The fact that "far more experts" say something isn't a strong argument.

"Far more experts" laughed when an Australian scientist opined that ulcers may be caused by a bacterium...Guess what? He was right.

Again, not a great argument. It would serve their purposes to say that, even if it weren't true.

But we're in agreement here:

But why bring this up?

This is a classic Red Herring...no one's talking about Kennedy. However, if you're suggesting that the same kind of arguments are being made by people claiming 9/11 a hoax, then you have a point worth debating. But you'd need to show how those argument collapse, and how 9/11 hoax hypotheses mirror them.

Boy I'm glad to hear someone say this. I happen to agree with some of the things liberal Hollywood says, but what the heck makes Alec Baldwin think I'm going to be swayed by his arguments just 'cos he's Alec Baldwin. Or Charlton Heston for that matter.

There are a few celebrities I've heard who actually seem to know WTF they're talking about. Bono and Janneane Garofolo come to mind. Hell, I even like Ted Nugent, not because I agree with him all the time, but because he can articulate and defend his views.

Most of them sound like they've taken a page from some secret script that's being circulated.

Like I said, I haven't dug into this stuff, so right now all my opinions don't even rise to the level of 'informed.' But like you TVWG I tend to side with the simplest explanation. That we have a bumbling, inept, vain, venal, group governing us. I refer to them as the "NSA" Naive Stupid, and Arrogant.

It seems hard to believe the VP who couldn't shoot straight could've cooked up something like this in only 18 months in office. And "W" sure as heck doesn't have the intellectual firepower to blow up a toilet, much less the WTC. (not to be taken as a political statement)

[quote="Andy Catsimanes"]Absolutely true. But look at the level of experts on either side. The conspiracy side has very little to hang its hat on. Look at the Popular Mechanics story. That should be more than enough.

I bring it up only to say... there will always be those far out people who believe conspiracies, no matter how much proof there is. I could have dropped the kennedy "red herring" and just said:

"The moon landing wasn't faked."
"There are no mysterious chem trails."
"The CIA isn't controlling your brain waves."
and... FDR didn't "let" Pearl Harbor happen.

Or any other number of conspiracies.

I pretty much agree, except on Janeane. I've had conversatons with her, and IMO she's an illinformed bomb thrower. She loves throwing out things like, "What would stop the government from..." and "How do we know Bush isn't..." All just conjecture with nothing to back it up.

Not so secret when you realize that Hollywood is one of the few "big union" towns left. Unions lean left. Hollywood leans further left, and as for "the script", you can bet your ass it's written. It's like a club out here. The left side of politics controls the velvet rope. Belong, be quiet or begone.

LOL... not exactly my position. I will agree in that most bureaucracy is bumbling and inept. But the events of 911 go way further back than the current administration.

That said, 2 commercial planes crashed into two towers and they fell, killing 3000 innocent people. No administration in this country is to blame.

For the sake of accuracy, the administration was in office for 8 months and a week, not a year and a half when 911 occurred. Bush took office January 1, 2001.

While I don't take the same position on the ability of the administration, I find an incongruity in some leftists who will on one hand claim the administration is inept and on the other hand claim this inept government pulled off the biggest ruse of my lifetime. My feeling is either they are inept in which case they couldn't have pulled it off. Or they are cunning and smart and did pull it off, or again... more likely they they are no more or less intelligent, cunning or devious than any administration.

And if you negate every other thing written here, just remember one thing: If the government is involved in a secret... it won't remain a secret for more than 10 minutes."

Michel,

Very brave of you to post this.

I've been researching this topic on and off for the past 2 years or so. This 'movement' is really starting to gain voice... and it's awesome to see more people looking into it.

I was really happy and surprised to see you post this here.

This is an important subject. Too often already, it is polarized into the official story versus a conspiracy. It's neither, in my book. Approaching this scientifically, we must deal with the evidence at hand and just look at it to form a picture of what happened that day. So far, we're dealing with:

- Huge holes in the 'official' story
- Government withholding about 75% of eyewitness reports and investigative reports
- Government blocking of investigation, interviews and failure to release confiscated security tapes

This tells me that the government IS trying to hide something... but to say they did it is going too far in my opinion. To say they let it happen and invited an attack is plausible, but not proven. The point is, we just don't know a lot at this moment.

We can only look at the hardest evidence and dig deeper from there.

For a factual and dispassionate presentation on the hardest evidence concerning the 9/11 coverup, have a look at David Ray Griffin's "Truth and Politics". It's one of the best documentaries I've seen on the subject.

-Erik

Tvwriterguy,

- Bush knew about Katrina in advance. He said he didn't.
- Bush claimed he didn't want war with Iraq. It's now clear that he flew UN planes over Iraq to draw fire from Iraqi's, and that he set the date to invade Iraq way before his ultimatum was over, saying that it didn't matter whether WMD's were found or not.
- 9 countries warned America that hijacked planes would be flown into crucial targets in the United States, including Russia, France, Great Britain and Germany.
- On 9/11, NORAD didn't respond.
- Some people were warned in advance not to fly on 9/11....

Do you *really* think this administration has honesty and integrity in high regard? I'm not saying that orchestrated it, but they *are* to blame.

Yes.

It seems highly unlikely that the planning of such a highly organised attack could have gone completely unnoticed by all of the security services.

And whilst Bush might be a class A eejit, Cheney and his neocon mates are not.

If you watch Michael Moore's expose (was it Fahrenheit 911), and ignore his obvious manipulation (which only shoots him in the foot in my opinion), there is good info in there. Eg. the links between government and oil (how convenient - considering the latest spate of US imperialistic war is quite obviously about oil), very strong links to the Saudi royal family, who were all shipped out in the days following 911, and the whole Haliburton corruption - which seems to continue flagrantly in public view and yet this government still gets another term in office - WEIRD!

(Ditto here. Labour government not exactly got a clean slate, but still manages to get re-elected)

Whether there was, or whether there wasn't any involvement of the government (or other departments) in creating or allowing 911, they've certainly used it to their advantage. It has certainly been a good excuse to go after the "axis of evil" aka oil producing countries unfriendly to christianity and "democracy" a la neocon, with not a huge amount of resistance from joe average.

George Bush and Tony Blair - 2 devout christians - going to war against islamic countries with significance in terms of the distribution of gas and oil, in an age where peak oil and gas have been reached, and both countries are now net importers of both - it's all just a little bit too convenient, isn't it? And what does that say for Christianity?

(Oh no - hope this doesn't start another flame war. Mind you - rather a war of pixels than bombs)

I thought something weird was going on as soon as I saw the 911 disaster on the news.

Jane

Watch these...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

And...

http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/WMV/
Power_of_Nightmares.wmv

I don't believe I brought any of those subjects up. I never claimed bush was above the games all politicians play, I merely brought up facts. So sure, bush tried to cover his ass over Katrina. He had a hardon for Saddam. So yeah you could easily argue that Bush used 911 as an opportunity to remove the man who put a contract on his father's head and liked to pepper his speeches with "Death to america." I was never gung ho on invading iraq. I personally wanted us to get bin laden first.

This is actually in dispute. Only a couple countries have confirmed that they passed on this evidence. And every country I saw has since admitted that the info was considered very suspect and unreliable. But the fact is it turned out right.

Then there's the idea of so what. Even if we were warned (as clinton was warned about WTC back in the nineties) what could be done? Very little without an entire revamp of the way things were done in washington. Remember. The administration had been in office for 8 months. Nothing substantial is done in 8 months in Washington.

Plus... the pre-911 mindset wouldn't have permitted the security measures put into effect after 911. It would not have been tolerated by the american public pre-911.

And using this logic, Blair is to blame for the London bombing, and the administration in Spain is to blame for their subway bombing. Both of these had fair warning also.

And on a side note... Let's not also forget that just because other countries say something, doesn't mean it's true. Russians, Brits and Italians also told us Saddam had WMD's. Even till today, Putin's response to the WMD question states that while he's completely 100% against the war, he and (a direct quote) "everyone knew Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructions." '

So, just because another country says something, doesn't mean it's true.

Entirely not true. Read the popular mechanics report. In short, Norad's mechanisms to scan the skies pointed out, not in, at the time. No one was expecting this type of attack.

Please point me to something more than some bigots blog on this. This is the story the Arabs were putting out there. I'd like one piece of evidence to prove it.

Two different issues. I think this administration has honesty and integrity in as high a regard as any administration in my lifetime. Jimmy carter pledged before taking office that he would "never lie to the american public." He said in his book that he was in office for 10 minutes when he realized he wasn't going to be able to live up to that pledge.

As for blame, you could (if your goal was to place blame) put it on Bush. But you'd also have to put it on...

Clinton - who declined to take Bin Laden when Bin Laden was offered to him by (I think it was) the Sudanese. While the spin doctors on the left now claim this is not true, I heard Clinton interviewed when this story first broke a couple years ago, and he plain admitted he didn't take Bin Laden because he didn't know what we could do with him legally. Even though the man admitted to attacking the cole.

And some even want to blame Reagan for arming and training the Afghanis against the russians (although the truth is that Bin Laden was never part of any group our people had anything to do with.)

So if you want, sure... put it on Bush. And putt WWII on FDR. And put the first attack on the WTC (and the subsequent nonchalant attitude following it) on Clinton. Put the Iranian hostage crisis on Carter and anything else you want.

While some want to speak with their personal politics in the mix, I'm merely talking about facts. Bush was not my choice for president. I wanted mc cain. I don't agree with around half of what he has done. I am by no means a bushie. But I calls it as I sees it. And I have read a lot on this topic.

BUSH IS TO BLAME... in that any president in office when we're attacked, has to put some blame on his own shoulders. His job is to protect us and for 3000+ americans he failed. So yeah, in that way it was his fault.

Erik, no offense intended (maybe some envy, but no offense), but from looking at your picture I don't think you're old enough to remember anyone pre-clinton. This gives you a very narrow real life view of american presidential politics.

And I want to emphasize. (I can't emphasize it enough) I AM NO BUSHIE.. I VOTED FOR CLINTON, AGAINST BUSH'S FATHER. THEN VOTED AGAINST CLINTON IN 96. THEN SINCE I'M AN INDEPENDANT I COULDNT' VOTE IN THE PRIMARY IN 2000, BUT WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR MCCAIN.

I'll watch the documentary. It looks interesting, but the first link is a typical theorist with no evidence. The screen caps he claims are not bin laden are very poor and even so, in the first photo (the semi-profile) it's obvious it is bin laden.

Thanks for the links though.

I'm young, but I follow politics pretty closely. I look at politics like Brzezinski does: like a Grand chessboard (You should really read this book by the way, it's golden). He's a Bush advisor and currently a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

To me, politics is the allocation of means and resources through the process of power. It has always been this way. The founding fathers struggled with these issues and we still do today. The difference between this administration and say the first few administrations in US history, is that there has been a gradual loss of ethics.

Ethics are the moral borders that keep politics in check. A people with high moral standards will hold their leaders accountable.

There has never been a more incompetent and scandal-infested government than this one. They almost completely lack ethics. They lie without shame or accountability. The play politics merely for the sake of power.

This, to me, says something.

It says that they're not interested in anything other than the increase of power... and see their actions as means that justify the end result: more power.

Afghanistan was the pipeline war.
Iraq was the oil and geopolitical war.

More will follow. And the people behind this administration will remain active in pursuing a grand goal: To increase and preserve American dominance, and the goals of the economic and political elite.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is bad. In my previous post, I told you about documents now released that says this administration painted US planes in UN colors and flew them over Iraq in hope to draw fire. They're baiting their own people in order to drag the UN into war.

It's a small sign, but it shows that they're willing to sacrifice the lives of others to gain political power for a war. Of course, the more major signs are all over the administration. The Plame affair is just one example of willingness to risk lives for political gain.

About NORAD:

There was almost an hour between the first WTC crash and the Pentagon crash. The Pentagon also has a missile system protecting them from air attacks. Why did both these security systems fail? After almost an hour of knowing the country was under attack, they still couldn't send fighters to intercept the pentagon plane?

If you're saying that they didn't know we were under attack, you can substract 15 minutes until the second plane hit the WTC. That still leaves well over 30 minutes. Response time for Washington should be about 10. And for the record, usually they respond as soon as a plane diverges from its course. For more, check this:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/t..._dayof911.html

If you're curious about why so many doubt the official story, here's a few good examples:

- Look at Flight 93. Look at the crash site and then compare it to other airplane crash sites. There's no plane there, only small scraps. According to one eye witness: It was like someone dug a hole and backed a truck full of scrap metal into it. Others confirm never to have seen anything they could recognize as a plane.

This doesn't mean that was what happened. Maybe it did. But it was either that or it was blown up in some way. Maybe shot, maybe it carried bombs (like some claim the other airplanes were too). Either way, the official story completely lacks any explanation and refutes that it was shot down.

- WTC Building 7 is interesting. Silverstein said they "pulled it, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." He responded a while ago saying "it" refers not the building but a contingency of firefighters in the building. Personally, I don't buy this.

- Loose Change 2nd edition contains new photo evidence of airplane parts in the pentagon. Until now, the theory was that maybe an airplane didn't hit the pentagon because there were no wings visible, no fuselage, nothing, and the hole was much too small. The new photo evidence shows engine parts and wheel caps... BUT, they don't belong to a 757. Watch the documentary on video.google.com

- Lastly, if you want a good discussion of the official story, also look up David Ray Griffin's "Truth and Politics". He's a scholar and you'll like his calm discussion of documented material surrounding 9/11.

Hours after the attacks the FBI supposedly released the names of all 19 hijackers. A day later, 7 of them called the media and told them they were alive and well and living in their respective countries.

That's anamoly #1 from dozens.

Now Erik mentioned the US already planned the war in Iraq. (Clue: 0/19 hijackers were from Iraq). I believe this 100% and I also believe they have done the same with Iran which controls the 4th largest energy reserves in the world.

Justifying aggression under the pretext of freedom and democracy is an insult to those very same values. 2 million people were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide in 94 and the US didn't send any troops to 'liberate' the people.

Saddam Hussein has been in power for over 30 years and only the current Bush administration had the enlightenment bestowed on them (he talks to God remember) to remove him.

I don't think for a second we should believe a word this administration says. They are certified liars. They initially lied and denied Abu Ghraib. The photos were released and they were caught with their pants down (no pun intended). They lied about torture in Guantanamo Bay. Then they admitted it. They lied about the weapons of mass disappearance. They lied about chemical weapon use in Fallujah only to have two Marines who participated in the assault go on international TV and state ‘beyond doubt’ chemical weapons were used.

So given a history of lies and half-truths there’s no good reason to accept their version of what happened on 9/11. And withholding information, security tapes and anything else only undermines their efforts to look credible.