I'm talking about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and other operatives that were arrested in Pakistan - evidence than connects the highjackers to them, and them to ObL.

You mean "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed"? The guy was tortured for over 6 months? Yeah, I'm not sure if enough people know this, but as someone who has his degree in psychology, I can tell you that any and all information brought about via torture is unreliable at best and laughable in reality. After being water-boarded for 6 months, I may very well admit to being the mastermind behind 9/11 as well.

Aside from the torture, the meeting between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and OBL in 1996 has never been verified outside of torture, and all information after 1996 is unverifiable as well.

Obviosly information gained under torture would not be admissible.

Are you in the CIA in a position where you know what information has been gatherred & verified and what has not?

An excelent book on the subject is A Pretext to War which spells out in great detail what happeded on 9/11, what intelligence resources we have in the Middle East, and how that intelligence was manipulated & distorted to justify the Iraq invasion.

That's just it. It has been. His confession in Guantanamo was given under the duress of torture and should be inadmissible, but it isn't because we're apparently allowed to torture people now.
I'm in the position to say that the public evidence is circumstantial outside of statements given under duress.

The FBI status is they no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11. I don't think they found his fingerprints with what he has been charged with either. We have been shown and told allot of things.

I see your point, but the FBI obviously disagrees for some reason.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Interesting read.

Its good to see people still have the fire in their belly about this topic...

Yes because inane speculation and constant repetition by radical elements of long disproved ideas is good for a republic in a time of war. :rolleyes:

well, when the government shows such a stunning propensity to repeatedly lie to the people, you're going to get some of this. institutions that lie tend not to be believed.

i know the conspiracy theorizing and speculation gets on a lot of peoples' nerves but if the administration were more forthright that would take care of a lot of this stuff.

and are we really at war? did congress get around to declaring it? how come the responsibility to suppress dissent adheres but none of the other imperatives associated with a "time of war" do? no one's being conscripted, there's no rationing, no war bonds, we're not being asked to conserve (in fact, we're being asked to shop) and we're paying for the military action through deficit spending. it feels more like a high-risk business venture than a war to me.

This thread was 6 days away from falling out of the default month thread view.

Oh well.

I think the questions will remain valid until they are answered satisfactorily.
There are so many things wrong and missing. For instance victims not being listed in the Social Security Death Index, the aircraft being shown as still in service, the hijackers who may still be alive.

I doubt the whole truth will ever come out but that won't stop people from believing in the official story. Just look at the JFK assassin... fiasco.

:no:

Nothing can be answered satisfactorily to people who have decided that the only answer they will accept is a conspiratorial one.

That is what would satisfy you and sadly for you, you will never be satisfied.

It's funny seeing that coming from someone who only occasionally stops in to say that people are crazy and offers little or nothing for the thread.

I'm still waiting for some of the video tapes from the crash at the pentagon to be released that show that it was an actual plane that crashed into it. You know, those tapes that the FBI took from every single video camera within a few mile radius that may have been pointed in the general direction of the pentagon at the time. You would think that by now thy would have showed something other than 1 poorly angled split second blurry clip that doesn't show anything but a fireball. I mean.. unless there's something to hide. There's nothing to hide tho right?

That would solve allot of debate wouldnt it. I also think the way the President and Vice President didnt go under oath, had to go in together, and completely behind closed doors didnt look good.

Regardless of the huge suspicions on the actual events (towers collapsing, planes crashing, etc) and how they occurred, I think the main thing we should be investigating and questioning is who exactly was behind the attacks. I am convinced that those who have been officially blamed for the attacks are not the true perpetrators. In a world where the U.S. government has entered and brought on wars on the basis of U.S. instigated attacks guised as enemy attacks (Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin incident bringing on Vietnam, etc), I cannot see how anyone could blindly accept what the government has told us concerning this incident. It is totally plausible that these attacks were used for the same purposes - to give reason to bring on war (and thus make shitloads of money). The inaccuracies and confusions of the attacks only highlight the fact that this is a conspiracy. We can debate for years about how ridiculous it is that Tower 7 collapsed due to minimal damage by fire or how there is no concrete evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon (and people have been debating the details of these events for years now) - but what we really need to pay attention to is why this occurred and who was truly behind the attacks.

People tend to want to know where I live and where the nearest gun store is when the conversation moves from the physical evidence disproving the official story to who really is responsible.

Who is supposed to be in charge of those who are likely responsible?

Nixon was ousted even though he didn't break in to Watergate. Dereliction of duty at the least.

Ok, I'm jumping in share one point, then jumping out again. You can believe me or not, I don't care.

Earlier in this thread (or maybe a different one), I posted about how a friend of a friend was actually on the highway next to the Pentagon when the plane flew over his head. I have no reason to doubt this person, so have never doubted it was a plane.

Well, it turns out I know another witness and I didn't even know it. A close friend of my family (who shall remain nameless) was part of the FBI team sent to the Pentagon to investigate immediately after the plane hit. He personally told me about how he saw bodies (or portions of bodies) still strapped to airplane seats, and how he helped to identify airplane parts inside the building.

Seriously, if there was anything to these theories about 9/11 don't you think someone with, you know, actual credibility would be shouting from the rooftops by now?

EDIT: and before you all jump on this point, I don't know why they haven't released the videotapes yet. I didn't ask and I doubt he could tell me if I did. My suspicion (based on nothing) is that the tapes don't show anything useful and nobody is willing to spend the time to get the release of the tapes processed just to satisfy conspiracy nutjobs.

you do realize we've stopped trying, right? you have have blinded yourself to any science that doesn't support your theory so there is no point arguing with you.

I know it's frustrating when you're wrong, but it's always best to learn from it instead of avoiding it. Yes, it's difficult to argue with someone who bends the laws of physics until they break in a desperate attempt to support the official story, but here I am.

The unfortunate reality is that some people are willing to break the rules of science and reason itself to be more comfortable with their world. That's you call, but if you come in here dumping on me for what you yourself are guilty of, don't expect coddling.

This about to fall off the front page and certainly UsTwo can't be out of ammo.

So these "silly no plane theories" ... at first i didn't believe that either , after all we did see them on TV. But then i've seen a shipwrecked professor make a radio out of coconuts and a pretty blonde genie nod her head and make people appear. But i grew out of believing that. :)

While it's hard to prove what did happen we can look at the evidence that bolsters the official lie.



Notice the smoke direction vs plane direction.

This is a longer one (we'll lose USTwo) but brings up a few points.

Or this... PG13, they don't say "gosh" so turn the sound off if you have sensitive ears. Around 1:10 he says "it was a rocket or something".
http://www.youtube.com/v/Fme4HoECBOM

Sweet sweet irony.

LOL showing autos crashing into fixed blocks of concrete shows what????? I'm sorry I'm not following.

I guess you've never been inside a high rise, they are not as dense as the walls that I live in which is which is cinder block and brick. It is the same reasons why the baseball players plane did little damage to that building.

The September Clue videos are much better, there are 10 parts, here's one.

and another

Look what the towers were made of, they did show the walls being constructed. They were built like sewer grates and even if the planes didn't shred they should have at least crumpled. The videos show no effect on the plane whatsoever. Those car crashes do show what an impact ought to look like. Need me to post ACTUAL plane crash videos too?

Edited earlier post to make the thread easier to read.

9/11
 

Listen everyone, I don't want to offend any of you; but the fact of the matter is it Was an inside job...#1 The beams at the base of the towers were cut at an angle at which demolition teams use for maximum efficiency.#2 Solid steel does NOT collapse in a pancake fashion at 500degrees Celsius. #3 World Trade Center Tower Number Seven exploded and collapsed without any planes or known objects coming into contact with it(explain that).#4 Other than the "tapes" there is NO evidence linking Osama B. Laden to any of the hijackers involved. #5 Five of the Hijackers "involved" were still alive and breathing Thousands of miles away after the crash. And on a related topic... It is the Arab investors of american based companies who sell America it's national defense materials... So now you know where the money went... Sorry it was so long -.-'

I also forgot to mention that in the debree there was not ONE object found larger than a silver dollar... no desks, no phones, no computers, no nothing... It seems to me if a building collapses it should have just crushed these things, not disintegrated them.

Zeightgeist... Youtube... watch it....

Don't worry...you don't offend....just amuse....in a 'life is but a joke' sort of way.

Conspiracy
 

To the person who asked who is responsible for all this. It's obvious isn't it. It's the same people who have been manipulating the american economy since the birth of America. The World bankers... Sounds crazy yes. But in fact the Federal Reserve Bank of America prints the money for the USA acting as a Central Bank. They then Loan the printed money to the USA at INTEREST. So every Dollar that is printed is automatically in debt. Why do you think taxes are so high... None of that money goes to the American Government.. It goes straight to the Federal Reserve Bank of America... A privately owned corporation that sparks wars between America using the Media and other tactics... Hitler did the same thing

"...and so he led the country to fascism. A fascist country is one that runs mostly using military power, with a strong sense of nationalism...much like a dictatorship...he used propaganda to discriminate against a certain scapegoat - usually a country or religious group."
-History textbook
"The Rise of Hitler"

You haven't read a word of this thread, have you?

I just have to make sure . . .you changed your name, right?

any ideas what to do about all of it? Spread the information, right . . . and then what?

for my first post, consider the following:


Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

by

Judy Wood and John Hutchison

http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/


Excerpt:

=======================
In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as "The Hutchison Effect". The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with "field effects" for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.

The table below lists effects and events seen at or in the vicinity of World Trade Center and compares those with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. Clearly, the posting of this material is quite controversial, but even in the various documentaries that have featured John Hutchison, he has suggested that the techniques he has discovered and developed have been further refined by places like Lockheed Skunkworks, S.A.I.C. (Science Applications International Corp.), and also by perhaps other defense companies.
=======================


My comments: Although still under construction, the new paper gives many clues to the technology that was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Take a look at the many pictures and see for yourself! People can no longer claim that this technology does not exist. It definitely DOES exist!

Also note the two companies mentioned in the excerpt above (Lockheed Martin and SAIC). Both are sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society! The government even contracted with SAIC for the NIST Report.



Dr Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, and John Hutchison on WPFC - We Ourselves 14/18 Jan 2008
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/#ambrose


See the "News" section of Dr Wood's website for more interviews.
http://drjudywood.com/#news


For proof that the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were all orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media, see my new article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=151&Itemid=60


Also note the two Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York, with attorney Jerry Leaphart:

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...1=federal_case


Bottom line... there were NO hijackings on 9/11 and the entire War On Terror is BOGUS!

Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the clip back in slow motion:

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...planer_resigns


What about the eyewitnesses who say they saw planes hit the towers, you ask? See the following analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews, which were published in the New York Times. You'll learn that only a very small percentage of the First Responders reported seeing airplanes hit the towers. Even fewer reported hearing them. But... they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on! Whatever they saw "hit" the towers was a projection:

Going in Search of Planes in NYC
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=134&Itemid=60


What about the airplane wreckage, you ask? Well, first of all, there are NO verified airplane parts. (The government refuses to release any.) And second, when an airplane crashes into a building, the engines are not going to wind up underneath scaffolding:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...230806wtc7.jpg

See here for more:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...with_jones#NBB


What about the cell phone calls, you ask? Faked using advanced voice synthesizer technology as reported in the Washington Post two and a half years before 9/11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...rkin020199.htm



There were NO hijackings on 9/11.

There were NO plane crashes on 9/11.

The entire War On Terror is BOGUS.

kings_32, you didn't bother to read any of the posts in this thread, did you?

There is no evidence to suggest a "directed energy weapon". That damages the case to get questions answered more than any other single theory, including the Loose Change "Die Hard with a Vengeance" theory.

Yes. I should probably post a thread about it to prevent any confusion.
At least we agree on something. I'm also surprised anyone has the gall to claim that the Hutchison effect is anything but fraud. these days. I really don't see how anyone could suggest with a straight face that there were no planes, especially at the WTC. Now I remember why I abandoned this thread months ago.

willravel, I've responded to your post here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...25#post2384325 because I feel strongly that offering explanations as to what happened to cause WTC 7 to collapse, is exactly the opposite of what skeptics of the official stroy of 9/11, should be doing.....and since, my response, and yours above, cannot be called "paranoid", because they are too well supported to be subject to such a dismissal, I am not going to post an in depth response to you on this thread.

Let the government offer it's explanation and supporting detail, and then examine and point out contradictions and deficiencies in the government's account, if there are any.

The_Jazz, I read some of them... just enough to know that the real issues aren't being discussed. For instance, where did the hundreds of tons of steel go? Why did the government contract with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST Report?


Regarding the Hutchison Effect, watch this statement by Nick Cook:
&o=1

People can say there were no plane crashes on 9/11 (especially at the WTC) for one simple reason: there are people who looked at the evidence and know there were no plane crashes on 9/11. (And I'm talking about the real evidence, not the propaganda.)

You need to read more. All this material has b een presented before. It's actually been presented in an identical way to yours. It makes me wonder if you aren't the former member who presented it.

Classic appeal to authority. If scientific evidence can be provided, I'll consider it. I don't consider it evidence to watch videos that appear to be filmed with the camera and props upside. Just because someone important believes something irrational does not make it rational or credible.

It's easy to come to a conclusion when you decry anything that doesn't support your side as propaganda. Millions of people saw the second plane hit on live TV, and there are videos of the first hitting. They left plane-sized and plane-shaped holes in the non-reinforced structure of the towers. The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building that withstood all but the most massive part of the plane. Large sections of fuselage, engine and landing gear pieces, and piles of luggage are visible in photos taken after the crash.

I started out believing the conspiracy theories because I didn't see evidence to contradict them. When I stopped hearing just what I wanted to hear, the evidence didn't add up to a conspiracy.

kings_32 I do believe 9/11 was a partial false flag operation, but a good friend of mine that served with me in the military, and whom I'd trust with my life is a fireman in NYC. He was there that day on duty and just happend to be one of the lucky ones. After the first plane hit, he was one of the first on the scene. While he arrived after the first tower was on fire, he clearly saw a plane hit the second tower.

I'm of the opinion now that there were some sort of objects like planes but not the planes they claim them to be. Way too many irregularities.


Maybe the chief nitwit knows?