Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkbreed

911: Professional experts says it was staged

512 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

I have not heard this before, where is the evidence for this?

Check the CNN link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Check the CNN link.
maybe you should check it. your cnn link says nothing about box cutters being found in the wreckage. there is no evidence that box cutters were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G
maybe you should check it. your cnn link says nothing about box cutters being found in the wreckage. there is no evidence that box cutters were used.

The only evidence that box cutters were used on Flight 93 was based on Ted Olson describing calls he alleges to have received from Barbara Olson. As David Ray Griffin's article on the subject of Barbara Olson's alleged calls explains:

**************

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: "Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."2 Ted Olson's report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation's support for the Bush administration's "war on terror." Ted Olson's report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3 However, although Ted Olson's report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

**************

David Ray Griffin then goes into all the many flaws in Ted Olson's testimony, starting with his self contradictions:

**************

Olson's Self-Contradictions Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards."4 However, this version of Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone. Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well."5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used "the phone in the passengers' seats" because she did not have her purse.6 By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7 However, Olson's second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

**************

The rest of the article can be seen here: http://www.physics911.net/olsoncalls

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Alleging that Ted Olson lied about the conversations by quibbling over whether it was a cell phone or air phone seem like pretty weak arguments to me. Even if she didn't have a credit card herself, one of the other passengers or part of the crew could very well have used their card and allowed her to make the call(s).

Granted, I haven't looked into this myself, but why would he lie about it? Are you accusing him of being part of the supposed conspiracy simply because of the apparently confused accounts of the phone calls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

the 911 commission only mentions the olsen call as evidence for box cutters. the phone records were produced by the FBI. barbara Olsen never made a call according to the FBI. no olsen call means no evidence for box cutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

Aye. For anyone who wants the whole story on this, by all means read David Ray Griffin's excellent article on the subject, which can be found here:

http://www.physics911.net/olsoncalls

David Ray Griffin is a retired professor of theology. How in god's name does that make him even remotely qualified?

Why do you accept the ramblings of an ex-professor of theology (who's trying to sell books) and dismiss the massive structural engineering community who find the theory of controlled demolition on 9/11 utterly ludicrous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

the 911 commission only mentions the olsen call as evidence for box cutters. the phone records were produced by the FBI. barbara Olsen never made a call according to the FBI. no olsen call means no evidence for box cutters.

What's your point? Why would "they" be lying about box cutters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Question for you... do you consider those conclusions to be disrespectful of the passengers on those aircraft that lost their lives? And the families of those passengers who have had to suffer through not only their loss but the nonsense that Loose Change and other conspiracy theorists have put them through? I'm just curious. Don't feel compelled to answer if you'd prefer not to.

If I were a victim of 9/11, there is only one side of the argument I would find entirely disrespectful - that which turns a blind eye to concealment of evidence, placing of legal gags on air traffic controllers and lack of thorough investigation, etc. I would feel honoured by those asking questions, demanding evidence and even those coming to mistaken conclusions if it were ultimately in aid of revealing the full story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I can get my head around the general concept of the false flag thing. But why not just blow up the buildings with the explosives and blame it on the terrorists or the enemy? Why complicate it enormously and unnecessarily by using planes as well? Your response to that seems to be because the contacts, influence, funds and expertise were not available to ragtag terrorists. But I don't see how that is really an answer as the terrorists don't actually have to blow up the buildings, just be blamed for the explosion.

Are you saying that if they just used explosives that would have given the game away because people would know the terrorists weren't capable of that? If so that seems to be contradicted by your post where you also state " Though take it from a pro in false flag deception: “I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter"

Yes - a demolition, more sophisticated than the ’93 bombing, would require access to the core structure of both towers. It would raise questions as to who sponsored that access, how the setup could have been carried out undetected and where the demolition materials were manufactured and obtained. It is not only about public perceptions but the fact it would provide law enforcement with many additional leads to follow that would risk uncovering of the operation.

The cover of plane impacts, along with preconception of a damage and fire based collapse, left no apparent trail necessary to investigate which could lead back to the true perpetrators. See NIST statement regarding non-investigation of explosives: -

Reporter:
… what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NIST:
Right, because there was no evidence of that.

Reporter:
But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NIST:
If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

So we see the planes were an effective deterrent to investigation toward the true perpetrators.

You are right about the quote I provided, though it is not meant to be taken over-literally. A false flag operation does require some semblance of credibility and obviously the perpetrators will still do everything to cover their tracks where possible.

Even if this were the case that the public wouldn't accept an explosion as being perpetrated by terrorists ( and I cannot possibly see why they wouldn't)why not just use the planes flying in to the buildings then? Surely that is enough for your propagandistic casus belli?

The problem is - neither you or I set the standard for this casus belli.

Look at the group who wanted these Middle East wars pre-9/11… and the scale of “transforming event” they were invoking… “a new Pearl Harbor”.

According to their standard, hundreds of deaths and damaged buildings did not meet the requirement nor would it, I think, guarantee public support for a decades-long ‘War on Terror’. There is no doubt that thousands of deaths and removal of those landmark buildings ensured a permanent reminder of the “catastrophic and catalysing event”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

David Ray Griffin is a retired professor of theology. How in god's name does that make him even remotely qualified?

The professor part helps because teaching others what truly happened on 9/11 isn't easy. It takes a lot of hard work and need to know how to explain things to others. The theology part also helps, though it the reasoning behind this is a bit more complex. The Zeitgeist documentary (which focuses on 3 subjects; religion, 9/11 and the international banking cartels), put it well:

****[Religion] reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.****

Zeitgeist then has a clip of David Ray Griffin, who states:

****"A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false. In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for people. The focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on it's function. A story cannot function unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation. It is not a matter of debate that some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story. The keepers of the faith won't enter into debate with them. They ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers."****

The film then segues with a clip from a tv news show, wherein the commentator uses wording that religious people frequently use against those who disagree with them to describe those who disagree with the official 9/11 story:

****"It is wrong, blasphemous, and sinful for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that the US government killed 3000 of its own citizens."****

The 9/11 story is the myth of our times, and is strongly supported by the mass media and the government. Who better then a professor of theology to recognize this?

Why do you accept the ramblings of an ex-professor of theology (who's trying to sell books)

TK, I know you love sound bites, but have you ever -read- one of his books? I doubt it. I have, though. And I keep another handy to debunk points made by official story supporters against those who disagree with it. I'd be curious to know if you'd even read one of his articles in his entirety; or is even this too much bother for you?

and dismiss the massive structural engineering community who find the theory of controlled demolition on 9/11 utterly ludicrous?

I'm afraid it's quite the reverse TK. Last I checked, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the website dedicated to architects and engineers who disagree with the official story, had more then 1600 architects and engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation into 9/11. Perhaps you haven't had the time to check out their site? Well, here's a link in case you can be bothered to make that click:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

I see no list of engineers, structural or otherwise, who think that the investigation is fine. To be sure, I've seen a name or 2 that have given little sound bites supporting the official story. I've noted that atleast one of them, who initially had reservations concerning the official story, but then endorsed it, got some nice grants. Funny that, eh? Anyway, you let me know if you've found a list of engineers that supports the official story that comes anywhere near AE911truth, alright? I found a very small one; but judging by the alleged engineers (it included the names of some prominent people who disagree with the official story), it was just a jest.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Terrorist used knives and boxcutters in the attacks and boxcutters were recovered from other aircraft as well.

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Terrorist used knives and boxcutters in the attacks and boxcutters were recovered from other aircraft as well.

My link

Ok, so where's the evidence that "boxcutters were found in the wreckage"...?

You originally said it was in the CNN article you posted earlier

Box cutters were found in the wreckages.

I have not heard this before, where is the evidence for this?

Check the CNN link.

which is the same link you've posted above, but there's nothing in that article about boxcutters being found in the wreckage.

Perhaps you could provide a source for the "boxcutters were found in the wreckage" claim...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Ok, so where's the evidence that "boxcutters were found in the wreckage"...?

You originally said it was in the CNN article you posted earlier

which is the same link you've posted above, but there's nothing in that article about boxcutters being found in the wreckage.

Perhaps you could provide a source for the "boxcutters were found in the wreckage" claim...?

Cz

I should have said, that boxcutters found on other aircraft that were later grounded, not in the wreckage. My apology.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

the 911 commission only mentions the olsen call as evidence for box cutters. the phone records were produced by the FBI. barbara Olsen never made a call according to the FBI. no olsen call means no evidence for box cutters.

Have you really reviewed the evidence or lack thereof for this? It is pretty weak. Here is David Ray Griffin's apparent attempt to rebutt information which came to light about the calls after he had initially written the paper saying that the calls never took place. Have you read the rebuttal?

The section of this which quibbles about the timing and length of the unidentified calls is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Seriously, look at this:

As we saw earlier the first of the connected calls to unknown numbers reportedly occurred at 9:15:34, whereas the first call to Olsons office occurred between 9:16 and 9:26 AM. These times apparently create a problem, because the first of the connected calls to unknown numbers occurred 26 seconds before, according to the 9/11 Commission, the first call from Barbara Olson was received at Ted Olsons office. However, one might argue that, allowing for human error, the times corresponded well enough.

Another apparent problem is that the reported durations might seem too different to be referring to the same calls: the first unknown call reportedly lasted for 102 seconds (one minute and 42 seconds), whereas Ted Olson told the FBI on 9/11 that it lasted about one (1) minute. However, when Olson was interviewed by Larry King a few days later, he said of the first call: We spoke for a minute or two, then the phone was cut off.115 There is sufficient correspondence, therefore, for a plausible identification of the first of Flight 77s connected calls to unknown numbers with the first call from Barbara Olson reported by Ted Olsons office.

That is just two short paragraphs around this whole thing, and it is representative of how twisted the conspiracy theorist's mind becomes when the blinders of devotion to the conspiracy theory go up in order to hide from reason. The whole paper is like this.

Honestly? Arguing about 26 seconds of "apparent" discrepancy?

And making issue out of the difference between someone saying that the conversation lasted about a minute? And then in a later interview referring to it as a minute or two? But gosh, the actual call lasted "one minute and 42 seconds" so that is a big discrepancy? Really?

I don't think any of the clocks in my house are within 26 seconds of each other, let alone the clock in my car and clocks at my office. Is it not reasonable to conclude that the clocks in question for this might have been slightly out of synch? And when was the last time that you had a call that lasted "one minute and 42 seconds" long and then characterized it as "about a minute" or "a minute or two?" Is that really such a big deal? Are those really far off?

These conspiracy theorists are so quick to accuse people of the most nefarious of things on the most ridiculous of grounds. Barbara Olson died on that plane and she called Ted Olson when she was on the verge of dying. It is disgraceful to accuse these people like this, especially with the lousy position that David Ray Griffin takes here.

Ridiculous.

I see no reason to doubt Ted Olson's statements about what his wife conveyed after having looked into this. But I'm shocked and reviled by the utterly ridiculous and disrespectful nature of conspiracy theorists on this point.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering
I see no reason to doubt Ted Olson's statements about what his wife conveyed after having looked into this. But I'm shocked and reviled by the utterly ridiculous and disrespectful nature of David Ray Griffin at this point.

Fixed for you BoonY. :tu:

Edited by Wandering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Fixed for you BoonY. :tu:

I see no reason to doubt Ted Olson's statements about what his wife conveyed after having looked into this. But I'm shocked and reviled by the utterly ridiculous and disrespectful nature of David Ray Griffin and those who support his ridiculous position at this point.

Fixed it for both you and booNy, Wandering... ;)

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Fixed it for both you and booNy, Wandering... ;)

Cz

Thanks Cz. Good clarification. :tu:

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering
Fixed it for both you and booNy, Wandering... ;)

Cz

hahahaa good call CZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

If I were a victim of 9/11, there is only one side of the argument I would find entirely disrespectful - that which turns a blind eye to concealment of evidence, placing of legal gags on air traffic controllers and lack of thorough investigation, etc. I would feel honoured by those asking questions, demanding evidence and even those coming to mistaken conclusions if it were ultimately in aid of revealing the full story.

I see.

So you wouldn't be offended by people suggesting that your loved ones weren't killed in the planes? You wouldn't be offended by people suggesting that the phone calls you received from that loved one was faked? You wouldn't be offended by people suggesting that your loved one may have been whisked off to another country with millions of dollars in payola to keep their mouth shut (and effectively leaving you in the lurch with a false assumption that they were dead)? You wouldn't be offended by being accused of being part of the conspiracy for describing the last conversations you had with your loved one? You wouldn't be offended by people twisting, distorting, or outright fabricating "facts" in order to pursue conspiracy theories at any cost? You wouldn't be offended by someone suggesting that the heroism that your loved one displayed in order to prevent one more plane from causing even more damage to the national psyche was all a lie?

You wouldn't be offended by these things at all?

I doubt it. I think you're full of crap in that claim and you've only made it in an effort to forward your conspiracy theory agenda.

And don't think that I didn't notice your lack of response to the many other points I made in post #460 (link to page, scroll down) which you only partially responded to here.

I respect your typical attention to detail Q24, even if I often don't agree with your interpretations of things. But at least admit that you'd be offended by these gross violations of respect and common decency. Anyone would; and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Have you really reviewed the evidence or lack thereof for this? It is pretty weak. Here is David Ray Griffin's apparent attempt to rebutt information which came to light about the calls after he had initially written the paper saying that the calls never took place. Have you read the rebuttal?

The section of this which quibbles about the timing and length of the unidentified calls is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Seriously, look at this:

As we saw earlier the first of the connected calls to unknown numbers reportedly occurred at 9:15:34, whereas the first call to Olson's office occurred "between 9:16 and 9:26 AM." These times apparently create a problem, because the first of the connected calls to unknown numbers occurred 26 seconds before, according to the 9/11 Commission, the first call from Barbara Olson was received at Ted Olson's office. However, one might argue that, allowing for human error, the times corresponded well enough.

Another apparent problem is that the reported durations might seem too different to be referring to the same calls: the first unknown call reportedly lasted for 102 seconds (one minute and 42 seconds), whereas Ted Olson told the FBI on 9/11 that it "lasted about one (1) minute." However, when Olson was interviewed by Larry King a few days later, he said of the first call: "We spoke for a minute or two, then the phone was cut off."115 There is sufficient correspondence, therefore, for a plausible identification of the first of Flight 77's connected calls to unknown numbers with the first call from Barbara Olson reported by Ted Olson's office.

That is just two short paragraphs around this whole thing, and it is representative of how twisted the conspiracy theorist's mind becomes when the blinders of devotion to the conspiracy theory go up in order to hide from reason. The whole paper is like this.

Honestly? Arguing about 26 seconds of "apparent" discrepancy?

And making issue out of the difference between someone saying that the conversation lasted about a minute? And then in a later interview referring to it as a minute or two? But gosh, the actual call lasted "one minute and 42 seconds" so that is a big discrepancy? Really?

David Ray Griffin is meticulous; he'll point out even minor discrepancies in the official story. But he actually grants that the time of the call was close enough; you even quote him on that. And while he may mention the slight discrepancy in terms of Ted Olson's report of the duration of the call, it's certainly not a point he relies on to bring down the official story version on this. He's made much better points regarding Barbara Olson's calls. For starters, there's -how- Barbara Olson allegedly called. Ted Olson changed his mind twice on that point:

Olson's Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards."4 However, this version of Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone. Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well."5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used "the phone in the passengers' seats" because she did not have her purse.6 By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7 However, Olson's second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson's Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA's website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757s. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack."8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Those orchestrating the official story must have realized that Barbara Olson's alleged calls were a lame duck fact wise and so decided to simply deny they ever took place, as Little Fish brought up in the past:

Olson's Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson's story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI's report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ's former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

David Ray Griffin concludes his article on Barbara Olson's calls with this:

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

The complete article can be seen here:

http://www.physics911.net/olsoncalls

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You wouldn't be offended by these things at all?

A few of the suggestions you made are so apparently ludicrous as to not be worthy of offence - “whisked off to another country with millions of dollars” for example. Yes I understand how that particular idea could be perceived as offensive (though to be fair I’ve not heard anyone seriously make the claim). Personally I wouldn’t have the time of day for anyone claiming that, let alone waste my energy in being offended. It would be more a case of [door… slam… end of].

So far as I would be concerned, my loved one had been taken from me and they deserve every fact surrounding the circumstances to be known. Anything less than that, such as the whitewash of an investigation that currently exists, is the most disrespectful and offensive act against their memory I could ever imagine.

Many of the family members of 9/11 victims feel the same…

Do you realise the Bush administration were opposed to an investigation altogether and that the 9/11 Commission was only formed under pressure from family members of victims? Are you aware that four leading women of that group, known as the Jersey Girls, forced the original Commission Chairman, Henry Kissinger, to resign after their independent research unveiled his links to the bin Ladens and Saudi dealings?

Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband on 9/11: -

We were shocked. Kissinger had huge conflicts of interest -- major dealings with the Saudis... The day before he resigned, we had a meeting with him in his office in Manhattan. Kristen [breitweiser] had done impeccable research. She'd looked up all of his companies. So I asked him, 'Mr. Kissinger, do you have any Saudi clients?' He mumbled something. And then he asked if someone would pour him some coffee. So then I said, 'Do you happen to have any clients by the name of
bin Laden?
He almost fell off the couch.

That alone tells us about the type of concern they had.

The Jersey Girls also feared the appointment of administration insider Philip Zelikow to the Commission would taint the report. Indeed, their final evaluation of the 9/11 Commission findings is one of scathing criticism, that it did not answer their questions, with the conclusion that it was “an utterly hollow report”.

These women were determined and brave in pursuit of the truth; true American heroes that everyone should be proud of.

That is just one group of family members, booNyzarC, there are many others. Look up Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families who had approximately 7,000 members for instance. He estimated that half of those he represented believe 9/11 was an inside job to some extent.

He has further stated: -

“The 9/11 Commission is probably the worst representation of the 9/11 Families or for that matter all the American public because it's a sham. It really is.... We had tons of different questions that we asked them to ask. They wouldn't do it. And the continuing cover-up is just beyond belief... There's just such a continuing coverup. And why don't we just let the information about 9/11 be known? And then maybe this conspiracy type of thing would go away, but it's never going to go away or I don't think it can go away because they were complicit…”

Yes, the “worst” representation - this is from a man who lost his son on 9/11 and again, as the Jersey Girls, had direct dealing with the 9/11 Commission so knows what he is talking about.

Please click this link and scroll down to the section highlighted pink: “FAMILY MEMBERS”. There you will find family members who lost loved ones in the towers, on the planes, relatives of emergency responders who also died. Some of them outright state “inside job”, others that they have unanswered questions, but the uniting factor is the call for a new and independent investigation, the lack of which has served to prolong their suffering.

I will leave it with Christina Kminek, who lost her sister on Flight 77: -

“Here we are five years later. ... We are still left with unanswered questions, unaccountability and facts that come to light that beg new questions or reaffirm unresolved issues during the 9/11 investigation. There needs to be a new investigation. …

I personally really hoped for one year where September 11th; I could remember those who perished and my sister in peace and not surrounded by all the unanswered questions and the political lies and drama. I'd like to finally focus on my sister.”

You might ask, what sort of unanswered questions? Click that link and read what Christina’s mother, who lost her daughter on Flight 77 had to say.

I could go on with more quotes like this but find it upsetting and would rather not.

Honestly booNyzarC, you do not have a leg to stand on trying to claim any sort of moral high-ground for current standing of the official story… I have full confidence I am aligned with a reasonable number of the victims’ family members… you can say I am “full of crap” if you want.

No one side is better than the other - it’s only the truth that matters.

And don't think that I didn't notice your lack of response to the many other points I made in post #460 (link to page, scroll down) which you only partially responded to here.

I thought we had a roughly parallel discussion going on the other thread about Northwoods and Screw Loose Change so I left it on this one, I didn’t mean to avoid anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

A few of the suggestions you made are so apparently ludicrous as to not be worthy of offence - “whisked off to another country with millions of dollars” for example. Yes I understand how that particular idea could be perceived as offensive (though to be fair I’ve not heard anyone seriously make the claim). Personally I wouldn’t have the time of day for anyone claiming that, let alone waste my energy in being offended. It would be more a case of [door… slam… end of].

You state that "a few of the suggestions" are "ludicrous" but only reference one. A few denotes more than two. What are the other two or more suggestions that you think are ludicrous?

I don't disagree that the suggestion is ludicrous by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But it definitely has been suggested by some people and I've seen it more than once. Here are a couple of examples:

Some people think those passengers were killed, I'd prefer to think they were paid off for their silence.

*this follows a passenger list of all planes*

RIP - or have a nice lifelong holiday wherever you are...

*Edit to add another example*

A lot of the people that 'supposedly' died in the planes have moved to other countries with assumed identities and fake passports. Some of their families have joined them overseas.

The ones that wanted to stay in the USA were paid millions of dollars in 'hush money'.

Ludicrous to suggest such a thing? Yes. And disrespectful. And offensive.

So far as I would be concerned, my loved one had been taken from me and they deserve every fact surrounding the circumstances to be known. Anything less than that, such as the whitewash of an investigation that currently exists, is the most disrespectful and offensive act against their memory I could ever imagine.

Many of the family members of 9/11 victims feel the same…

Do you realise the Bush administration were opposed to an investigation altogether and that the 9/11 Commission was only formed under pressure from family members of victims? Are you aware that four leading women of that group, known as the Jersey Girls, forced the original Commission Chairman, Henry Kissinger, to resign after their independent research unveiled his links to the bin Ladens and Saudi dealings?

Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband on 9/11: -

We were shocked. Kissinger had huge conflicts of interest -- major dealings with the Saudis... The day before he resigned, we had a meeting with him in his office in Manhattan. Kristen [breitweiser] had done impeccable research. She'd looked up all of his companies. So I asked him, 'Mr. Kissinger, do you have any Saudi clients?' He mumbled something. And then he asked if someone would pour him some coffee. So then I said, 'Do you happen to have any clients by the name of
bin Laden?
He almost fell off the couch.

That alone tells us about the type of concern they had.

The Jersey Girls also feared the appointment of administration insider Philip Zelikow to the Commission would taint the report. Indeed, their final evaluation of the 9/11 Commission findings is one of scathing criticism, that it did not answer their questions, with the conclusion that it was “an utterly hollow report”.

These women were determined and brave in pursuit of the truth; true American heroes that everyone should be proud of.

That is just one group of family members, booNyzarC, there are many others. Look up Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families who had approximately 7,000 members for instance. He estimated that half of those he represented believe 9/11 was an inside job to some extent.

He has further stated: -

“The 9/11 Commission is probably the worst representation of the 9/11 Families or for that matter all the American public because it's a sham. It really is.... We had tons of different questions that we asked them to ask. They wouldn't do it. And the continuing cover-up is just beyond belief... There's just such a continuing coverup. And why don't we just let the information about 9/11 be known? And then maybe this conspiracy type of thing would go away, but it's never going to go away or I don't think it can go away because they were complicit…”

Yes, the “worst” representation - this is from a man who lost his son on 9/11 and again, as the Jersey Girls, had direct dealing with the 9/11 Commission so knows what he is talking about.

Please click this link and scroll down to the section highlighted pink: “FAMILY MEMBERS”. There you will find family members who lost loved ones in the towers, on the planes, relatives of emergency responders who also died. Some of them outright state “inside job”, others that they have unanswered questions, but the uniting factor is the call for a new and independent investigation, the lack of which has served to prolong their suffering.

I will leave it with Christina Kminek, who lost her sister on Flight 77: -

“Here we are five years later. ... We are still left with unanswered questions, unaccountability and facts that come to light that beg new questions or reaffirm unresolved issues during the 9/11 investigation. There needs to be a new investigation. …

I personally really hoped for one year where September 11th; I could remember those who perished and my sister in peace and not surrounded by all the unanswered questions and the political lies and drama. I'd like to finally focus on my sister.”

You might ask, what sort of unanswered questions? Click that link and read what Christina’s mother, who lost her daughter on Flight 77 had to say.

I could go on with more quotes like this but find it upsetting and would rather not.

Honestly booNyzarC, you do not have a leg to stand on trying to claim any sort of moral high-ground for current standing of the official story… I have full confidence I am aligned with a reasonable number of the victims’ family members… you can say I am “full of crap” if you want.

No one side is better than the other - it’s only the truth that matters.

Rather than go on with more quotes, why not answer the question I actually posed? Would those other things I mentioned offend you?

I thought we had a roughly parallel discussion going on the other thread about Northwoods and Screw Loose Change so I left it on this one, I didn’t mean to avoid anything.

Alright, I'll be sure to include those points over in the other thread when I take the time to respond to your latest post there so that you can address them.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You state that "a few of the suggestions" are "ludicrous" but only reference one. A few denotes more than two. What are the other two or more suggestions that you think are ludicrous?

Any suggestion that involves the victims of 9/11 still being alive and/or without very good cause implicates family members as part of an operation - these ideas should not be given any attention in my opinion. Thank you for those examples, I guess I don’t listen much to general internet babble.

It is unfortunate, but I would not characterise individuals of the truth movement alone as being capable of such claims. Have you heard of Tania Head who escaped from WTC2 though her fiance died in the collapses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Esteve_Head

Rather than go on with more quotes, why not answer the question I actually posed? Would those other things I mentioned offend you?

I answered - third sentence of first paragraph in my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

*this follows a passenger list of all planes*

RIP - or have a nice lifelong holiday wherever you are...

*Edit to add another example*

A lot of the people that 'supposedly' died in the planes have moved to other countries with assumed identities and fake passports. Some of their families have joined them overseas.

The ones that wanted to stay in the USA were paid millions of dollars in 'hush money'.

Ludicrous to suggest such a thing? Yes. And disrespectful. And offensive.

This really caught my eye.

No one died in the planes. Missles hit the towers. Most of the documentaries that show planes show MILITARY planes, not PASSENGER planes.

Some of the films were created months before the attacks actually took place.

Explosions were planted nearly a year in advance of Sept 11 to assure that the buildings would fall. This is why the thousands of people were talking about explosions in the towers on the lower and basment levels [the planes hit 86 stories UP!] and the media refused to air most of their stories.

Most of these stories of the bombs were 'pulled' within 48 hours after the attacks.

What a despicable insult to those innocent victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

9/11 Memorial

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

& everyone completely ignores the quotes from even family members of 9/11 victims who have a problem with the investigation.

Who really has their head in the sand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.