Is it Pointless to Discuss the U.S. Government's Role in 9-11?

[mopaul]

or was there no u.s. involvement, like w says?

[gordianot]

1. When you do you end up being called a conspiracy nut.

Bush has a history of being truth impaired. For me I doubt anything he says as factual.

[demnan]

2. I wonder if releasing this virus all over the world

has something to do with the next "9/11".

[JohnyCanuck]

3. FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds doesn't think so.

And you have to admire her courage for not being intimidated into silence.


Criminal evidence in Edmonds’ explosive case is apparently getting too close to Washington officials, since the former contract linguist also told us she would not deny that "once this issue gets to be...investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

Edmonds implied that legislators and even lobbyists were benefiting from laundered narcotics proceeds in an earlier interview with the Baltimore Sun, "...this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it’s getting into somebody’s political campaign, and somebody’s lobbying. And people don’t want to be traced back to this money."

So the Bush administration’s Department of Justice enlisted its taxpayer-funded lawyers to petition a Republican U.S. Appeals Court to suppress Sibel Edmonds’ criminal evidence allegations--linked to a 3,000 death mass murder--in the name of "state secrets."

When we asked how many Americans were named in the intercepts, Edmonds said "There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that," as we listened in stunned silence.

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

[gordianot]

5. Excellent post. Thanks n/t

[spooked911]

9. please sign her petition if you haven't!

here:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

[SmokingJacket]

11. Thanks for that link.

Damn, we NEED to hear what Edmonds can tell us. This is just infuriating. Not ONE newspaper covered her court appearance. Are they all in on it???

[JohnyCanuck]

14. There is also a thread on Tom Flocco's Sibel Edmonds story in LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1424757

[KlatooBNikto]

4. I think we should not give up.Because the Truth, has a way of

reaching critical mass and needs what someone has called the Moment of Revulsion to turn the masses of people from their collective stupor. This happened with Joe McCarthy when Mr.Welch asked him "Senator do you have any decency left, at long last?".It is always a small group that refuses to go along with the herd, is reviled for holding these beliefs until that moment is reached.

So, yes, we need to keep this alive.

[e75]

7. information

I don't think it is pointless, and I think we can prove it. I have set up a site running on wiki technology to do just that. I want to build all the facts, linked together in ways not yet shown. If any of you could come by and help add a tidbit of knowledge on 9/11, we'd be real grateful. The site is at http://www.conwiki.com there is an edit tab at the top to add in information. If we don't do something to fight the coverup the next government ordered attack will probably be a bio or nuclear event and cause many more casualties.

[KlatooBNikto]

13. Thank you.

[spooked911]

15. Great idea. I will definitely add some stuff there.

[zipplewrath]

24. You might add some cites to your claims

Assertions without cites is pretty worthless to your aims.

[HamdenRice]

6. It's like a secret hiding in plain sight

First of all, unfortunately, this thread is likely to be moved to the 9/11 forum, where it will incinerate in conspiracy theory hell.

As to substance, I sometimes feel like the entire 9/11 contorted story is making me crazy! It just can't be the way the MSM and government are characterizing it. There are too many inconsistencies hiding in plain view.

The most important is the collapse of WTC 7. I live in NY and was in lower Manhattan that day trying to get home. It was actually difficult to get local news because major TV and radio antenas had been destroyed at WTC 1.

In the late afternoon, WTC 7, a building a block away that contained the NY offices of the Secret Service, CIA and SEC just collapsed. It's so bizarre, and no one ever talks about it. Supposedly it was because of several small fires, but it is just so illogical.

After the fire in Spain last month that burned for over a day, and the failure of that skyscraper to collapse, it just brought back the absurdity of the collapses in NYC. The only steel buildings ever to collapse due to fire all collapsed that day -- one, WTC 7, apparently just out of sympathy?!?!?! for the twin towers.

[e75]

8. WTC7

actually they were forced to admit that WTC7 was taken down by controlled explosions. They will have to admit this about the other towers too, seeing how they fell at freefall speed, which could only be caused by explosives.

[SmokingJacket]

12. They really admitted it?

Wow -- do you have a link where I could read more on this, or do you recall where you read it?

[spooked911]

16. probablyreferring to Silverstein saying they had to "pull" the building

which may or may not be an admission of demolition. But damn, the collapse looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition. I think there's almost no doubt that the building was brought down by explosives.

[patcox2]

18. There was an ambiguous statement by a fire chief.

There was an ambiguous statement made on camera by a NYFD chief which was actually made almost contemporaneously with the collapse of 7, the next day, I beleive.

Its a funny way to characterize this, as the poster above does, to suggest that the belated discovery of this quote is evidence that "they" were "finally" "forced" to admit it, because of pressure brought by brave and unfairly maligned conspiracy theorists.

[bpilgrim]

25. Larry Silverstein, the controller of WTC7, FDNY Razed WTC7

Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC7

by Jeremy Baker
Copyright August, 2003 by Darkprints


In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of
9/11, Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC
complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY
decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC7,
late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.


This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in
Sept. of 2002 entitled "Rebuilding America, A Year at Ground
Zero". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society
of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly
investigation into the curious collapse of WTC7. The study
specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a
result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris
falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;


"...I remember getting a call from the fire department commander
telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to
contain the fire...and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had such
terrible loss of life...maybe the smartest thing to do is, is
'pull' it...and they made that decision to 'pull'...uh, and we
watched the building collapse."

more...
http://www.vestigialconscience.com/Pullit.html

On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks prior to the World Trade Center disaster, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex.

peace

[zipplewrath]

21. Cite

The speed at which they fell did not require explosives. Nor has anyone in authority to have done so admitted that "controlled" explosions were the primary cause of failure of any tower.

[HamdenRice]

22. "They" have not admitted anything about WTC7

You are referring to Larry Silverstein, the lessee of the WTC complex from the Port Authority, interviewed on PBS saying that late in the afternoon they decided to "pull" WTC 7.

The problem is that "pull" is slang in two distincly different subcultures that were involved. The demolition industry uses pull, as in "pull down" or demolish a building

The fire department uses pull, as in "pull out" the people.

Silverstein and others have said he meant pull in the latter sense, and in the context of the taped conversation, that is what it looks like he is saying.

That is not to say I think WTC 7 collapsed on its own -- only that the infamous Silverstein interview doesn't really admit to anything.

But the absurdity of WTC 7 is that unlike the towers, it had a conventional steel skeleton structure, so all that talk about trusses weakening is irrelevant in explaining the collapse of WTC 7. Even if the fires did cause the building to collapse, it could not possibly have caused it to collapse all at once, as in a controlled demolition. It would have collapsed section by section over time.

The most bizarre part is that there was a building between the north tower and WTC 7 that bore the full brunt of the debris from the collapse of the north tower that was still standing and had to be demolished!

[TomClash]

30. 5 and 6 were much much smaller buildings and were veyr badly damaged

And both partially collapsed. Not much was left standing.

[spooked911]

17. I know exactly what you mean and if you start reading more about 9/11

is just gets worse. In my view, there is no doubt that the government "made" 9/11 happen. It's a hard conclusion to come to and very depressing but it is almost certainly the truth.

There are several good books out there on 9/11-- right now I am reading David Ray Griffin's critique of the 9/11 commission report, and it is quite good.

[HamdenRice]

23. Yes, it will make you go crazy ...

because despite Watergate, Iran-Contra, the CIA-crack connection, Castro assassination plot, Vietnam Phoenix program, School of the Americas, etc, etc, etc, it just still seems almost inconceivable that even the worst US politicians could be complicit in something so horrible.

[spooked911]

29. Yep. But in a way, it all fits into one linear evolution of government

sponsored evil.

And then of course you have to worry what will come next.

Oy.

[patcox2]

10. Entirely depends on the logic and evidentiary support for your conjectures

If the suggestions are ridiculous, they will be criticized, if they are supportable, they will be discussed.

Gosh, its so tough, I guess, that "debate" means people who disagree get to voice their disagreement.

But to paraphrase what a great and wise man once said, if one's beliefs in government involvement in 9-11 can't take a little criticism, they must not have been very strong beliefs to begin with.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. You want a real 911 investigation?

Help take back the House.

You want a real 2000/2002/2004 election investigation?

Help take back the House.

We have no power to subponea until we have the House.

[patcox2]

28. Get out of here with your crazy making sense stuff.

Your talking nonsense.

[zipplewrath]

20. You'll have to define "involvement"

Were people less than vigilant or did they allow activities to continue so that they could hopefully monitor them and garner greater information? Possibly. While it was happening, did officials have greater concern for themselves and their political futures than the safety of the US? Potentially, dubious but potential. Are there more culpable people than are being publicly identified? Wouldn't be the first time. Was the whole event planned, funded, and executed by agents of the US government? Nah. They woulda hit different buildings.

[patcox2]

27. They mean the vast, private secret agent operation of the Bush family.

Yup, just like Blofeld or Dr. No on that secret island with the fake volcano that opens uu, except this BFEE (Bush Family Evil Enpire) secret fake volcano opens up and fake airliners come out, remotely controlled airliners, except that they really weren't planes, they were missiles, and the planes that were really missiles were remotely controlled, and the missiles that were not planes were piloted by US agents in blackface who spoke arabic to confuse us, and besides the buildings could never have been brought down by the planes because steel buildings are impervious to fire, the buildings were brought down by hundreds of planted shaped charges previously planted in the buildings without anyone noticing and then detonated a few hours after the non-plane-remotely-controlled-missiles operated by Bush family secret-agents hit the buildings without causing any significant structural damage or fires that would have been capable of causing the buildings to collapse without the use of the shaped charges. Got it so far?

Then they brought down WTC 7 with shaped charges because this was a crucial element of their plan; they knew that the public would be shocked by the fall of the twin towers, but that the degree of public hysteria would be just one tiny increment too low to allow them to use the fake terror incident to seize power. So you see it was absolutely necessary to bring down the beloved and world-famouos icon, WTC 7, because that was the real dagger in the heart of america, without that one, it would all have been for nought.

Or they may have had to bring down 7 because that ws their headquarters and they needed to destroy the evidence; that was where the remote controls were, it was where the people who weren't on the planes were kept and then killed later in the fall of WT 7 in order to cover up the fact that there were no people on the planes because they weren't planes, or maybe they had the real passengers there and they were forcing them to make cellphone calls under gunpoint, who knows.

Throw in some fun facts such as that all the cell phone calls made by passengers in the planes were cleverly faked by Bush secret agents who had studied the voices and history and mannerisms of the people who really weren't in the non-planes so that they could fool spouses and parents and such into thinking that they were really speaking to a loved one. This is proven by the fact that "it is physically impossible to use a cellphone in an airplane."

And anyone who doesn't see the ineluctable logic, anyone who doesn't see it, is simply fooling themself, denial is not a river in Egypt, you know, if only you had the strength to see, its really a weakness, some people simply cannnot handle the truth, only the bold and the brave have the virtue and strength to truly see the truth, while the cowardly benighted masses cling desperately to their comforting myths.

You have to choose, zipplewrath, are you a cowardly and stupid person, or are you a bold, brave, independant iconoclast, embarked on a mission to reveal the crimes and cupidities of the Bush regime and, through your brave and valiant truthseeking, topple them from power and change world history, you, yes you, through internet searches and looking at vid clips, you could change the world, if only you were brave enough to handle the truth, if only you were valiant and bold and strong, like those with the courage to believe it was all a vast, fiendish, clever, and devastatingly succesful conspiracy. Oh, and if you disagree, you might also be "one of them," you see, because the valiant truth-seekers are beset on all sides by BFEE agents who come to DU just to ridicule them, its all part of the coverup.

I think thats the theory in a nutshell.

[radwriter0555]

26. It's not the US Government's role, it's the BUSH REGIME'S role. We must

clearly define the separation of the two entities, since the bush regime doesn't represent the interests of the people of the United States of America.

The bush regime works for the PNAC.

[Finder]

31. Not pointless...

but without defining what is meant by "U.S. involvement" it just gets lumped with far-fetched conspiracy theories.

I also do not recall Bush ever stating there was no U.S.involvment. There were indeed U.S. citizens involved and even some holding office and in the intelligence community who enabled the attacks to go forward(indirectly and directly). Many have been prosecuted (although the media does not pick it up for some reason)and many will be prosecuted. As they say, "Truth is stranger than fiction" and sometimes there are cover-ups for a good reason.

Because the whole issue involves religion and democracy in such a personal way, avoiding civil uprising by certain groups in the US is important.

If you want some info let me know.