everyone keeps saying "they"... who are they?

From the middle link above ....

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good! ...

On a serious note.

There are different aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some try to explain who ordered the event and why, some try to explain how the hijackers didn't really exist and some just describe why the building fell due to explosives and other reasons aside from the planes themselves.

As to the actual collapse of the two towers, I am an old structural engineer and material scientist. Much of my career has been spent describing, from the atomic level up, why things fail and how to prevent them from failing. I have much experience in the combination of events, materials, and processes that occurred to bring down the twin towers. Back in the years where I designed buildings I designed millions of square feet of space almost identical to that used on the twin towers.

I am also a pilot. I have made mistakes in both military and FAA controled airspace. From experience, I know how the events that transpired between the planes and FAA correspond to real life.

The "truthers" are morons, liars, trolls, and idiots. Any human that wants to know how the buildings fell has access to the analysis and models that are constantly being reworked by the structural engineering community and the schools that teach engineering. It is amazing to read the papers written by engineering college professors that are just now learning what we design engineers have known for decades. This "learning curve" is good as maybe the current crop of engineer will be taught a little more and be required to learn while doing a little less.

Any person can be ignorant about any given subject. So what? Just because someone who is not a structural engineer and doesn't understand the complexity and math of the topic does not make them stupid ... just ignorant on the topic.

An ignorant person does not know. A stupid person cannot learn.

However, a stupid person is offered the chance to learn and cannot, for whatever reason. In this case the stupid theories of explosives which are so easily discounted as even being within the realm of possibility, are brought out over and over and used with such words as "common sense" or "obviously".

Of course there are the truthers who are actually just political hacks and trolls. The political hacks know the "truther" line on 9/11 is hogwash but see it as a way to attack the Bush administration. After all, if they can just convince a tiny percentage that the leaders of this nation are evil killers of our own population, that is possibly the amount of votes needed to swing a close election.

Then there are the trolls who know nothing but want attention. Conspiracy theorists attract trolls like bees to a field of flowers. They can get attention about a topic of which they know nothing ... but they don't care because they still get attention. They get the opportunity of telling knowledgeable people how dumb they are and generally just show their azzes.
Trolls tend to place EVERYTHING in the "opinion" category because they don't actually know any facts. When facts are required they are quick to make some up or find the most obscure internet source as "proof". They can then EQUATE a knowledgeable opinion to their opinion for equality. They can always "agree to disagree" which, in their mind, calls a "draw" on a topic of which they think they are debating but know nothing.

You have to be among the dumbest humans on the planet to actually believe the "truther" story of how the twin towers fell... in whole or in part. I will give exception to the few people who are just too lazy to take the time to do the tiniest research, ... but that is pretty dumb too.

BUUHA AH AH HA HA!

The term "theory" is NOT owned by the scientific community. As a private investigator we also use that term in solving crimes. So don't distract from the facts with that lame semantic argument about what a "theory" is supposed to be according to scientists.

In the past on many threads I have shown many many facts listing many sources and I have spent more time on the subject than you have. Many of those threads, thanks to you and people like you, were completely deleted.

That was probably what you wanted. You wanted to get the threads deleted so people could not see and know the real facts.

I have researched the people who created the work of propaganda called the 9-11 report and found them to be propaganda experts.

But all of that is off topic. The topic of this thread is the link to the hilarious video that correctly outlines and describes the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY AND EXPLANATION OF 9-11.

Not one thing in that video deviates from the official story, and the official story is the most preposterous theory of all theories of 9-11.

As for "THE COMPANY" I have listed detailed descriptions of what it is and who is involved. THE COMPANY is THE COMPANY who owns the world and owns the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and they are the ones who install governments, overthrow countries, pay the CIA, etc.

The information is available for anyone who wants it but I am not going to do your research for you to post here only to have you mock me with no facts to back up your delusions. I don't really care. It is clear you have chosen what side of the fence you are on and who you defend as if it was your job to do so.

Anyone who wants the truth can have it. You don't want it. You can't handle it, and you are one of them because you defend THE COMPANY because you have worked for them all your life even if you don't know it.

BUUHA AH AH HA HA!

You probably don't want to know. I don't think you want to open that can of worms.

Metalwing said:




I think you should watch the O.P. video again please see if you can find anything in it that IS NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY.

I don't much get into all of the different conspiracy theories about 9-11. There are some good ones and some shills that were created by people who just want to make truth seekers look like idiots. (This is called the disinformation tactic.)

Disinformation is used because THEY (THE COMPANY)have not gained complete control and can't stop the flow of information. So they flood the net with ridiculous disinformation and they actually support some of these radical websites.

They also have shills whose job it is to watch what people are saying and to go in there and spew the official propaganda and try to make fun of and mock the truth seekers and even the people who just want to ask some hard questions and expect some REAL ANSWERS.

I think anyone who agrees with the official story is a moron and an idiot. If people who seek the truth and ask questions are called "truthers" then what are you called? Yes men who believe and repeat everything their official authorities tell them?

I think it is sad when people who ask questions and seek truth and take it upon themselves to investigate when their government has failed to do so, (miserable and pathetically failed) are set upon by the dogs of yes men spewing worn out propaganda and posting rolling laughing mocking heads.

Get over it people. You are not believed.

and what have you studied more than anyone else in here? everyone in here thiks they are right and everyone else is wrong, and NO ONE has really studied anything other than what they see or read on the internet... i'm not trying to insult you or belittle you, but i don't think you know any more about what really happened any more than i do...

THEM!

Cry me a River!

I forgot to add "fruitcake".

I used to be an investigator. I used to live in Colorado Springs. And I have studied things you can't get your hands on via the Internet.

I have a few names I didn't mention also. But name calling is not fact.

Watch the video once again in the O.P and tell me one thing in there that is NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY your government wants you to believe and then tell me that YOU BELIEVE IT.

If you have the guts.

You believe it don't you? LOL

Thought so.

So what have you studied relative to this topic? Used to be an investigator isn't saying much. My cousin is a PI. It doesn't take so much to get a PI license. It is something he does in his spare time.

I, Left Gatekeeper: Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind" sci-fi series read like Shakespeare
Terrorism
by Matt Taibbi | October 1, 2006 - 10:15pm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm



A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of ****-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

"You're just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.

Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.CONT.

I don't have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!
CONT

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
CONT

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
CONT

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd.

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.

Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you've aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal ******** that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.
_______

About author

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

If I thought there was nothing adrift with 9/11 I wouldn't bother posting.

The Question has to be asked of those who accept the Government account.....why do you bother posting?

Codoleza Rice insisted time and time again that no one in the white house knew of a Bin Laden attack nor could have imagined a plane used as a weapon against America. Here she is forced to give the name and detail a report proving she was a liar.

Here she is under oath and forced to tell the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYfl8BjjMCI

Both Bush and Cheney refused to go under oath. I suppose a reasonable person would ask themselves why wouldnt they?

They asked our kids to go off and die and turn american into a survelience state but they will not tell the truth?

Why? Because all those people spouting lies about how the US blew up the buildings is disrespectful to all the people that lost their lives that day.

My thoughts exactly.

but so far you haven't posted one adrift Fact!