9/11

[PolyNewbie]

Michael Hardner:911 myths takes accusations of conspiracy and analyzes them. They provide a counter-point to the unchallenged claims of truthers. Sometimes the truthers are correct - there isn't a satisfactory explanation.

No, they mis represent the claims of the truth movement then do their debunking based on the misrepreresented claims. This is how CanadianBlue argues on this forum. Its called "straw men".

[Michael Hardner]

Poly,

You're wrong. Everything I've read includes a direct quote from the truthy involved, followed by an investigation.

An example is the Benjamin Chertoff story above. If you read it, it includes a direct quote and a link to Bollyn's claim. Chertoff's family has completely denied the story that they're related to the Bush government Chertoff yet the link on Prison Planet is still there:

Prison Planet

[Michael Hardner]

So, we have on this very page:

A claim from Poly that Benjamin Chertoff is Michael Chertoff's cousin.

A promise to prove that fact.

An assertion that 911myths misrepresents the truth.

A challenge to produce a story from 911myths that Poly says he will prove is a lie.

Here is a report from US News & World Report:

US News & World Report

Conspiracy theorists have an answer to that, too. They assert that Benjamin Chertoff, a researcher on the project, is a cousin of homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. He's not, though he may be distantly related. "No one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff," he says.

*

I like using the 'cousin story' as an example because it's a lot harder to bafflegab people with science this way. Either he is a cousin, or isn't a cousin. If you Google 'Michael.Chertoff Benjamin.Chertoff cousin' you will get 505 hits. As a sample, every article on the first search page returned from Google, except the Wikipedia article, asserts that they're cousins.

Now, let's talk about hiding the truth, spreading lies and misinformation. Why isn't Prison Planet issuing a correction ? Because they're dishonest, that's why. Clearly, they have no interest in objectively looking into these issues, and are more interested in stirring up intrigue and mystery.

If there weren't real people involved in this, if it were a 500-year-old mystery then it would just be a fun romp within a bad history lesson, but there are real people involved and, more importantly, faith in public institutions that is being eroded for no reason other than information vandalism.

[sunsettommy]

I believe 911 was done to create the police state and side track us from the North American Union.

Going into Afganistan and Iraq were side issues.

"Let's you and him fight" Tholian Mantra.

That reminds of a a looney tunes cartoon "Lets You and Him wrestle"

I live in America and still see no evidence of a "police state".5 years and counting.

The Democrats are rebounding and that alone vitates your nonsense.

It is pitiful that from reading this thread that you dodge intelligent postings from Black Dog.

I have seen this conspiracy bilge in other forums posted by someone similar as you and the debunkings were presented by actual scientists and engineers.It was gruesome to watch killtown be destroyed.

You are lucky this forum does not have such a group of scientists to blast you.

If I feel like it I may present some information that has as yet not been presented in this forum that will make fools of you.But like Killtown.You will just dodge it and look stupid instead hanging onto something that is not a provable conspiracy.He does it and so did a few others I have seen who swallow the conspiracy stuff in the forums.

Wise is the man who drops it in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Will you ever?

If I feel like it.

[PolyNewbie]

sunsettommy:It is pitiful that from reading this thread that you dodge intelligent postings from Black Dog.

When ? I believe I responded to all of his questions or comments. Name one that I didn't respond to. Maybe I missed something.

[Black Dog]

When ? I believe I responded to all of his questions or comments. Name one that I didn't respond to. Maybe I missed something.

Ahem!

1) If the Government carried out 9-11 by crashing planes into the twin towers to cover up the controlled demoloition of the WTC, why would they bother to fake a plane crashing into the Pentagon? I mean, why not just crash an actual plane like they did in New York? If the Pentagon was hit by a missile, where did all the suspiciously airplane-like debris (including wheels and scraps bearing the airline's colours) come from?

2) If the air defence was told to stand down, who shot down flight 93? Or was there a Flight 93 at all? If not, why fake a crash in the middle of nowhere? And what happened to the people who were on the actual flight 93?

3) How come nobody actually involved in the conspiracy has come forward? There must have been thousands of people directly involved and imagine the book deal awaiting the person who can blow the lid off of one of the greatest conspiracies of all time. Instead, we get Babs Streisand's husband. Oooh.

4) How did they manage to wire the WTC with explosives and when did they start? The tallest building ever imploded was the 439 foot (that's less than half the size of one WTC tower) J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit. That job took seventh months of prep work, 2,728 lbs of explosives in 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex, and 36,000 ft of detonating cord. Now imagine the time and material required to bring down two WTC towers and WTC7. Now tell me how they were able to do all of that work undetected.

Just for starters.

[PolyNewbie]

Michael Hardner, I agree that the Chertoff thing can never be proved or disproved. Its never been central to my arguement.

I will answer your post wrt US News & World Report later tonight. I have to read it first and I'm busy right now.

If you think PrisonPlanet is being dishonest you can call Alex Jones during his show and if you tell the operator that you dissagree with him you will be put to the front of the line of the callers.

He does not filter his calls before answering them and if you think that he is doing such a great disservice to the country then it should be your patriotic duty to call him and discredit his information. You have a chance to put Alex Jones on the hot seat any day you wish and he will get no warning of you comming.

So if you want to criticise him, do so on air with 2 million people listening.

[PolyNewbie]

BlackDog: You are right- I completely missed that. Please find more and I will answer them tonight.

[Michael Hardner]

BlackDog: You are right- I completely missed that. Please find more and I will answer them tonight.

Poly,

I thank you for acknowledging a 'miss'. I have no interest in gloating or beating you into the ground, only in finding out answers.

[Canadian Blue]

PN answer the question, since the US is apparently killing it's own citizen's, would you support American's killing police officer's and federal agent's due to this?

Answer the above, since as you stated the American government is killing it's own citizen's, do you support people killing police officer's and federal agent's in order to avoid going to death camps?

I'm just wondering since you are saying the government is killing its own citizen's.

[PolyNewbie]

BlackDog:1) If the Government carried out 9-11 by crashing planes into the twin towers to cover up the controlled demoloition of the WTC, why would they bother to fake a plane crashing into the Pentagon? I mean, why not just crash an actual plane like they did in New York? If the Pentagon was hit by a missile, where did all the suspiciously airplane-like debris (including wheels and scraps bearing the airline's colours) come from?

2) If the air defence was told to stand down, who shot down flight 93? Or was there a Flight 93 at all? If not, why fake a crash in the middle of nowhere? And what happened to the people who were on the actual flight 93?

3) How come nobody actually involved in the conspiracy has come forward? There must have been thousands of people directly involved and imagine the book deal awaiting the person who can blow the lid off of one of the greatest conspiracies of all time. Instead, we get Babs Streisand's husband. Oooh.

4) How did they manage to wire the WTC with explosives and when did they start? The tallest building ever imploded was the 439 foot (that's less than half the size of one WTC tower) J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit. That job took seventh months of prep work, 2,728 lbs of explosives in 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex, and 36,000 ft of detonating cord. Now imagine the time and material required to bring down two WTC towers and WTC7. Now tell me how they were able to do all of that work undetected.

(1) The earliest photos after the Pentagon crash show a clean lawn with no debris whatsoever. Subsequent photos show debris added. I believe the debris was added after the missile hit to make it look like an airplane hit it. Although many truthers maintain that an airplane hit it I do not because an airplane would not go through 3 walls that were all at least 3 feet thick and there would be holes in the walls where the engines hit.

(2) 93 was shot down against orders and that pilot was discharged. I do not have a link for that. The physical evidence of the scene shows that there was no airplane crash. The debris field would have been much smaller and there would have been lots of debris visible. There is no way the plane would have buried itself into the ground like the interviewee in DemocracyNow regarding 911 said it would.

(3) Many people have come forward, not many would have to be involved in the demolition placement. I suspect that foreign nationals were brought in to place the explosives during the suspicious shut down described by Scott Forbes and others (see 911Mysteries: Part1 - free on Google video) Do an internet search on Scott Forbes. The wiring could have been put in place by contractors who had no idea why the cables were being installed or could have thought it was for something else. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building a a few days before the collapse - I suspect this is when the bombs were installed.

(4) If it was a conventional demolition this is explained in (3) but I do not speculate on how the controlled demolition was actually done. I do not agree 100 % with any of the theories brought forth by Wood, Reynolds, Jones, Hawkings, or anyone else. I know for a fact that the buildings were demolished because I have seen the videos and heard many demolitions experts say they thought it looked like CD. Wierdly, a few had changed their minds a few days later by 180 degrees - they were sure then just changed their minds. Strange. More coverup.

Also, the 911 commision report was a white wash. Here is a summary of mainstream media reporting lies and cover up. If things are what the gov says they are then why all the coverups and white wash ?

White wash / coverups

If I am wrong, I would never be ashamed of the position I have taken in all of this because it is the actions of a responsible citizen to always be skeptical of governments because all governments are corrupt - its what happens when you get a concentration of power.

Even if you do not think 911 was an inside job, a responsible citizen would be asking, why did it take 441 days to start an official investigation ? Why is the camera footage of the pentagon crash being kept a secret ? How is it that the terrorists names were not on the flight manifests when they were released after 911 - the explanation that they don't put terrorist names on the manifest proves they let it happen on purpose because if they knew they were terrorists and didn't put them on the manifest, why did they let them on the planes in the first place ?

On the other hand if I am right and 911 was an inside job then the people here posting to blindly support a government that has lied to them regularly should be ashamed of themselves. 911 was not investigated properly - twice the budget was allocated to Lewinsky / Clinton. 441 days before official investigation. The normal authorities that investigate such accidents were not used - FAA/Fire Marshals. No computer animations of building collapses. Much significant evidence goes unexplained. In my world the vote would be taken away from you. Your job as a citizen of a "free" country is to question government, not blindly support it. Your thinkings leads us to tyranny whether 911 was an inside job or not.

[Canadian Blue]

On the other hand if I am right and 911 was an inside job then the people here posting to blindly support a government that has lied to them regularly should be ashamed of themselves.

If your wrong, go and get a psychiatrist.

(1) The earliest photos after the Pentagon crash show a clean lawn with no debris whatsoever. Subsequent photos show debris added. I believe the debris was added after the missile hit to make it look like an airplane hit it. Although many truthers maintain that an airplane hit it I do not because an airplane would not go through 3 walls that were all at least 3 feet thick and there would be holes in the walls where the engines hit.

(2) 93 was shot down against orders and that pilot was discharged. I do not have a link for that. The physical evidence of the scene shows that there was no airplane crash. The debris field would have been much smaller and there would have been lots of debris visible. There is no way the plane would have buried itself into the ground like the interviewee in DemocracyNow regarding 911 said it would.

(3) Many people have come forward, not many would have to be involved in the demolition placement. I suspect that foreign nationals were brought in to place the explosives during the suspicious shut down described by Scott Forbes and others (see 911Mysteries: Part1 - free on Google video) Do an internet search on Scott Forbes. The wiring could have been put in place by contractors who had no idea why the cables were being installed or could have thought it was for something else. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building a a few days before the collapse - I suspect this is when the bombs were installed.

(4) If it was a conventional demolition this is explained in (3) but I do not speculate on how the controlled demolition was actually done. I do not agree 100 % with any of the theories brought forth by Wood, Reynolds, Jones, Hawkings, or anyone else. I know for a fact that the buildings were demolished because I have seen the videos and heard many demolitions experts say they thought it looked like CD. Wierdly, a few had changed their minds a few days later by 180 degrees - they were sure then just changed their minds. Strange. More coverup.

Also, the 911 commision report was a white wash. Here is a summary of mainstream media reporting lies and cover up. If things are what the gov says they are then why all the coverups and white wash ?

Yet you can't back any of this up, hmmm, interesting. Plus you used a conspiracy website to back up your claim's, great work PN. I like the UFO coverup section as well PN.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufoinformation

Do you ever use any real sources for information, you know other than Koolaid World News???

I know your ignoring me, but you still haven't answered my question yet. The reason why is because I caught you in your own BS and you can't figure out how to respond.

[Michael Hardner]

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building a a few days before the collapse

This is the type of quote that, taken on its own, and without counter-point might lead someone to think that something untoward was going on.

Let's look at this quote again:

Dogs were removed from the building ? What were they doing there in the first place ? In fact, there were dogs there checking vehicles coming in. There had been a heightened security threat, but security returned to normal levels and the dogs remained on duty.

In fact, there was one such dog killed on 9/11.

Tribute to Fallen Security Dog

[GostHacked]

Canadian Blue

The reason why I personaly like PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.net is that most of the time the articles are linked to the original source. A source that would be considered 'legit' in your view. Come on man, the news is filtered with more than just a Brita. MSM does not and will not touch it.

here laugh at this site too http://freepressinternational.com I love this site, and I have not made up my mind on what this site is trying to do, but maybe warn us of something. Real news gets to the fringe and comes from the fringe as well.

[Proud Canuck]

I challenge government apologists everywhere to show that 911 was not an inside job.

(1) Air defence stand down during attacks.

The four aircraft that took off were not armed. The pilots did ask the military air traffic controllers " do you want us to ram the aircraft." They were told "yes". By the time they reached New York city from their base in Ohio, the second aircraft had already struck the twin towers.

The other aircraft that were slated to defend the eastern sea board of the United States were involved in joint exercises with the Canadian Military in the Caribbean and would not have been able to get to New York, Washington or Pennsylvania in time.

[PolyNewbie]

ProudCanuck:The four aircraft that took off were not armed. The pilots did ask the military air traffic controllers " do you want us to ram the aircraft." They were told "yes". By the time they reached New York city from their base in Ohio, the second aircraft had already struck the twin towers.

The other aircraft that were slated to defend the eastern sea board of the United States were involved in joint exercises with the Canadian Military in the Caribbean and would not have been able to get to New York, Washington or Pennsylvania in time.

Andrews Air Force base had fighters and they were not launched to protect the white house after two jets hit the wtc's. This is where the stand down order came in.

The idea of the excercises was to provide the necessary level of confusion.

[PolyNewbie]

Michael Hardner:Dogs were removed from the building ? What were they doing there in the first place ? In fact, there were dogs there checking vehicles coming in. There had been a heightened security threat, but security returned to normal levels and the dogs remained on duty.

See Scott Forbes Scott Forbes

See Andrew Richard Grove Andrew Richard Grove

Also see 911 Mysteries: Part1 Demolition. This is the seminal film on 911 for the truth movement. You should look at the evidence collected in this film.

911 Mysteries

[Michael Hardner]

Polynewbie,

You are dodging here. I couldn't find a mention of dogs anywhere in the links. The link I provided clearly tells of an explosives sniffing dog killed on 9/11.

If you're being intellectually honest, you need to address my post.

[Black Dog]

The earliest photos after the Pentagon crash show a clean lawn with no debris whatsoever. Subsequent photos show debris added. I believe the debris was added after the missile hit to make it look like an airplane hit it.

First: you're wrong. Second: you didn't really answer the question. I want to know why they'd use a missile when they were using planes in NYC and PA.

Although many truthers maintain that an airplane hit it I do not because an airplane would not go through 3 walls that were all at least 3 feet thick and there would be holes in the walls where the engines hit

So which is it? Is the problem that an airplane cannot penetrate the walls, or is the problem that it didn't penetrate the walls enough? You're contradicting yourself.

(2) 93 was shot down against orders and that pilot was discharged. I do not have a link for that.

So where was Flight 93 going?

The physical evidence of the scene shows that there was no airplane crash. The debris field would have been much smaller and there would have been lots of debris visible. There is no way the plane would have buried itself into the ground like the interviewee in DemocracyNow regarding 911 said it would.

All of that depends entirely on the planes speed and trajectory when it hit the ground. The fact that it nosedived straight in means the impact crater was small, but deep. And again: why did they hijack 93 in the first place?

Many people have come forward, not many would have to be involved in the demolition placement. I suspect that foreign nationals were brought in to place the explosives during the suspicious shut down described by Scott Forbes and others (see 911Mysteries: Part1 - free on Google video) Do an internet search on Scott Forbes. The wiring could have been put in place by contractors who had no idea why the cables were being installed or could have thought it was for something else. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building a a few days before the collapse - I suspect this is when the bombs were installed.

Nope. In my example of the Hudson Department Store in Detroit, it took a crew of professional demolition experts three months to wire an abandoned building half the size of one WTC tower with enough explosives to bring it down. You're telling me a crew of dupes were able to wire up two 110 storey buildings in 36 hours? Bull. Shit.

Oh and as for the bomb sniffing dogs being removed: why didn't they detect the bombs (and there must have been thousands of them) when they came back?

(4) If it was a conventional demolition this is explained in (3) but I do not speculate on how the controlled demolition was actually done. I do not agree 100 % with any of the theories brought forth by Wood, Reynolds, Jones, Hawkings, or anyone else. I know for a fact that the buildings were demolished because I have seen the videos and heard many demolitions experts say they thought it looked like CD. Wierdly, a few had changed their minds a few days later by 180 degrees - they were sure then just changed their minds. Strange. More coverup.

So you and all these "experts" claiming CD have no idea how they actually pulled off a CD that, in the case of the twin towers, looked nothing like any conventional CD (again: CDs tend to start at the bottom and implode the building down, not start at the top, like the WTC.)

Also, the 911 commision report was a white wash. Here is a summary of mainstream media reporting lies and cover up. If things are what the gov says they are then why all the coverups and white wash ?

Gee, I dunno: maybe to conceal evidence of government incompetence which led to the murder of 3,000 people? Whacky idea, I know.

If I am wrong, I would never be ashamed of the position I have taken in all of this because it is the actions of a responsible citizen to always be skeptical of governments because all governments are corrupt - its what happens when you get a concentration of power.

There's a difference between being skeptical and bueing a raving loon. And you, mate, are veering dangerously into loon territory. Me, I'm skeptical of the government. But I've been around long enough to know the difference between responsible criticism and baseless, factless fearmongering. I don't much care for the latter, whether it comes from the left or right side of the poltical spectrum. It degrades our discourse and allows legitimate opinions to be dismissed by being tarred with the conspiracist brush.

In my world the vote would be taken away from you. Your job as a citizen of a "free" country is to question government, not blindly support it. Your thinkings leads us to tyranny whether 911 was an inside job or not.

Logical fallacy. The belief in the more or less official account of 9-11 does not equal support for the government. It simply means that I have weighed the evidence and found that the basic official version is the best explanation, while alternatives such as "it was an inside job" are not supported by evidence or logic. That doesn't mean there aren't questions, flaws or holes in that story. But the existence of flaws, questions or holes in the story does not mean the essential narrative is a false construct, nor is it evidence of malfesecance.

The best argument against the "truthy' version of events is the total abscence of an alernate narrative detailing how such a grand scheme was accomplished. As you demonstrate so clearly above, the truthy movement is capable only of asking questions and nit-picking the details of individual events. And that's just not enough to make a compelling case.

[Michael Hardner]

The best argument against the "truthy' version of events is the total abscence of an alernate narrative detailing how such a grand scheme was accomplished.

To add to BD's point: Also missing is a motive.

If the powers that be are as dark and pervasive as described, why would they take such a collosal risk for what amounts to a little more money ?

You might think Dick Cheney is greedy, but do you think he'd rob a 7-11 on his way to work ?

If you think the players are greedy, then it doesn't follow that they would take this risk...

[Black Dog]

To add to BD's point: Also missing is a motive.

The motives are there MH, except they are as jumbles as the explanations. It was so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq and Adfghanistan (why they required an excuse of such magnitude is unclear, as is what they stood to gain from both actions). Or it was to establish a police state (which entails passing public legislation over the course of five years, rather than the kind of rapid seizure of power and swift and brutal suppression of dissent one would expect from such a ruthless bunch).

[Michael Hardner]

I would say that they are so jumbled as to be nonexistent: greed and lust for power so blind that they would emperil their very lives for an extra few billion. They didn't get to be dark lords over all creation by being so stupid...

[Black Dog]

Another thing: it boggle smy mind how much of the truthy case is built on photographs or videos alone and how they apply conclusions based soley on their interpretation of visual evidence to actual events. For example: the Flight 93 crash site. Documentary evidence nad eyewitness accounts attest to the debris and body parts on the scene. But becuase such wasn't necessarily apparent from the photos, those documentary accounts are disregarded. The same goes for the Pentagon. That strikes me as being a crap-tacular way to build a case.

To add to what I wrote earlier about the lack of a complellingh narrative, it's interesting that truthy types tend to break down 9-11 as a series of separate incidents and focus on the flaws of each individual story. That's because if you step back and try to imagine how each story fits into the broad narrative of a conspiracy, the flaws and contradictions are glaring.

[PolyNewbie]

I will explain what the motivations are for the US government to do the terror attacks on 911, the invasion of Afganistan and Haiti as well as all the other wars and how it fits in with globalization, the new collectivism & the police state and give proof.

I want someone to tell me how OBL could benefit from 911 and what his motivations were.

[Michael Hardner]

The key is what you said - "compelling narrative".

What's more compelling, the official story or an intriguing tale of global conspiracy involving trusted figures pulling off a grand deception ? In our current media environment, the entertainment value of the information is what makes it fly, not the importance, relevance, or truth.