More Americans Are “Rethinking” 9/11?

[ZakCarter]

“Did you know that a 3rd building fell on 9-11? That bill board is today over Times Square. It was placed there through donations to a campaign called Rethink 9/11.

In fact, that group has placed posters and signs across the world, from Australia, to Canada, from San Francisco to right here in New York City.

So what is Rethink 9/11? Wouldn’t only a fringe group of people would still question 9/11? Perhaps not, because today we will tell you about new polling that shows a majority of those polled either question the official 9/11 story or don’t believe it at all. Is that possible?

The first step toward truth, is to be informed. “

Watch Ben Swann’s take on 9/11 and the rethink 9/11 movement @

And more @ http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/

[Kowalski]

I know I don't believe the official version of events that day. I do think planes crashed into the buildings and Pentagon, I don't think it was faked, (no offense to anyone who believes that though ) but I do think the entire situation was orchestrated by the CIA to get us into a War. They do it in other countries, so why wouldn't they do it here, to fuel the military industrial complex?

Link: http://en.wikipedia....tion_Northwoods

Another interesting link: http://en.wikipedia....peration_Gladio

Edited September 11, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[Frank Merton]

More denialism. I guess some people are just wired that way. Some people also believe in about anything you can imagine.

[pbarosso]

yeah here we go again. the crazies.

[lightly]

what if Burt is right? who's crazy then?

[spartan max2]

I just cant believe it.

There are just so many other "accidents" you could do to start a war.

We didn't need to blow up towers to have the Gulf war.

There was an attempt at a world trade center bombing in 1993 as well. Most people don't realize that.

Edited September 11, 2013 by spartan max2

[Professor Buzzkill]

I just cant believe it.

There are just so many other "accidents" you could do to start a war.

We didn't need to blow up towers to have the Gulf war.

There was an attempt at a world trade center bombing in 1993 as well. Most people don't realize that.

What most people don't realizze is that the 1993 bombing was completely avoidable. The FBI armed Ramzi Yousef with explosives despite knowing full well that he was planning to attack the WTC

[Professor Buzzkill]

yeah here we go again. the crazies.

At what point does the term crazies move from the CT point off view to the offical believers? Soon enough, by your logic, there will be more crazies than non-crazies

[Rafterman]

Let me guess, the poll was conducted at a Ron Paul rally?

[Agent0range]

At what point does the term crazies move from the CT point off view to the offical believers? Soon enough, by your logic, there will be more crazies than non-crazies

Soon enough there will be more crazies? Nope, and here is why. You can go to 20 different truther websites and none of them will tell the same story. It was a missile, it was a nuclear bomb, it wasn't nuclear, but controlled demolition, no plane crashed into the pentagon. Now, on the other hand, when you look at CREDIBLE sources about 9/11, they share the same opinions. If the truthers can't even rally together to come up with acceptable account of what happened amongst themselves, what makes you think SMART, SENSIBLE Americans will believe their mindless dribble?

[preacherman76]

I just cant believe it.

There are just so many other "accidents" you could do to start a war.

We didn't need to blow up towers to have the Gulf war.

There was an attempt at a world trade center bombing in 1993 as well. Most people don't realize that.

Most people also dont realize that the FBI planned and supplied the guy who did it. All proven through recorded phone conversations.

[preacherman76]

Soon enough there will be more crazies? Nope, and here is why. You can go to 20 different truther websites and none of them will tell the same story. It was a missile, it was a nuclear bomb, it wasn't nuclear, but controlled demolition, no plane crashed into the pentagon. Now, on the other hand, when you look at CREDIBLE sources about 9/11, they share the same opinions. If the truthers can't even rally together to come up with acceptable account of what happened amongst themselves, what makes you think SMART, SENSIBLE Americans will believe their mindless dribble?

You dont have to dig to deep to figure why that is though. The government striaght admits they have hired people to spread disinformation on the internet. There is nothing sencible about believing building 7 fell cause of office fires. Especialy considering they say the whole thing happened cause of one main support beam that wasnt secured. Only to find out through the FOIA that the beam most certainly was secured. Their whole argument is based on a lie.

[preacherman76]

At what point does the term crazies move from the CT point off view to the offical believers? Soon enough, by your logic, there will be more crazies than non-crazies

Far as Im concerned that happened along time ago. Our government is so full of crap its pathetic. Like how they have to bomb Syria cause of the children. Well what about the thousands of children we bombed into oblivion in Iraq and Afgan? Oh thats right, chemical weapons. Well what about the depleted uranium we spread all over Iraq and Afgan from bullets to bombs we dropped?This is why main stream media is quickly becoming next to irrelevent.

[Babe Ruth]

I just cant believe it.

There are just so many other "accidents" you could do to start a war.

We didn't need to blow up towers to have the Gulf war.

There was an attempt at a world trade center bombing in 1993 as well. Most people don't realize that.

There were many reasons for the events of the day, but justifying the Global War On Terror is certainly the primary one, or so it would seem with the luxury of hindsight.

To consider other possible reasons, consider this: www.doeda.com/y911.html

[Babe Ruth]

Soon enough there will be more crazies? Nope, and here is why. You can go to 20 different truther websites and none of them will tell the same story. It was a missile, it was a nuclear bomb, it wasn't nuclear, but controlled demolition, no plane crashed into the pentagon. Now, on the other hand, when you look at CREDIBLE sources about 9/11, they share the same opinions. If the truthers can't even rally together to come up with acceptable account of what happened amongst themselves, what makes you think SMART, SENSIBLE Americans will believe their mindless dribble?

What are some of these credible sources?

[spartan max2]

What most people don't realizze is that the 1993 bombing was completely avoidable. The FBI armed Ramzi Yousef with explosives despite knowing full well that he was planning to attack the WTC

.....well

Did not know that. Guess ill have to look in to this.

I retract my position.

[Jacques Terreur]

.....well

Did not know that. Guess ill have to look in to this.

I retract my position.

nice. i don't wanna join into this discussion, but i always admire when somebody openly reconsiders their position when new information comes up. A lot of people just "don't wanna hear about it". Hats off!

[Rafterman]

Soon enough there will be more crazies? Nope, and here is why. You can go to 20 different truther websites and none of them will tell the same story. It was a missile, it was a nuclear bomb, it wasn't nuclear, but controlled demolition, no plane crashed into the pentagon. Now, on the other hand, when you look at CREDIBLE sources about 9/11, they share the same opinions. If the truthers can't even rally together to come up with acceptable account of what happened amongst themselves, what makes you think SMART, SENSIBLE Americans will believe their mindless dribble?

Yep.

Want to have some real fun - get them arguing against each other.

[Rafterman]

What most people don't realizze is that the 1993 bombing was completely avoidable. The FBI armed Ramzi Yousef with explosives despite knowing full well that he was planning to attack the WTC

Could you share your links on this because when I Google it, I'm not finding anything. The closest I'm finding is that the FBI aborted a plan to provide an informant FAKE explosives for the bombs.

nice. i don't wanna join into this discussion, but i always admire when somebody openly reconsiders their position when new information comes up. A lot of people just "don't wanna hear about it". Hats off!

Too bad that this isn't an approach followed by conspiracists.

[spartan max2]

I was just planning on searching for it myself.

But if you got any links thatd be nice

Specially about the recorded phone conversations

[RaptorBites]

Rethink911 wants a million people to show up this year to show support.

Facebook page has 291 in attendance.

https://www.facebook.com/events/349807568487496/

Bet that only a little over a half only show, which goes to show the spectacular failure of the Rethink911 campaign to date.

Instead of holding rallies and ad campaigns, maybe Gage et AL should be using the donated money on running their own Sims to disprove NIST. Hell they could have saved it to run their own private investigation. Yet they waste it on an ad campaign.

Failure.

[Kowalski]

Alright, here is some good information on the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

Link: http://globalresearc...heories/5324430

Nonetheless, the bombing remains the subject of much conjecture, some well evidenced and some not, and served to implant the idea in the American and Western consciousness of Islamic terrorists attacking the WTC.

The Blind Sheikh

The first major port of call in any investigation of the bombing, or telling of the story, is the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman. He was the leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group (IG, or al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya), at the time perhaps the largest overtly militant Islamic group in the country. The crackdown following the assassination of Anwar Sadat had produced in typically polarising fashion a backlash in favour of Islamic radicalism. That this happened at the same time as the extremely well-funded NATO effort to use radical Islam as a weapon against the Soviet Union is no coincidence.

Towards the end of the 1980s, as the Soviet-Afghan war was coming to its inevitable conclusion, the Blind Sheikh escaped from house arrest in Egypt and paid several visits to the US. Specifically, he fostered a following at the Al-Kifah Refugee Centre at the Al Farooq moseque in New York. Al-Kifah was the local branch of the Maktab Al-Khidamat or Services Office for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and was central to the process by which young men were recruited, moved around the world for training and ultimately deployed against the Soviets.

The CIA has remained tight-lipped about their involvement in Al-Kifah but given the timing of its development, its location and the fact that their agents posing as consular officials arranged the visas that allowed the Blind Sheikh to enter the US, it is obvious that they were at the least happy about Rahman’s growing influence there. In April and May 1989 US officials secretly met with followers of the Blind Sheikh in Egypt, including a lawyer representing the group. The cables recording these meetings were signed by Frank Wisner — the US ambassador to Egypt and the son of the veteran of CIA black ops. A year later the Blind Sheikh moved to New York permanently.

Six months after that El Sayyid Nosair, a follower of Rahman, assassinated prominent rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defence League and a former FBI informant. A few weeks later the State Department revoked all of the Blind Sheikh’s visas, but nothing else happened to him. Nosair was arrested but the investigation didn’t reach into the question of what was going on at the Al-Kifah. Rahman was never arrested or deported.

A couple of months later the Emir of the Farooq mosque Mustafa Shalabi was murdered, almost 2 years to the day prior to the WTC bombing. Rahman effectively took over the mosque and the Al-Kifah center at that point. Meanwhile, notorious triple agent Ali Mohamed had been providing training sessions in intelligence and paramilitary operations to those who frequented the mosque, including Nosair. He also trained virtually the entire group involved in and ultimately convicted for the WTC bombing.

The Decoy

It is at this point in the story that the alternative explanations of the bombing focus on one Emad Salem — a former Egyptian army officer recruited as an informant by the FBI. He had infiltrated the Al-Kifah and the circle around the Blind Sheikh and was provided regular intelligence on what they were doing. However, what almost every alternative theory about WTC93 gets wrong is that they claim Salem built the bomb that was used, usually based on a few seconds of audio of Salem talking to one of his FBI handlers, John Anticev.

In reality, Salem was fired by the FBI in bizarre circumstances in the summer of 1992. He didn’t build the bomb – terrorists do not build a bomb and then wait around for six months before using it. Exactly why Salem was fired is not clear, but when his original handler Nancy Floyd started asking questions the FBI leaked stories to the press that she was sleeping with Salem and ultimately subjected her to a career-damaging internal affairs investigation. As a result, six months before the bombing the FBI lost their eyes and ears inside the Blind Sheikh’s group.

After the bombing, Salem was re-recruited by the FBI to infiltrate the Al-Kifah once more, which he did. At that point he was paid a large sum of money to act as a sting operator, encouraging the Blind Sheikh to make incriminating statements that Salem secretly recorded, and encouraging Rahman’s followers to develop plans for terrorists attacks that they were then arrested for, and prosecuted and convicted. The recordings of Salem talking with Anticev come from this period, spring-summer 1993. When the FBI swooped in the summer of ’93, they arrested the Blind Sheikh and most of the group around him, and Salem’s evidence became the basis of the prosecution case.

At this point the State Department, having revoked the Blind Sheikh’s visas 2 1/2 years earlier in late 1990 but done nothing to him in the meantime, carried out a Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation of the decision to grant him the visas in the first place. This involved trying to see the files in Cairo from the period when CIA agents were granting the visas, but the papertrail from the State Department is heavily redacted and it appears the 1993 OIG investigation never actually got to see the Cairo files. Ultimately the OIG concluded that they didn’t know whether the decisions to grant the visas was correct because they couldn’t definitely say what was known at the time. No one got blamed, everyone kept their jobs, it was business as usual.

With Salem functioning as something of a decoy in this story, the question remains: who did build the bomb used in the WTC?

Due to the whistle blowing efforts of Fred Whitehurst the Department of Justice OIG carried out an investigation into the crime lab, including Williams role in the WTC investigation which concluded that, ‘Williams gave inaccurate and incomplete testimony and testified to invalid opinions that appear tailored to the most incriminating result.’ While not all of Whitehurst’s complaints were upheld, it does put a few cracks in the official WTC bombing story.

For another, who was Ramzi Yousef? This international man of mystery was certainly not particularly religious, and enjoyed B-girls and brothels on his travels around the world. He may well have been trained by Ali Mohamed, who according to multiple testimonies from trainees was in the same area of Afghanistan as Yousef for much of 1992. When Yousef left New York on the evening of the WTC bombing he spent the next two years on the run from the FBI, travelling all over Asia carrying out various acts of terrorism before being brought to ground in February 1995. How did he manage this?

It appears he had help from the ISI. Simon Reeve’s remarkably prescient and accurate bookThe New Jackals, based on an extraordinary degree of access to the security services around the case only a year or two after Yousef had been convicted, records several instances of this. When Yousef landed in Pakistan in May 1992 his fake Iraqi passport had the wrong seal on the visa, and yet he was waived through. Similarly, when he and Ahmed Ajaj first entered the US on badly faked passports, Ajaj was arrested but Yousef was not, despite it being clear they were travelling together. When Yousef’s Pakistani immigration records were checked as part of the WTC investigation, much of the paperwork had disappeared. The implication is that someone was clearing a path for him.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[Almagest]

The hypothesis fails catastrophically when you consider that it is entirely reliant on the government being competent enough to pull it off.

[Babe Ruth]

Rethink911 wants a million people to show up this year to show support.

Facebook page has 291 in attendance.

https://www.facebook...49807568487496/

Bet that only a little over a half only show, which goes to show the spectacular failure of the Rethink911 campaign to date.

Instead of holding rallies and ad campaigns, maybe Gage et AL should be using the donated money on running their own Sims to disprove NIST. Hell they could have saved it to run their own private investigation. Yet they waste it on an ad campaign.

Failure.

My guess is that what we're seeing here is very similar to the "silent majority' term coined back in I think Nixon's term.

Most people would rather not talk about it because it's so unpleasant. That is easy to see in face-to-face conversations on the topic, but more difficult to see through this cyber filter by which we all view each other.

If 50% have serious reservations, and depending upon how the question is asked, 85% see the 911 Commission findings as inaccurate, that silent majority notion is still at work.

[Babe Ruth]

The hypothesis fails catastrophically when you consider that it is entirely reliant on the government being competent enough to pull it off.

Do you consider that to be rational argument?

Such a claim sounds great, but it fails quickly in view of the facts and evidence.