A favor to ask of those debating the "official" 9/11 story

[WilliamPitt]

It happened again today.

I got into a discussion here about whether it was a missile or a plane that hit the Pentagon. I am one who believes it was a plane, and have ample evidence to back my conclusions, but that isn't at all the point of this thread.

The point is that, like clockwork, someone popped up and said, "So you believe the whole official story, huh?!?"

Yes, that's a strawman, and yes, it's pretty obvious.

But it also derails important discussion. If someone doesn't believe in controlled demolition, or in missiles hitting the Pentagon, or some other facet of the other 9/11 theories, that does not mean they are some benightened government dupe. Slapping people in the face with such an accusation is a shortcut to thinking, and a shortcut to debate.

You want to do a small thing to honor the dead from that day?

Leave off with the hyperbole. Try to convince someone who has doubts or questions about whatever theory you subscribe to. You might not succeed, but you at least did your best in the best possible way.

(/sermon)

[Balbus]

1. You're not understanding "Kook-speak."

When they say they want something proven to them, they don't REALLY want something proven to them. They want to be stroked on the back, patted on the head, a bunch of "atta-boys", etc, etc. You can't reason with a peanut.

[Bluebear]

84. Well that's pretty damn offensive.

No offense.

[NoSheep]

92. Nice gross generalization. Very nice.

[lostnfound]

2. There's a mirror image to that frustration as well..

which is people who assume that if you express any doubts about the official story, you must be 'way out there' and must automatically be lumped together with those who firmly believe some alternate, extreme set of conspiracies.

"I don't know what to believe" is considered to be a weak or insane answer, rather than a perfectly sane response to an insane set of events.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. That's Quite True Actually. I See That Too.

I think many or most of us here question the official story as is. But some of the 9-11 conspiracy hounds have muddied the waters with so much absurd disinformation and irrational argument that those of us who are investigating the events with an analytical yet well grounded and objective eye run the risk of being lumped in with them.

You are right in that it goes both ways. I guess the lesson is to just simply listen to what each person is trying to say and objectively see where there coming from prior to casting generic judgment.

[leftofthedial]

3. what parts of the official conspiracy theory do you believe?

what parts of the official conspiracy theory do you not believe?

[WilliamPitt]

5. I believe they knew something was coming

"They" being the easiest copout, so I should say: I believe elements within the Pentagon - Feith and his crowd - knew something was coming. I believe they could have stopped it if they wanted to. I'm not sure they were aware of the scope of what was coming, and I hazard to guess they thought it would be a hikacking or a bombing like the last WTC attack.

I do not believe a missile hit the Pentagon.

I am not sold on "controlled demolition," and I think MIHOP stretches matters far beyond credulity.

[knowbody0]

14. I just so wish that our dear leader

had not surrounded himself with children and acted like the class dunce. No suprise, no fear, no thought in his expression.

[leftofthedial]

53. Do you think it is inconceivable that anyone involved in the PNAC

crowd at the Pentagon or in the WH facilitated any part of the events?

I don't know about missiles or controlled demolition. I think there are so many inconsistencies with both the WTC and Pentagon events that the official explanations are inaccurate. In particular, there seems to me to be reasonable doubt that what hit the Pentagon was a 757. But I do not know what caused the towers to fall and I do not know what caused the destruction at the Pentagon.

I strongly believe in the maxim "follow the money." That tack relentlessly points to the neocon-PNAC cabal that currently rules Washington DC.

[Lilith Velkor]

4. Thank you!

:loveya:

[panader0]

6. The voice of reason

For the length of my brief term here at DU, I have learned to respect you Mr Pitt. I am one who does not exactly subscribe to the official reports, but my mind is always open and searching.

[stepnw1f]

7. What Evidence do You Have Regarding the Pentagon?

Because I really have a hard time buying that an airplane flew low enough without touching the ground to hit the Pentagon the way they said it did?

[cigsandcoffee]

13. This one is pretty compelling:

From the wreckage:

[stepnw1f]

You Got the Rest of That Photo

Because a cropped photo means nothing to me the way it is presented.

[cigsandcoffee]

33. I don't. The black ops people only gave me that one.

(rolling eyes)

[stepnw1f]

35. Awww... I'm Sorry

Did my objectivity piss you off? Get a grip... I'm being honest.

[Mr_Spock]

50. Oh geeeez

These ridiculous argumentative techniques only serve to make you look childish and determined to slash anyone who disagrees with you. I agree with WP - this is a horrible style.

[stepnw1f]

60. uh... "argumentative techniques"... Uh Huh...

I ask a sincere question, get a cropped photo from someone I wasn't talking to, object to it being just cropped and not enough to prove what happened at the Pentagon on 9-11, then get a smart-ass response, and now you jump on me accusing me of using "argumentative techniques..." which you consider to be in "bad taste".

BTW - I was being sincere when I asked William Pitt. I wasn't trying to be an ass. I want evidence that would help me determine what happened at the Pentagon, so I don't blame my own government and start to believe my country is willing to do this shit to its own people for a political global agenda, which some within this administration belong to (PNAC). I did nothing but ask a question.... I understand my question may not have been a very fair question, since we haven't had a FULL INVESTIGATION yet, so no one has proof, but where is the evidence to prevent people from speculating on the occurences of that day?

There is tape of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon.... why not show it all and get it over with?

[Mr_Spock]

68. There is no tape of 99% of all plane crashes.

The Pentagon was partially collapsed by this plane - we do NOT want to show any future attackers the best angle of attack. Investigations involving high security zones are almost NEVER shown in great detail. Why is this surprising to you?

[stepnw1f]

80. could be....

but I'm not really convinced by that explanation.

[NoSheep]

94. Neither am I. But how dare we have an open discussion here about the

questions that have yet to be answered.

[Cameron27]

18. I agree, very compelling

!

[stepnw1f]

25. how so? (nt)

[Cameron27]

34. Well the double rim on the wheel at the crash site

is identical to the double rim on the wheel that represents all commercial aircraft wheels.

I know the pics are cropped, but I believe I saw that crashed wheel in a newspaper story about the crash into the pentagon. Maybe cigsandcoffee can find the uncropped pic, I haven't saved anything since I generally don't debate 911 theories.

[stepnw1f]

40. Exactly My Point...

that photo could have been taken from another accident site. I'm sincerely asking for evidence that can prove a plane hit the Pentagon.... and you know what? STILL NOTHING! After all these years....

But hey... there is video. Yet they won't release the video so.... theories abound. I don't believe the official story because there is no evidence proving ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

To me, that's being OBJECTIVE.

[cigsandcoffee]

42. And bats could fly out of my rear end.

But that doesn't mean they will.

What are you suggesting happened to AA Flight 77 anyway? Was it sucked up in to a spaceship along with all the passengers on board?

[screembloodymurder]

51. Why do you expect others to explain what happened to the plane?

If the government has pictures or video, let them prove their critics wrong. Or doesn't the Pentagon have cameras?

[cigsandcoffee]

86. Well, these folks have got all kinds of theories.

Why do they come to a screeching halt when asked to provide one on what happened to the plane?

Are they afraid it will sound... kooky?

[RC]

62. Aircraft wheels come in different sizes.

What size is that rim? The original photo might provide a clue.

[mnhtnbb]

76. Self delete

[WilliamPitt]

17. Nothing first-hand, of course

as I live in Boston.

But James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, details the names, professions and statements of several witnesses who were on the highway next to the Pentagon and saw the plane come in over their heads. Not all of them were in government. I hold Mr. Bamford in very high regard.

I also have a hard time buying the idea that the so-called conspiracists were able to "disappear" a whole plane-full of people, including the pilots, Barbara Olsen and a group of schoolchildren on their way to a spelling bee.

Long-time DUer DemoTex, a 30 year veteran of the commercial avaiation biz, was good friends with one of the pilots. The people on that plane actually existed, so for them to disappear, you would have to believe that the government had them all killed or something to maintain the story.

I don't buy it.

[LSK]

27. did you see Loose Change?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

[stepnw1f]

81. Very Valid Point

how many were on that flight?

[screembloodymurder]

46. With an inexperienced pilot, it's damn near impossible.

I don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to know the OCT is bullshit. Frankly, the only way I'll ever believe the OCT is if all the evidence is released and a truely independent comission of academics does a real investigation and confirms everything. My question is this: Why would you believe anything these liers say?

[LoZoccolo]

8. Conspiracy theories are propped up with manipulative tactics like that...

...in the absence of a compelling case.

[RC]

9. It depends what kind of plane.

If it was a 757 with Barbara Olson aboard, then there is no evidence of that.

[angstlessk]

10. Will have you fogotten the 'New Pearl Harbor' needed by PNAC to invade

and occupy Iraq LONG before 9/11? PLEEZE...enough 'coincedence' to make one go 'hummmmmmmm'

[WilliamPitt]

19. As I was among the first to write about this

I have not forgotten it.

That does not translate into a missile hitting the Pentagon.

[angstlessk]

31. Will, no one is saying it WAS a missle, but asking where the wings of

the plane went...

But that is not the question..it is FOLLOW THE MONEY. And WHY was all the forensic evidence shipped to China? Do you have answers? NO you do not..nor does anyone else...it IS the PNAC 'New Pearl Harbor' which YOU brought up which makes us suspicious to start with..and what happened AFTER 9/11 gives us MORE suspicions...to just say..I believe the government story and not question it is too foolish by a magnitude!

[WilliamPitt]

37. Before you ask where the wings are

ask where the people on that plane wound up.

I'm no expert on what happens when a plane hits a building, and I'd bet my shoes that 99.99999% of the people pushing the missile theory aren't either.

But a planeful of people don't just up and disappear.

[angstlessk]

47. There you go AGAIN...PNAC..and 'NEW PEARL HARBOR' is what

is really going on..and YOU know it. I am not sure what the USA planned to do with the passengers on the Cuban airlines during the Northwoods Conspiracy..but I suggest that is where to look... (see also bush plan to gussy up an airplane to look like a UN plane to get Sadaam into a war? WHAT ABOUT THOSE PASSENGERS?) Seems bush knew something about false flage airplanes?

[keepCAblue]

55. Were there identifiable remains of any of the passengers at the pentagon?

Just askin'.

[hootinholler]

59. I'm no expert about planes hitting buildings either, but when I compare

The puncture imprint on the WTC and the precollapse pentagon photos, both allegedly the same type of aircraft, they really don't match.

Also, isn't it a bit of a strawman to ask what happened to the plane if it didn't hit the pentagon? Hell I don't know, but I'm fairly convinced that per eye-witness, a plane hit the pentagon, I doubt that it was a 757.

I can even accept the explanation of the towers failing due to other experiences I've had. I'm hung up on the pentagon and WTC7.

-Hoot

[keepCAblue]

66. Well, were there?

You said planes and passengers just don't up and disappear, but for all I've heard and seen of the pentagon crash, that's pretty much what happened: what little plane debris there was was very quickly whisked away by "men in black" and I've not heard of anything of the passengers' remains being returned to their families.

Like I said, just askin'.

[DinahMoeHum]

102. Well, check this out. . .

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

(snip)
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
(snip)


Better yet, why don't you ask a family member of one of those of Flight 77 ??
With any luck, you'll return to us with your feet intact instead of bloody ankle stumps when they're finished with you.

Sheeesh !!!!!




:argh:

[keepCAblue]

103. Really disappointing...

...that people can't ask legitimate questions on this board without being subjected to personalal attacks by a certain faction of DU'ers. Are you really so insecure in your "facts" that you can't disseminate them maturely, without feeling the need to insult, incense and inflame?

[LSK]

11. I dont know what it is about the 9/11 Truth issue

But it certainly enrages people one way or another. I guess one half cant come to grips with the fact that their Government would do such an act.

The other side is so mad that the 1st half doesnt get it and immediately dismisses them.

In any event, regardless of which side you are on, there will always be those who cannot debate something without resorting to namecalling. This is not isolated to the 9/11 truth debate either.

So I just wish some people would debate this issue like adults and cut it out with the name calling.

[wildbilln864]

26. watch cspan 2 now about...

the Campaign for a New Investigation and Press for Truth!

[Evoman]

Its the same with other conspiracy theories

I have nothing against people who question or are cynical about the government, but when the strawmen start coming out....its better to just stop arguing.

If you believe in vaccines, your in the pocket of big pharma.

If you believe that most alternative healing is bunk, your a shill for western corporate medicine.

If you believe that condensation trails are..well, condensation trails, then your obviously being affected by chemical trails.

If you believe that it almost impossible for an inefficient government consisting of literally hundreds of people to be capable of shutting up or fooling hundreds of non-government workers, engineers, scientists, into keeping this massive secret, you "are a dupe of the goverment". Yes, fuck the experts (many of them real engineers and scientists not affiliated with Bush or the gov.)...instead I will believe a grainy, shitty video made by some jack-off asshole kids who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground (and yes I am talking about Loose Change).

[Nozebro]

23. It's the same with all "your" a ____ people.

Don't know the correct usage of you, your, you're? Look it up or ask someone. It could make a difference in whether your ideas are taken seriously or easily dismissed.

[Evoman]

29. Thank you for your input Captain Spelling!

I wrote that post very quickly, and I did not check my spelling. In fact, I probably have more spelling mistakes in my post. Why don't you find them all? I will take my bad spelling and go bother someone else because my ideas are obviously not worth shit.

[Nikki Stone 1]

43. I've taught grammar for years, but even I know that sometimes

on line, when you are posting rapidly, errors happen. I don't judge people by their grammar. Only by the general sense of their comments.

[INDIA]

28. "jack-off asshole kids who don't know their"

Well said, well said.

[Mr_Spock]

54. You're right on

Don't let them get you down...

[Parche]

12. story

Was that from a right winger? or from our side?

[Rex]

15. Works both ways.

When are there not two sides here fighting over SOMETHING here on DU? It is almost non-stop in GD.

[Jeanette in FL]

16. "Either the gov't did this or heads are going to roll"

That was my reaction on Sept. 11th, 2001. There were so many obvious questions right from the get go. How do 4 (at the time they told us 8) airplanes get high-jacked and there not be an immediate response.

The Pentagon was hit 40 minutes after the towers had been hit. By that time there were no excuses left as to why these planes were allowed to continue flying. Transponders turned off, no communications with the towers.

I thought that the heads of the FAA, the air traffic controllers, the Air Force, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA were all going to be on the chopping block to allow something so horrific to happen on our soil.

Since no heads rolled, in fact some recieved freedom medals or promotions, leaves me with only one conclusion.

I don't know what the story is, but it isn't what our gov't tried to feed us.

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. As if the facts weren't weird enough already.

The conspiracy theories are actually much more mundane than what really happened.

[Nikki Stone 1]

21. Will, I know that the plane hit the Pentagon, but

A plane can hit the Pentagon but the official story explaining the events can still be a tissue of lies.

I am really not sure what happened. All I know is that there are few important discrepancies that have never been explained by the official theory.

I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist.

[WilliamPitt]

22. You and I see eye to eye

[Nikki Stone 1]

38. Thank you

The events occurred. What many of us have a problem with is the backstory. My biggest single problem is with the complete lack of military response, especially in Washington DC after it became clear that we were under some kind of attack in NYC. It makes no sense.

[Nozebro]

24. Interesting. Please explain what you mean by "tissue of lies". Thanks.

nt

[benddem]

30. just ask them

what happened to the people on the planes? You really need a large tin foil hat to believe they are all lost on some desert island.

[JHB]

32. Thank you, Will

I've had my share of run-ins with such people, both in the 9/11 forum and elsewhere, and that gets whipped out every time (early and often, too).

[bridgit]

36. correct, William...

:thumbsup:

[dogday]

39. I don't see anything wrong in asking questions...

We would probably all still be in the dark if someone didn't ask the question about electricity, and Columbus would of never sailed the ocean blue even though he was a kook according to those that know it all....

I know this administration knew something before 9-11, I believe they are covering up something as per their actions. I believe that if people will keep asking the questions, one day we just might have the right answers....

[liberal N proud]

41. I am one of those who still questions if it was a missile but I keep that

to my self for the most part.

What I do ask people is why bu$h was allowed to continue to sit and read a book in a grade school while the country was under attack.

What I do know about the Secret Service and what they are supposed to do in emergency, they would have grabbed bu$h and taken him to a secure place away from the public. They would have done this upon the first word of any attack and asked questions later.

Why did the little shit sit there and continue to read, Why was he allowed to sit there and continue to read while our country was under attack? It just is not standard protocol.

[Nikki Stone 1]

44. And don't forget the military's complete neglect of the Nation's Capital

long after the second plane hit the WTC.

[screembloodymurder]

57. I'll tell you why.

Because the Pentagon already had its response (war plan) sitting on the President's desk. All they needed was an excuse.

[ourbluenation]

45. benightened...thanks for the vocab boost! good word and a

new one on me.

[Mr_Spock]

48. Hear! Hear!

I am sick to death of this type of putdown argument.

[CarlVK]

49. Like it or not, it's still a contentious issue.

I don't think you'll reach many minds if you call what they are convinced of, or almost convinced of, "hyperbole" and brush it aside. In general, people don't react well to that sort of glib dismissal. The fact is that there are a whole lot of unanswered questions as to what exactly happened on that terrible day, and while I don't personally subscribe to the Pentagon Missile theory, I'm not going to assume that I know it all so well that it definitely did not happen.

Keep your mind open and listen to people. In other words, do the opposite of what the Bush Crime Gang does.

[Mr_Spock]

56. The "hyperbole" argument is a response to being attacked

There is no other way to describe the techniques used by those who perpetuate the theories and will lash out when asked to respond to another line of thinking. I'm sick of it. How can one have an open mind when talking to completely closed minded people?

[CarlVK]

67. Not everyone "lashes out" THAT is hyperbole itself!

Again, although I don't personally buy the missile in the Pentagon thing, not everyone who has promoted the theory has done so wearing a tin foil cap with their eyes spinning in their heads. Some have very calmly, dispassionately and methodically walked me through their evidence. They have merely reached a different conclusion than I have. No big deal. It happens every day.

Let's not engage in hyperbole in a mad dash to smear that charge on others.

[Mr_Spock]

69. I'm perfectly willing to have a dispassionate conversation with anyone on

this topic. There is, however, a reason that the 9/11 forum makes the Israel/Palestine forum look downright calm.

[helderheid]

52. This is a great post Will. I am not sure what I believe other than this

Administration was warned time and time again and did nothing to stop it from happening. Here is an interesting video from a Dutch news program (it can be compared to 60 Minutes - totally mainstream media) - it is subtitled in English:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=2507263054811686324&hl=nl

Keep up the good work, Will. I'd like to know what you think of the video.

"It is a fair and balanced news item introducing the viewer to the 'shocking different view on 9/11', as TweeVandaag called it, also featuring Pieter Broertjes, the editor in chief of the Dutch national newspaper de Volkskrant, who expresses his disbelief regarding theories other than the official explanation and who considers the subject of 9/11 not worth researching and mediaprofessor Jaap van Ginniken who does not think digging for the truth will ultimately bring out the truth."

[KoKo]

58. You mean that "controlled demo thingy" about Twin Towers?

as big a "tinfiloiler" as I am...I have problems with that one and think it's a "Red Herring" taking away from the other more aggregious cover ups by the Bushies for their INCOMPETENCE. And...I think it's their "INCOMPETENCE" that will bring them DOWN before speculation about "planted explosives and missile that went through Pentagon and the passengers were "dissapeared to France or Bali." :shrug:

I still admire those who keep at it though ...because without the "wilder theories" NO ONE would ever take notice. So, good on them for "Counter Rove" marketing. :shrug: To get attention these days one often has to cross some lines that might not suit the rest of us.

[johnnie]

61. As I said in the other thread

I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I'm not sold on the missile theory, but I 'm also not sold on the "official" story.

I also don't want to disrespect DemoTex (right?) but I don't understand what him or her knowing the pilot on flight 77 has anything to do with what hit the Pentagon. Did DemoTex talk to the pilot right before the Pentagon was hit? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't understand where that info proves anything.

I don't throw out the whole "you must fall for the official story" crap, but then again I believe I have legitimate questions as to what I saw and heard and what we are told to believe. I don't think that is kooky, it is just questioning what I don't understand about the official story.

I have seen too many people asking legitimate questions on DU about 9-11 get slammed for being a kook. That's a drag. I have yet to see hard evidence that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. I also have yet to see evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon. But I don't think I am a nutball to question either or.

[KoKo]

72. Demo Tex and a Relative of mine are Pilots and theory is a Monkey

could fly a huge Aircraft with just some minimal "Flight Simulation" training. Since my "Relative" keeps trying to explain this to me and he's a "current American Airlines Piliot and DemoTexas flew before...then I guess I need to listen to them.

But, it has always struck me as a kind of "arrogance" to think that these Saudi's and a couple of Egyptians could have managed all they did ...without some negligence and "HELP."

So...maybe a Monkey can fly a big jet into the Pentagon (making a strategic turn over DC) and going in at over 500 mph and maybe the rest of these "flight simulator trained Terrorists" could have navigated two planes into the Twin Towers after overcoming passengers and Pilot/Co-Pilot and achieved their goal too :eyes:

But...I'm sorry...I just don't buy the "Official Story" even those I hold my Relative and DemTexas in high esteem.

One would wonder why we don't just use Robots to fly planes if it takes so little skill or that Pilots for some reason like to Diss their Own Expertise that they would think that such low levels of training and little airtime would manage to do what my Relative and DemTexas had to spend years of accumulated flight time and constant Airline Checks and exams allowed them to achieve in their carrers. It just doesn't add up...
:shrug:

[johnnie]

74. I agree 100%

It's not that I question these people's expertise, but going on what I have seen I will question the story we are told. Maybe some day I will see things differently, but until I get more than "because I say so", I will question what information I have had to go on at this time.

[laundry_queen]

90. As I was watching the CBC documentary last night...

it was mentioned the hijacker that flew the plane into the pentagon was the ONLY one that was a licensed pilot with some experience - that makes more sense to me than some idiot taking some flight simulation training and being able to control a plane like that.

[Pale Blue Dot]

63. I agree. And I believe in MIHOP.

I believe that someone in the administration gave OBL or the Saudi government valuable information about what the best day to attack would be, how NORAD could be expected to act, etc. This is plausible, it doesn't require a conspiracy of thousands of people, and it doesn't require anyone in the government to take any overt action (such as firing a missile or blowing up the Trade Center.)

All of this other crap only succeeds in making EVERY theory seem equally crazy.

Another thing: a few months ago the Pentagon released video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, supposedly to lay to rest these conspiracy theories. The video, however, was blurry and inconclusive. NO ONE could have expected it to clear up anything. I'm thinking that maybe it suits the government's purposes to keep the kookiest conspiracy theories alive - Because when we believe the kookiest, most implausible theories, we can miss the obvious that's right in front of us.

The old saying is true: sometimes the simplest solution is the best.

[johnnie]

65. Back and to the left

Back and to the left.

[KoKo]

64. BTW! DU'er PAUL THOMPSON RULES!!!!!

And a :toast: to him and DU'ers who have kept "what happened on 9/11" going...even, including, the theories of some I might disagree with. Paul Thompson and others are heading us to REAL INVESTIGATIONS...which is good.

With a REAL INVESTIGATION maybe we can separate the stuff folks think is "tinfoil" from the stuff that we can get the Bushies on. And, maybe it will be proven that "detonators in Twin Towers and missles through Pentagon with disappeared or "vaporized passengers" is the TRUTH, too.

But...let's really get a TRUE INVESTIGATION GOING HERE!!! Remember Jim Garrison and how hard he fought for REAL Investigations after the HACKED UP "Warren Commission?" To this DAY there are STILL questions...because it was never investigated thoroughly without political appointees and such having their hands in it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. William, You're Smarter Than To Attempt To Reason With Unreasonable People

Think about it: You are trying to reason with people who truly believe a missile hit the Pentagon as opposed to a plane. Now I'm not outwardly trying to mock them, but it is my view that such people may not exactly be the most reasonably thinking amongst us to begin with.

Reason with those that can be reasoned with. Have faith that those of us who are reasonable will read comments like "well I guess you believe the official story then, huh?" and ignore them with little effort because we know how narrow minded those comments are and that you could build a house from the straw.

But when you post a thread like this directly to them you are in essence not only trying to reason with the unreasonable, but you are lending credence to the argument by implying that their comments actually carry some gravity here with those who you respect, thereby requiring some form of clarity to their tactics.

Remember a simple message board logical rule: Those that respond with the epitomy of strawmen will always, despite attempts at reasoning, continue to respond with strawmen. It is simply just the only way they know how to debate.

Don't get frustrated with 'em: Ignore them or have fun with them instead. :)

[johnnie]

73. Usually I agree with your posts

This one, not so much. It isn't only about a "missile". There are a lot of questions many of us have and it makes us no more a "reasonably thinking" person than you are.

Do you really think that a person asking questions about things they don't quite understand as being "narrow minded"? I guess it's best you just join your gang and not rock the boat. We all know that Oswald killed Kennedy, Nixon was set-up, Bush had no idea the levees would break in New Orleans, and BUsh won both elections fair and square. God-damn those "narrow-minded" people who ask questions. They are really a bother...aren't they?

I understand what you mean by your last statement "Don't get frustrated with 'em: Ignore them or have fun with them instead." Trust me, many of us do. ;)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. With All Due Respect, You Missed His Point Completely.

His entire point was that though he doesn't agree with the missile theory, that it doesn't mean he doesn't question other aspects of the story. He was rallying against those who have an all or nothing mentality because they accuse others of believing everything because they merely choose to not believe an aspect.

Unfortunately, you were just to a degree guilty of doing the same thing. You said: "Do you really think that a person asking questions about things they don't quite understand as being narrow minded?". No, obviously I don't. I never said anything like that. You also said "There are a lot of questions many of us have". I know, I have them too, as do most of us. But again, I never said otherwise. This thread, and my post in response to it, were in reference to those that will take a comment towards a specific aspect and turn it into an overly generalized position on the entire subject.

So having that said, you were kinda just guilty of those concepts. You implied that I was putting down those who have questions about 9-11 at all and also implying that I called anyone who questions anything as narrow minded. But that is completely inaccurate, as I did no such thing. Please understand that the only concept I was putting down was when someone uses strawmen to wage arguments and take a targeted specific comment and spin it into a much broader sense. I was referencing those that take a comment such as "I don't believe in the missile theory" and turn it into a position of "I don't believe in any question anyone asks of 9-11 whatsoever". See how absurd of a twist that is? If you pause for a second and think about it, you'll see you just did the same thing to me.

No ill will, as I believe I have respected your posts in the past, but I hope you read my words and understand that you were wrong in your assessment of them.

Peace.

[truth2power]

82. See? I rest my case

in regard to what I said below. I guess I'm one of those "unreasonable" people, then, who should just be dismissed as not too bright. Whatever.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. Never Said Anything About 'Not Too Bright'.

But I do through personal opinion consider those convinced of a missile hitting the pentagon to be a bit unreasonable.

[truth2power]

91. Uh huh..

It's all about belief. Both Will's and mine. But his is valid and mine isn't.

Those who believe a missile hit the Pentagon are unreasonable, their comments don't have any gravity and they are not people who you suggest Will should respect. Also, they should be ignored.

Anyway...Not a passenger jet.

I'm not invested in whether anyone wants to listen. Been there, done that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. "Anyway...Not a passenger jet. ". Yes, It Was. Let's Be Reasonable Here.

:rofl:

[truth2power]

96. I see...

It was because it was. :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. It Was, Because To Think Otherwise Is Asinine.

I am one of firm belief that those that propagate such theories of lunacy do nothing to further the search for truth as it relates to 9-11. Instead, it turns people away completely from even wanting to explore further because they think if they do they're just going to find more lunatic ramblings.

There are many real things to be questioned about 9-11. Missile theories and pod theories are not any of them. All they do is muddy the waters of legitimacy and disgrace the entire truth movement. I find those with such lack of reasoning to actually believe that a missile hit the Pentagon to be an embarrassment to critical thinking and devastating to the concept of seeking truth. I'm disgusted by those that propagate such lunacy and view their intentions the same as I do greens who vote for greens: Which is self-destructive to their own causes narrow minded foolishness.

[The Straight Story]

101. I once posted a photo

from the security camera showing the plane (or whatever they want to think it is) and ask for someone to do some math. Based on size in that image of object, distance from booth, etc, calculate the size of it. There are photos from above of pentagon that shows how far away the booth it, etc and so on.


Still nothing....

[truth2power]

104. Geez!!...

What would your "search for truth" be, exactly? Only that which is acceptable within your own world view?

I notice that you state you are of the "firm belief" regarding this issue. OMC, do you realize that we are all, (you, me, Will Pitt, and many others) working on the basis of belief on this thing. I was not standing on the Pentagon lawn that day. And if I had a pipeline to anyone from the CIA, or whoever, who could give a definitive answer, I'd sure let you know.

In your above post, you use the words, "asinine", "theories of lunacy", "lunatic ramblings", "disgrace", "lack of reasoning", "embarrassment to critical thinking", "disgusted", "propagate such lunacy", "self-destructive", and "narrow-minded foolishness". Whew!! That's quite a lot of negativity in a 6 line post.

I understand that you're walking that line about calling someone out. It's subtle. If you're referring to me, just say so. I'm not gonna alert on you. I see this kind of thing all the time in the 911 forum. Personally, I don't think just name-calling advances the discussion much.

In any case, what I've seen and read convinces me it wasn't a passenger jet. YMMV, of course.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. You're obviously part of the Grand Conspiracy.

Who's paying you, Will, the Kremlin? Oh, wait, wrong decade.

I know, it must be the Airline Industry..no...the CIA...I got it!..Karl Rove...naaah...

Or, maybe you're not part of the Conspiracy, but just responding to the chip implanted behind your left ear..or is it the right ear?

Well, it's up to you to PROVE that you're not part of the conspiracy.

[mnhtnbb]

78. How many of you have read any of the conspiracy theory books?

I just ordered these today:

Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions

Comments on any of them?

[truth2power]

79. A couple of points, Will...

You use the word "believe" in your statement regarding the "plane" hitting the Pentagon.

So, I assume it's ok for me to use that word to describe my assessment of that event. I don't believe a commercial passenger plane hit the Pentagon. I have no way of proving that, one way or the other. But my crap detector tells me it wasn't a passenger jet. A missile maybe. Or possibly a drone. I really have to believe my lyin' eyes. I'm not clubbing anyone else over the head to force them to believe as I do. Everyone has to come to their own conclusion on this.

There are many anomalies surrounding that event that I won't go into at this point, for the sake of brevity. Anyway, it's all been hashed and rehashed.

As for the "hyperbole" you speak about, I've spent a lot of time, lurking mostly, in the 9/11 forum. What I've observed is that the situation is pretty much opposite to what you've described. I've read posts where someone tries to explain, in a rational way, why they think the official story is BS. Then someone replies to that post with the most incredible, snarky, ridicule that I wonder why the post doesn't get deleted for violating the rule against calling someone out. And these posts typically have no substance whatever, other than to be insulting. This is where the "shortcut to thinking" and "shortcut to debate" resides, IMO.

[fujiyama]

83. At this point

less than 50% of Americans believe the "official" story. Most people might agree on a few basics, but ultimately as shown by recent polls, most don't believe what Bush has to say about anything anymore, including 9/11. As would be expected, on a liberal board like this few people believe the official line completely, once again showing these holier than thou, "I know the truth and you can't handle it types" to be making shitty strawman arguments.

I think most on this site would also agree the 9/11 commission was a whitewash. We know now that Bush ignored all threats of impending attacks that summer '01. We know he placed low priority on terrorism as a whole - both before AND after the attacks (aside from his political posturing to destroy the constitution). We know him and others in his administration wanted to exploit the attack for personal and political gain immediately after through their desire of attacking Iraq at the expense of apprehending bin Laden and attacking Al Qaeda terrorists.

The question is, why pursue pointless lines of argument regarding missiles and controlled demolitions? Several independant studies have been done by structural engineers having no affiliation with this government (and some outside this country) showing that jet fuel can indeed burn hot enough to cause a structure to buckle and eventually collapse... And where the hell would that missile have been fired from? What happened to the damn plane that crashed into the Pentagon? And why the hell would hundreds of people in the DC area lie about seeing a plane crash into the Pentagon?

The idea of this incompetant government pulling off something as complex as 9/11 and then shutting so many up is ridiculous. It would have gotten out. Not every single individual affiliated with this government is completely evil (though surely the key players in this administration are). Not every person that worked in the whitehouse at the time was evil enough to go along with a plot to murder thousands of civilians (though most of those lesser evil ones have been driven out since). I would imagine even cold hearted corporate crooks not wanting to cross that territory.

[ScreamingMeemie]

85. Well Said fuji!!! My 62 year old mother finally came out and said

she doesn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon anymore. (She's an independent swing voter) All I could say was that I really didn't think it mattered at this point.

[FourScore]

98. Do you have links

to those independent studies that "have been done by structural engineers having no affiliation with this government (and some outside this country) showing that jet fuel can indeed burn hot enough to cause a structure to buckle and eventually collapse". I would be interested.

You assume that "every single individual affiliated with this government" would somehow be in on it. I'm not even so sure Bush was involved.

It is true that Bush is quite incompetent. Cheney and the PNAC cabal, however, is not. To assume that they are is a dire mistake. They are quite competent in those things they want to be competent at. They just do not have the same priorities as me or you.

I can say that I need clear answers and a true investigation into many things, including:

Building 7 collapse
A complete analysis of any remaining samples of steel
An analysis of the dust particles
I would like to hear testimony from demolition experts
I would like to hear testimony from independent structural engineers
Satellite images
A complete clarification of military and FAA response that morning
Why protocol was broken at the elementary school
Exactly Bush and Cheney's timeline before, during and after the crisis
Able Danger
how a flight school junkie flew a maneuver around the Pentagon that trained pilots can't fly
Raytheon and their technologies
The Raytheon employees that were killed on the various planes -- what were they currently working on?
The exact mechanical and flight history of each plane leading up to the tragic day
ISI's involvement with Al-Quaida
Why the plane targeted a distinct area of the Pentagon
One question also remains for me. A real nagging question. If the hijackers wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, why would they crash into the buildings before they had full capacity? Why not take a later plane? Or a full flight?
What countries gave us intel warnings and exactly when
who was warned in advance and when and by whom
The put options
The flight manifests
all remaining questions from the family steering committee

the list goes on and on...

I don't know what to think.

I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.
I believe a plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
I don't care for Loose Change
I don't think we know the whole story
I spend way too much of my time trying to figure this out. I know that we owe it to the victims and their families to do everything we can to find the answers.

I hate being labeled a conspircacy theorist.

[Jcrowley]

88. There are essentially two scenarios

Within these two there are subsets and permutations as is the case with any evidentiary proceeding but essentially there is: 1) "The Official Version Theory" and, 2) "The Conspiracy Theory."

The first thing we must examine before we even attempt to explore interpretations of these two theories is how profoundly our psyches have been (mis)shaped by all manner of indoctrination. Once we are able to do that and clear the debris of our own assumptions we can examine the situation with some clarity.

Which of the two explanations is more preposterous I have often asked myself. Theory #1 is so utterly over the top to seem almost comic bookish.

The entire operation was known about by the Bush and the Cheney administration with plenty of advanced warning and intentionally allowed to happen at the very least. Their desire for a pretext for their serial wars is beyond doubt.

Those facts appear incontrovertable at this point.

Senator Grahm (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) was insistent that the Intelligence aparatus of at least one foreign government was in fact hip deep in the operation also seems to be in little doubt, but he cites national security gag orders that prevent disclosure of exactly what country that was.

In addition if you consider the way things seem to be going on today in the exposure of these terror plots it seems pretty obvious that dupes are targeted and then helped by clandestine elements of even our own government to carry out their terror plots only to then be rounded up and pawned off as legitimate Terror threats.

My personal opinion is that the 911 operation included elements of multiple national governments compartmentalized so that no one would have all the pieces of the puzzle, or be cabable of pointing any fingers.

These organizations we all know of by name, but there are units/cells acting outside of their jurisdiction that these agencies do not even know about. It is from such cells that I think the operation was launched from.

Al-Qaida does not now, nor has it ever existed in the framework of the media portrayal of it. The name was given to Osamas band of merry men during an indictment process following the 1st world trade center bombing by a Sudanese who had been an associate of bin Laden. He lied as part of a coached testimony by the government. It was neccessary for the United States Attorney to be able to name an organization in order to apply the Ricco Act for the express purpose of indicting bin Laden in abstentia.

That is in fact where the birth of Al-Qaida originated. Lets not forget that bin Laden was a trained CIA asset.

[kitty1]

89. Don't forget the OBL had access to the PROMIS computer

program. As did most other military and intelligence agencies around the globe.
The following excerpt from Crime-Research.org indicates that Osama had use of this sophisticated techonology and purchased the software on Russian Black Market."
"William H. Hamilton, president of Inslaw Inc., said the commission — headed by former New Jersey Gov. David H. Kean — should focus on the validity of published reports saying bin Laden penetrated classified computer files before the attacks to evade detection and monitor the activities of US law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The software not only would have given bin Laden the ability to monitor US efforts to track him down, the authorities said, but also could have given him access to databases on specific targets of his choosing and the ability to monitor electronic-banking transactions, easing money-laundering operations for himself or others"
http://www.crime-research.org/news/2003/01/Mess0801.htm
Through a back door method, users of the promis system could infiltrate the data bases of other similar systems and access financial information, stock option information amoung other things.
Those "put" options on the Airline stock that were so widely documented were likely traced globally thru access to this promis computer system. This system, btw was supposedly stolen by the CIA some years ago. The FBI had used this untill a few years ago, but had originally denied doing so.

[johnaries]

95. You don't have to believe MIHOP to know B* is guilty

of multiple crimes against humanity.

Whether it was MIHOP, LIHOP, or just plain incompetence - B* is responsible for 9/11.

His crimes for the Iraq War should be addressed in the Hague. Period.

[savemefromdumbya]

99. All will be revealed when they open up the 9/11 commission again

with Bush and cheney uner oath and in chains

[mikelewis]

100. Sorry, Will.... It's not that easy...

The burden of proof lies in your camp Mr. Prosecutor. You say a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon... okay, show me. Prove to me that a plane can dissintegrate on contact. Show me the video's that are known to exist. Show me pictures of seats, wings, engines, luggage... a plane. Until you present evidence that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, any theory is valid.

Also, with the collapse of the Trade Towers. Show me how a building can fall at near free fall speed and completely disintigrate. How is that possible? Those buildings collapsed at rate of 10 floors per second, for that to happen at that speed, there could be no resistence in the collapse. Okay, maybe it's possible that kerosene weakened the 48 giant steel columns supporting the entire structure and the weight of the upper portion shifted causing a collapse. If that's so... what happened to the 48 support beams? Did they just all of sudden shatter under a load they were designed to carry in spite of the fact they have been carrying that weight for years? The top portion of the towers were not lifted and then dropped, they alledegly "collapsed" at the point of impact. Where was the net gain in force that could cause the entire building to shatter like glass?

Try this little experiment at home. Get out your Jenga and build yourself a tower. Pull out pieces from one area, near the middle, until you cause a collapse. The whole tower crumbles, right? Now, drive a nail down through the center of the blocks and try to collapse the tower. You can't, right? Now, I bet you'll say, "well, a stack of blocks isn't the same things a giant skyscraper"... and you're right...

Those towers were stronger. Much, much stronger... strong enough to withstand a hurricane or an earthquake... strong enough to withstand even the impact of a plane (because that's what it was designed to do). Those buildings were built of iron and steel, mortar and concrete... not wooden blocks. The floors weren't plates fastened around a tiny spindle like an ancient record player. Countless welds snapped, beams shattering, concrete turned to dust... How? This was a marvel of human engineering and it disintegrated in the time it took for a penny to hit the pavement below. It's absurd to think they just fell down. It's absurd to think that fire could have weakened one of the world's largest heat sinks causing most of those buildings to dissolve into the New York skyline. The builder's knew how to build buildings both tall and strong... and only someone who knows how to knock them down could bring them down.

So you're going to have to offer a better explanation for thier collapse than what this Government has handed me. Explain to me how the floors, the trusses, the support beams, the steel core support beams completely disintegrated from a fire, no matter how hot it was at the point of impact. Until you do, any theory, mine or the "Official" story, is merely a theory. This is why we damand a real investigation. I don't want to fight you over ignorant theories about 9/11, I want to know the truth. The only way to do that is to "make up" our own theories based upon the facts and hope, beyond hope, that someone will actually listen, instead of mock... act instead of deride.

There is a mountain of evidence that refutes the officail story and in its refutation, has led millions to believe an alternate theory. Because the Official story is not possible, there must be another explanation. If that alternate explanation is benign towards our government, great, I for one would be extremely relieved. As a journalist and one who has earned a great deal of respect (well deserved and much appreciated, I might add), I urge you to take up this challenge and run with it. Prove to us 36%'ers that we are mistaken. Don't tell us, show us.

The NIST has tried to address our concerns and an interesting rebuttal is located here... please view it and refute it... because to me it seems irrefutable.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

That will catch you up to speed on the current debate and this is our evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

Please read it and dig deeper. 36% equates to over 100 million people, if we are suffering from a delusion, please, help snap us out of it. Prove what they said was true. Refute the evidence. Resist non sequiter and ad hominem. Don't say, "They can't keep anything secret so 9/11 can't be a secret." or "They can't do anything right so how could they do this right?" That's not refuting the facts, that's pure arguendo.

I have a great deal of respect for you and the work you do. I think you have a truly gifted mind. Please give the Scholars for 9/11 truth at least some of the same creidt. Invest some time into finding out if your right before you question the logic of others. If you do invest your time, I will take a very serious look at what you have to say. That's the best I can offer.