping this army of radical Islamic fundamentalists before aiming it at the Russian bear.


The US Created and Trained Radical Islamic Terrorists

In their short-sighted desire to extract some "payback" from the USSR, America armed and trained an Islamic force, infused with a radical religious viewpoint, to fight, and win, a guerrilla war against a modern regular army that was much like our own army. The CIA would rather we thought that everything was aimed at military targets during this time, but there can be no doubt that some of these arms, and the training to use them, were used in assassinations and car bombings as well. The US could hardly avoid being in the terrorist training business.

Now every army needs recruits, and this one was no exception. Pakistan journalist Ahmed Rashid has said that in the decade between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslims, from over 40 countries, answered the call to join up. Thousands more poured in to the religious schools set up near Pakistan's western border. In all, over 100,000 radical Muslim extremists were culled from the from the world's most radical groups. Common sense tells us that the overwhelming majority were already committed to the fundamental ideology before they ever left home for the hinterlands of Afghanistan. Osoma bin Ladin was one of these recruits.


The CIA Connection to bin Laden and Al Qaeda Takes Shape

CIA officials steadfastly deny past knowledge of bin Ladin, or at least of a paper trail. But in the trial of the Kenya embassy bombings evidence was shown that in at least 1989 he was the one they shipped a load of high powered rifles to. According to the Boston Globe, this was confirmed by the manufacturer of the weapons, a firm out out of Tennessee. But a paper trail is hardly the point anyway. The CIA ran this operation, and bin Ladin was on the team. Just because the Grand Wizard says he never saw some of the KKK members, it doesn't lessen his connection to them. The CIA produced this show, and bin Ladin was in the chorus line.

Around 1988, Al Qaeda (The Base) was born. Then as now, it was a terrorist network led by CIA trained men like bin Ladin. Men trained for war in Islamic fundamentalist religious schools in Pakistan. While the radical Islamic message was a wonderful bond for men facing the "godless communists", it was one that cunning leaders of the movement could aim at anyone. When the USSR tucked it's tale and headed north in 1989, an army of religious fanatics were left behind with no enemy worthy of their talents as a reason to go on.


The Weapon Turns on its Creator

It is small wonder that the better documented '90s saw Al Qaeda turn on the west, eventually declaring war in the only way they knew how, in the way they had been trained by the CIA to wage war. Without the USSR to fight, they needed some other high profile foe, and the "great Satan" of America was perfect for the role. Al Qeada took control of the Taliban, those returning orphans of war that had been raised on bloodshed and Islam, justifying it's existence by finding a reason to attack the west.

Consolidating power, terrorist attacks against western targets went on the rise, reaching a crest with 9/11. By attacking America at home Al Qeada showed the world that it was a power to be reckoned with. A well trained army, which these radical Muslims were and likely still are, is a danger to peace if they have no real ties to a home and hearth. A soldier without a war or a true home is like a mad dog.


Summary

In the final analysis, the western powers set themselves up for this war of terror. In a desire for revenge and an arrogance unworthy of of our people, our leaders led us into an ambush just as surely as Custer led the 7th cavalry into one at Little Big Horn. We have yet to see if the piper has been paid in full.



ADL Osama bin Laden profile

Centre for Research on Globalisation: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?

Centre for Research on Globalisation: Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?

CNN: Bin Laden, millionaire with a dangerous grudge

BBC: Who is Osama Bin Laden?

Osama Bin Laden

Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: coughymachine October 16 2007, 12:01 AM

Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

A simple question: what would it take to convince you that the opposite view about 9/11 was correct.

I ask this to both sides of the debate, not in order to re-run tired, old arguments, but to get some simple ideas about how the discussion should/could develop. That said, part of me wonders whether, in the absence of any new material, the ongoing debate serves any real purpose other than for people to practice their debating skills.

As an example, to the 'truthers', what would it take to convince you that the towers' collapse sequence was broadly as described by NIST?

To the 'debunkers', the reverse: what would it take to convince you they were brought down in a controlled manner?

In both cases, please answer given the limitiations we face, i.e. no materials available for analysis; best endeavours as to the damage caused to the buildins by whatever you believe hit them, etc.

Given there are so many facets to the theories that surround 9/11, please don't limit your responses to what did or didn't happen to the towers. Consider what it might take to persuade you that Flight 77 did/didn't (delete as applicable) crash into the Pentagon building. What would it take to convince you that the 19 hijackers identified in the 9/11 Commission report did/didn't hijack and pilot the planes, and so on.

If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: NoOneSpecialHere October 13 2007, 8:23 AM

If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

Let me start off by saying I have traveled to many U.S. government installations and bases thru out the world. I can't say that I believe 9/11 was a inside job but I do know that a few pieces of the puzzle are missing. If 9/11 was a inside job how many people would have been involved? An operation like this would have included 1,000s of people. If missiles were used on the bottom of the two jets, someone had to modify these jets to accommodate the alteration. If explosives were used in the towers, someone had to take the time to scale out the building, determine the locations of the explosives and install them. I guess what I am asking is all of the events that took place on 9/11 would have required a tremendous amount of people to execute this attack and it is in a humans nature to talk. The CIA, FBI, Civil Service, contractors, and military members all have friends and or family, and they all have a heart and a consciences. I don't care what kind of oath or what security clearance they held, If they were ordered or paid to carryout these missions don't you think that a few of these people would have had there consciences come into play. Someone would have leaked this information to the media or came forward with 100% proof that it was a inside job.

New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Posted by: bsregistration June 7 2007, 11:04 AM

New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Social Service has created a new masterpiece. SEPTEMBER CLUES PART ONE

Building on the excellent work of 911 Researchers Webfairy, Nico Haupt, Fred, Killtown, Andrew Lowe Watson, 911Logic, StillDiggin and the 911 Octopus team, Social Service exposes the TV Fakery, lies and manipulation that fooled the world.

Now those lies are crumbling and theres nothing anyone can do to stop the truth, despite lies, ridicule, and overt Hitlerian censorship.

http://www.livevideo.com...

Forums are censored, and lying shills for the government attempt to sabotage us at every turn, but they've failed. The truth is out there, their evil plans and credibility are ruined, and now the truth can be told.

Also see Boeing Doubters Get "Special Attention" by genghis6199
http://www.livevideo.com...




TV FAKERY TOPIC UPDATE

Several ATS members have raised serious doubts about the validity of these "TV Fakery" 9/11 conspiracy theories, as well as the motives of the group promoting them.

An important series of posts begins with: Conspiracy Fakery: The Deception of "TV Fakery" Conspiracies

In the previous few days, we have been witness to a flood of new topics on 9/11 TV Fakery from a group calling themselves 911researchers.com. We (ATS) are not the first board of our ilk to be graced with the disruptive trollishness of this group. Members of 911researchers.com who are active in 9/11 discussion groups combine indignant denigration of disbelievers with disdainful neglect of valid questions that are posed to them...more

[edit on 9-6-2007 by AboveTopSecret.com]