When the "Big Lie" becomes the "Truth" - The Global Research Reader on 9/11

Stop insulting the victims by spreading paranoid nonsense.

We all need entertaining, and your links certainly provide plenty of entertainment, but on this date it's more than a little tasteless.

Perhaps it is you who is insulting the 9/11 victims...

Perhaps you are also insulting all those who have been murdered by the armed forces of the US, UK and NATO as a result of those attacks...

Not to mention that you perhaps also insult the intelligence of all those who have been willing to look critically and seriously into this event...

I invite you to watch three small videos which are my 9/11 favorites and IMO the very best can of worms openers :

The first one features Rudolf Giuliani interviewed live on TV on 9/11and stating he had been told the towers were going to collapse :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCg8Fp8aw8

The second one also features Rudolf Giuliani in which he denies having stated the above, adding that no one could predict the towers would "IMPLODE". Curious choice of word by Giuliani regarding the destruction of the towers, and one that implies controlled demolition :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtvIGyThzxk&feature=related

Finally I invite you to watch this short clip featuring US Senator Mark Dayton filmed during the 9/11 Commission hearings and who express his outrage at repeated and catastrophic failures to respond adequately, to follow established procedures and so on, as well as systematic lies to cover-up those failures, none of made it in the final report which also omits to even mention the collapse in his own footprint of Building 7 :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9KOdEPAQQ

Have nice day...

It's amazing the number of people that must have been in on the job, from the Mayor of New York down to the humble peons who planted the explosive ... and not one, not one of the thousands who must have been complicit, have blabbed. Remarkable really.

The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon


The denial that 9/11/01 was an inside job is nowhere deeper than in the traditional Left and the established Left media. Respected commentators for the Left, such as David Corn of the Nation, pooh-poohed challenges to the official story of the attack, or at most suggested complicity of the Bush administration by pointing to Saudi connections to the Bush family, all while staying within the confines of the official myth of the hijackers, crumbling skyscrapers, etc.

The causes of the Left gatekeeper phenomenon are, no doubt, complex. It may be that, because of their political marginalization, writers on the Left tend to be more defensive about their credibility. Furthermore, many Left publications are dependent on foundation funding, and those relationships may compromise objectivity on conscious and unconscious levels. It is also probable that many left icons are co-opted by covert disinformation programs such as Operation Mockingbird that target the Left media precisely because people expect challenges to the official story to come from that quarter.


Left denial

Researcher Mark Robinowitz devotes much of his vast website to tracking the Left gatekeeper phenomenon. He provides a good summary of the phenomenon of Left denial.


e x c e r p t

title: Denial is not a river in Egypt: 'Not See's,' Nazis and the psychological difficulty in facing
the truth about 9/11

author: Mark Robinowitz


"Both the corporate, mainstream media and most of the foundation-funded "alternative" media have sought to restrict investigative journalism and dissident opinions about the so-called "War on Terror." Since 9/11, the Left media -- including The Nation, Z magazine, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternative Radio -- have shied away from examining the pretext for endless war. They have ignored the national "Deception Dollar" campaign, which has printed over three million DD's listing websites of the independent investigations of 911, despite a massive distribution effort across the country, especially at peace rallies.

Worse, several of these institutions have gone on the attack against independent media and journalists who have done excellent work exposing the lies behind the official stories of 9/11. In the spring of 2002, when some of the material documenting official foreknowledge of 9/11 began to surface in the corporate media, The Nation, Z and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting attacked independent investigators who are piecing together the evidence, instead of helping those who have done the best work."

site: www.oilempire.us
page: www.oilempire.us/denial.html


Hypocrisy Now!

One of the most notable cases of Left denial is that of the respected journalist Amy Goodman and her show Democracy Now!. Goodman has long rebuffed requests that she interview an expert on the subject. Instead she has tiptoed around the core facts of the attack and addressed only peripheral issues, such as the EPA's fraudulent assurances that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe while Ground Zero was still smoldering. Finally, after a concerted campaign by the 9-11 Visibility Project, Goodman featured David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, on her May 26, 2004 show. Goodman pitted Chip Berlet against Griffin, and gave the last word and closing summary to Berlet, who spun the myth that the attack was strictly blowback. Nonetheless, Griffin was allowed to make the case that the attack was an inside job for the first time ever on the nationally syndicated show.

Mark Robinowitz recounts confronting Amy Goodman about her refusal to cover the issue prior to the Griffin interview.


e x c e r p t

title: Amy Goodman's Not-So-Good Coverage of 9/11
author: Mark Robinowitz


"In the fall of 2002, Ms. Goodman spoke in the same room at the University of Oregon during a previous speaking tour. After her speech (which was very similar to her May 2004 speech), I asked her after the event if she would help investigate the recently disclosed story of how the Air Force, CIA, NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office were conducting "war games" similar to 9/11 during the 9/11 "attacks," which were apparently used to confuse the air defense response. She would not reply, and looked at me in apparent fear. It was a particularly strange response considering she had just spoken eloquently about her tremendous courage in reporting on the massacre in East Timor. (The issue of the 9/11 war games on 9/11 has not ever been mentioned on Democracy Now -- and it is likely that if they were, DN would run the risk of losing their foundation funding, which would force them to lay off much of their staff.)"

site: www.oilempire.us
page: www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html


On of the factors behind the reluctance of journalists such as Goodman to give a voice to skeptics of the official 9/11 myth may be their dependence on foundation money.


Cracks in the Wall

Two early exceptions to the Left media's blackout of evidence that the attack was an inside job were the radio shows Guns and Butter and Taking Aim , both of which have prominently featured Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. These researchers focus on issues of historical precedents and economic and imperial motives pointing to the attack being an inside job or false-flag operation. Guns and Butter also made the historic step in January of 2004 of airing an interview with researcher Jim Hoffman on the physical evidence of the demolition of the World Trade Center, whose transcript is posted on 911research.wtc7.net, a site focusing on physical evidence.

The publication of Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, appears to have somewhat eroded the Left establishment's taboo against questioning the attack. Among the endorsements printed on the book is one by Professor Howard Zinn, author of the acclaimed A People's History of the United States. The 9-11 Visibility Project also counts Medea Benjamin, Gore Vidal, Jim Hightower, and Ed Asner among the endorsers of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The work of Steven Jones, a physics professor for 20 years who published a draft of Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? in late 2005, appears to have created still more space for progressives to question the official version of events. In an essay in CommonDreams.org , Ernest Partridge highlights several anomalies that undermine the official version, but gives short shrift to evidence that the attack was engineered.


The 2006 Offensive

The year 2006 saw an unprecedented barrage of attacks by trusted left media icons, paralleling a surge in attacks by mainstream media outfits. The surge is almost certainly a response to an growth in the number of people considering challenges to the official story -- an expansion in part fueled by the increased credibility imparted to such challenges by the work of Steven E. Jones.


AlterNet

In July AlterNet.org published The 9/11 Faith Movement by July Terry Allen, of the Independent Media Institute. The article is yet another straw man attack, failing to disclose any strong arguments for insider involvement in the attack while highlighting red-herrings like the Silverstein's "pull-it" comment.


Dissident Voice

In August, Dissident Voice published Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 by CIA alum Bil Christison. While packaged as a plea to take the "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 seriously, the piece actually appears to be a Trojan horse attack, enthusiastically promoting the Pentagon no-jetliner theory while pairing it with a tepid endorsement of the WTC demolition theory. Christison trots out the usual arguments for the no-jetliner theory, failing to note any of their errors. In contrast, he fails to note any specific arguments for the demolition of the Twin Towers or Building 7.


The Progressive

On the anniversary of the attack, the Progressive published Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already by Matthew Rothschild. Rothschild lauches his attack with sarcasm and ennumerates many positions of "conspiracy theorists" in order to ridicule them, but fails to describe the arguments on which those postions are based. The main argument Rothschild adduces against the theories is the fallacious one that an inside job would necessarily involve a vast conspiracy. Rothschild's attack amounts to little more than a series of fallacies: appeals to prejudice, appeals to authority, guilt by association, and straw man arguments.


Counterpunch

Alexander Cockburn has a longstanding habit of bashing the "conspiracy theorists" in his Counterpunch.org publication. In late 2006 Counterpunch featured a series of three articles by Manuel Garcia, an employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, purporting to explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan penned a biting critique of Garcia's articles in Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist. After dismantling Garcia's "physics", Ryan provides insight into the political and psychological forces that are in play.


e x c e r p t

title: Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
author: Kevin Ryan


"Government scientists get paid to support government policies, particularly in this era of "Bush Science", and clearly Garcia is willing to play along. But why would political news organizations, like Counterpunch, that present themselves as alternatives to the corporate media, promote these false claims?

Consider for a moment the implications of a breakthrough in the truth about 9/11. If the official story about 9/11 is completely false, as it has proven to be, that fact should call into question those media sources who have helped to cover-up the details over the last five years, even if only through gross negligence of the facts. Whether or not collusion with alternative media was involved, if there is a possibility that the neo-cons actually helped in planning or executing the attacks, then the fact that they pulled it off means that Alexander Cockburn and other (ostensibly) liberal leaders might no longer enjoy the "irreverent and biting" superiority that they identify themselves with. It could be very distressing for some of these rebel leaders to realize that instead of "muckraking with a radical attitude" they have spent years meekly bolstering the status quo.

It appears that these kinds of realizations are inevitable, and actually offer us a chance to improve our situation. In the US, we'll soon have more opportunity to notice the default states in which we are expected to accept scientific authority no matter how illogical, and accept a cartoonish political framework no matter how impotent. In the next few months, these opportunities will come like "hot volleys" from Manuel Garcia, providing stark examples of how pretentious "experts", and other types of fictitious, homogenized (ironcrete) leaders give no real alternatives to the problems we've seen in the last five years."

site: 911Review.com
page: 911Review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html


The Psychology of Denial

The reasons for the intense denial about the 9/11/01 attack inside the Left establishment appear to go much deeper than the fact that many of its institutions are funded by endowments like those of the Ford Foundation. The official myth appeals to political philosophies that condemn U.S. imperialism by providing the supreme example of "blowback" -- the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. Researcher August West speaks to this and other psychological underpinnings of the denial.


e x c e r p t

title: Left Denial on 9/11
author: August West


"Denial lies at the heart of this unusual Left reaction. Many activists have looked at the questions, thought about the answers for a bit, and retreated in horror in the face of implications. If the government had foreknowledge and let the attacks happen, or worse, actually took part in facilitating them, then the American state is far more vicious than they could have imagined. And if so, what would happen to them should they vocalize this? Needless to say, this would greatly raise the stakes of political action well beyond the relatively superficial level that even many leftists operate at. It would be impossible to go on living as before, being essentially a spectator whose life is work/shopping/entertainment, with the occasional political rally, lecture or movie to spice things up and make one feel involved. People like that, or even ones more involved with some regular effort at political reform, could no longer feel that the political situation could be changed for the better through small, incremental steps, a 100 year or even 500 year plan. This prospect is thoroughly unsettling, and is easier to deal with if simply dismissed outright. ...

Beneath unconscious motivations also lie some conscious agendas. Those on the Left who have embraced "critical support" for a "limited response" war will no doubt not wish to have their political bankruptcy exposed. But even most of those who oppose the War have nevertheless accepted the notion that the U.S. was attacked by a vicious enemy. For some, this represents an opportunity to promote their moralistic approach: let us respond in an appropriate, moral and non-military manner. Others, such as Chomsky, Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and Alex Cockburn, simply trot out the "blowback" explanation: this horrible attack happened because America has done bad things, has not listened to "us" (wag, wag the finger), and better start changing its policies (as if an empire can be run in a nice way!). Yet others who disagree with war boosters like Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation nevertheless buy their thesis that the war promotes increasing state powers (e.g., making airport baggage inspectors federal employees), and this amounts to a move towards "socialism". If the events of 9/11 were not what they seemed to be, this takes away the chance to promote these political programs, perhaps to even advance certain careers."

page: sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117429.php

__________________________

You say: "The first one [video link] features Rudolf Giuliani interviewed live on TV on 9/11and stating he had been told the towers were going to collapse".

I listened to this and he is clearly referring to the moments before the tower collapsed so it proves nothing. As you say this is one of your favorites I assume the rest are even less persuasive.

... guilty by insinuation.

Actually, it's not new, and it's worthless, but it's never stopped people trying.

The logic of someone like Tom goes like this:

I've been burgled and lost a lot of money;
My next door neighbour has just bought a new car;
Therefore it was my neighbour who burgled me.

There is an article, that is not so bad, on the Guardian blog about the London 9/11 protest by Charlie Skelton, it concludes:

"But here's something I really don't understand: when did it become uncool to ask questions? When did questioners become imbeciles? Who gets to hand out the tinfoil hats? When did it become cool to believe what we're told? In the words of Mr Hicks, did I miss a meeting? When did so many of the cynics and sceptics, so many of the sharpest brains I know (hello Charlie Brooker!) think that the cool thing to do is mock the questioners, and defend the party line. How stratospherically uncool is that? You want to know who's cool? Gareth is cool, Mohsin in the pink shirt is cool, the girl in the pink pants is cool. Charlie Sheen is cool, Julianne Moore is cool, Dario Fo is cool. And today, perhaps for the first time in my life, I'm cool too."

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/sep/11/ground-zero-bbc-protest

A comment above quoted from Mark R's site -- there is a lot of very good stuff there although the presentation is not so enticing -- highly recommended:

 http://oilempire.us/

Yes you are absolutely right saying he reports receiving that warning only moments before the first tower collapsed but no one was supposed to know it was going to collapse moments before it did as he says in the second clip when he denies receiving that warning...

I have a couple more interesting small clips featuring prominent politicians btw :

The first one is Bill Clinton heckled by 9/11 truthers during the 2008 presidential campain. How odd is it that he needs to start his sentence three times when he begins to respond and tries to trade the end of the Iraq war against a new enquiry into 9/11 ? Is there something to hide about 9/11 ?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eVFDY8IN1s

The second one is Bush being interviewed by a TV journalist asking him if the fact that some people suggests that he had advanced knowledge on 9/11borders on political hate speech. Look at his extremely odd reaction to that question. I couldn't find the original vid on its own so it is encapsulated in a longer clip which will serve to show how the 9/11 truth movement has been severely damaged by pure drivel such as reverse speech interpretations etc...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAqtL2VnH5g

Bill Clinton want to cover it up? If it was an "inside job" then the quickest way to get rid of Bush would be to reveal the evidence and impeach him. You're telling us that Clinton is a supporter of Bush/Cheney? Oh, and the moon is made of green cheese ....

As if Clinton and Bush were mortal ennemies...

You did get that one from Noam Chomsky as well ?

Mayor of New York, Bill Clinton, George Bush, the military (NORAD), the fighter pilots, the people who planted the demolition charges ... the list goes on ... and still, after eight years, no one's blabbed, or let anything slip ... oh, of course, Clinton pulls a funny face on TV ... that's it, case closed. Incontovertible evidence, that is.

Your conspiracy theory widens further and further ... not only GWB and the Republicans, but the Democrats too, Whow! Oh, Chomsky said so, did he? Well, that's it. Case closed then.

As they weren't scrambled in time, etc.. to intercept the planes, which is part of what Mark Dayton is outraged by in the one the first vids I have posted.

As for the counter argument of Chomsky the MIT social scientist (read Military Industrial Think-tank for MIT), which you merely repeat, it is very poor IMO.

Why would people involved in such a crime speak about it as they would face a certain death penalty in a way or another for doing so ?

Why wouldn't they talk about it? Ah, a certain death penalty. Because of course the Bush/Cheney/Clinton axis has a team of psychopathic trained killers at their disposal, ready to bump off anyone who utters a word. Hm. But then there's always that hoary plot device, beloved of thriller writers, when he who is about to spill the beans leaves a sealed envelope with a friend/lawyer/journalist marked 'In the event of my death ...'

And in the course of eight years, some will have died of natural causes anyway. And no mysterious sealed envelope has yet turned up in a TV newsroom. Still, there's always time ,,,

The recent death of Beverly Eckert is quite suspicious isn't it ?

She was was one of the few relatives of 9/11 victims who did not accept the government cash payment and was one of the most instrumental person behind the fact there has been a 9/11 Commission, however flawed.

It is known she was not too satisfied by it and it is also known that she was disturbed by the PNAC manifestos. She was certainly one of the persons at the best place to push for a second 9/11enquiry which I am believing she was thinking about, especially after her meeting with President Obama which she was reportedely delighted about.

Well she conveniently died from an airplane crash just a few days after this meeting as you may know... This airplane crash has still to be properly explained I think. Ice buildup on the wings will probably be blamed but no other incident involving this type of aircraft has ever happened despite the fact it is routinely used in much worse meteorological conditions than those where this crash happened.

I can mention two other extremely suspicious recent deaths, the first, unrelated to 9/11, is the recent "suicide" of the madam who leaked the list of her high profile Washington customers, and the other one is the "suicide" of the man blamed by the FBI for sending those Anthrax letters which proved so useful to maintain a constant pressure immediately after 9/11 and until the start of the war on Afghanistan...

And if I am not mistaken there has been a recent stream of deaths by accidents/suicides involving Minot air base personnel where those illegal nuke moves took place not so long ago.

But you will say I am just too paranoid, pathologically so certainly, isnt'it ?

Someone who is not part of the conspiracy dies in a plane crash. Well, proof conclusive, isn't it?

And those sealed envelopes - maybe those who were involved start looking round at these 'suspicious' deaths and thinks, hm, time to put my account in a vault in a bank ...

People die. In eight years, quite a few people die. Incidently, by having your crack team of psycopathic killers at the ready spreads the conspiracy, doesn't it? Thousands upon thousands now ... and still no letters in newsrooms.

And 99% of the theories are utter complete bollocks, and when you point out how bollocks they are, the conspiracy theorists just ignore the point and move onto something new.

Now answer this. Before 9/11, hijackers of aircraft didn't kill themselves or their passengers. They made various demands before or after the aircraft landed. In other words, they were all classic hostage situations. One thing you do not do in a hostage situation is to have lots of people around carrying guns and in uniform. You do not fly jet fighters near the aircraft since you do not want to 'spook' the hijacker. Name me one hijack prior to 9/11 where fighter jets were scrambled towards the aircraft whilst it was in flight. Secondly, it would have been pointless intercepting the aircraft over New York, because if you shoot it down, guess what's going to happen? Oh, look, it's crashed into Harlem/New Jersey/wherever. Thirdly, no one short of the President is going to take responsibility for shooting down an airliner full of Ameican citizens - and there would simply not have been the time for the decision to go all the way up the chain of command and back again. Fourthly, NORAD was a Cold War system, and what was it designed to do? Look for Russian bombers coming over the North Pole, In other words, it looked outwards, not inwards,so from the point of view of airliners over New York, it was irrelevant.

Now I bet every brain cell you've got [which, admittedly is not very many] if you can answer any of those points in a credible fashion. And my prediction? You'll ignore this and post some more paranoid, ill thought out rubbish.

I agree that the field has been littered with utter crap such as "It was not planes but holograms, etc... the list of those is too long and of course I am suspicious that those really behind the attacks have been promoting, facilitating that as to discredit the truth movement in bulk.

Yes, those 9/11 hijacker were so peculiar they didn't even leave a single message anywhere apart from a copy of the Koran and a video on how to fly airplane left in a car park... Can't think about fishiest planted evidence...

All the diversion you attempt about the interception is just bollocks. The fact is that fighter jets weren't scrambled in time or were sent to completely opposite direction which is what Mark Dayton is outraged about in one of the first video I posted above and that you want to forget. All this has not been investigated further as it should have been and completely obfuscated in the 9/11 Commission Report. Why ?

And let's speak about the Anthrax again : who sent those letters which contained Anthrax from a US military lab along with messages such as : "Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great.", and for what purpose ?

According to you all the official version is 100% true and all those who question anything about it are just brainless idiots, is that it ?

I think I have answered it all and exposed you as a troll at the same time.

No attempt to address any of the points.

Usual diversionary tactics of 'Yes, but what about ...' (Koran, anthrax) followed by an ad hominem attack. Classic loon caught on the hop.

Look, mate, it might have been an inside job, but your attempts to portray it as such are as convincing as a detergent advert.

Your previous post is so full of shit...

You wrote : "And those sealed envelopes - maybe those who were involved start looking round at these 'suspicious' deaths and thinks, hm, time to put my account in a vault in a bank ..."

What are speaking about ? Please clarify.

Then, as you dismissed the fact that people could be murdered for speaking or knowing too much, I pointed out several death I regard as very suspicious and told you why. Instead of telling me why you don't believe they were murders you just dismised it all by saying : "People die. In eight years, quite a few people die." All those deaths I have pointed out were all synchrone to certain events. The washington madam dies from suicide shortly after leaking lists of high-profile customers. The FBI anthrax suspect dies from suicide shortly before he is indicted so the case is now closed and he bears the blame for it. (BTW my question about the Anthrax is not a diversion but simply trying to get your opinion on that one) Beverly Eckert dies at the time she has the most chance to push for a second enquiry and the Minot air force base personnel die shortly after the illegal nuke moves which took place there...

As for your diversion about the interception, I can only repeat what I have already said, all your points are 100% moot as the airplanes which were tracked by various radar systems were meant to be intercepted but have not been because of those repeated and catastrophic failures in the chain of command that have nothing to see with anything you point out. They have not been intercepted because some people did not do their job, did not follow established procedures, did not obey direct orders, etc... as pointed out, I'll repeat it a third time, by Mark Dayton during the 9/11 Commision hearings. But you don't wan't to get it, do you ?

Seriously what are the points you made that I did not address as you claim ?

As for the ad-hominen attacks I made against you, you started with those attacks didn't you ? Didn't you say something about the low number of cells in my brain ?

And please note that while I have the courtesy to answer you point by point, you do not do as much it seems...

sealed envelopes: I quote, "But then there's always that hoary plot device, beloved of thriller writers, when he who is about to spill the beans leaves a sealed envelope with a friend/lawyer/journalist marked 'In the event of my death ...' "
If these people know their lives may be on the line, they can take the obvious precautions. And if they've noticed the 'mysterious pattern', maybe they would. But after all these 'mysterious deaths', still nothing's emerged.

Let's stick to 9/11. Beverley Eckert was not a participant. Now, let's suppose, however, that she was some sort of threat to the cover up.They decide to bump her off. An accident in the kitchen? Sabotage her car? No, blow up a f*cking airliner.Now that's a real low profile way of removing someone. And if the crash of an airliner years later, which happens to be carrying someone who was not a participant, is evidence for a cover up, then it's evidence so slender that even Twiggy would be envious.

The airliners. First, the transponders were switched off. Know what those are? So the airliners become another anonymous blob on the screen where there are lots of other anonymous blobs - private aircraft and others who do not carry transponders. Secondly, the issue of fighter aircraft is irrelevant UNTIL THE FIRST AIRCRAFT HITS THE WTC. You do not scramble flighters routinely for a hijack. The second aircraft hit 17 minutes later. In 17 minutes, you couldn't even get a jet fighter off the ground. They do not stand on the end of the runway with engines ready to be turned at the flick of switch like cars.

Established procedures, you say.Okay, what were the 'standard procedures' for fighters in a hijack prior to 9/11? To do nothing. I challenge you again - find me an example of a hijack in the US prior to 9/11 where fighters were scrambled. So what 'standard procedures' were not followed?

They were sent to the 'wrong place', you claim. Where should they have been sent? To the centre of New York? In 17 minutes? Damn good going.

Allright let's speak about the transponders.

First you should be aware that none of the aircrafts sent a hijack code before they were switched off. In case of hijack, pilots are instructed to send a four digit code which is a code saying we are being hijacked. None of the four airplanes did that to the best of my knowledge.

Second any aircraft whose transponder goes off generates immediately a response on the ground. The controllers attempt to contact the pilots by radio and if they can't establish contact they send fighters to attempt to make eye contact to see what goes on while also tracking the planes on radar. This is I believe the procedures which should take place 10-15 minutes after the transponder goes off and the airplane does not respond to radio calls.

And it is not me that is saying that procedures weren't followed etc... I am just quoting Mark Dayton in the video filmed during the 9/11 Commisssion hearings I posted above.

This should answer you I guess.

My turn now : Does the finding of the passport of Mohamed Atta in a street nearby the WTC after the attacks proves he was in the airplane as I believe the US government and FBI contend or does it prove he was not in the plane but has been snatched by some operatives who also planted his passport there ?

So discard the 99%.....

@drive by postings

"Now answer this. Before 9/11, hijackers of aircraft didn't kill themselves or their passengers."

This is true, but the idea that using aircraft as 'missiles' and flying them into buildings was a known threat before 9-11, there were exercises at the pentagon, and Hollywood even made a movie about it, which featured a remote take over of a commercial flight and the target was the WTC.

Here are two examples of many from MSM sources you can find at the excellent History commons.
 http://www.historycommons.org

In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02]

In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]

So obviously just looking at the previous MO of hijackers won't tell you anything about what might happen next. Your 'logic' is flawed.


"People die. In eight years, quite a few people die. Incidently, by having your crack team of psycopathic killers at the ready spreads the conspiracy, doesn't it? Thousands upon thousands now ... and still no letters in newsrooms."

This is a really naive argument, and shows a complete ignorance of how the Ruling Class maintain their power. How a compartmentalised Intelligence operation in a hierarchical authoritarian system works. You need to do some research I think, as you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. As if this argument sustains the Official version of events...

"You're telling us that Clinton is a supporter of Bush/Cheney"

Again you're showing a great deal of naivety. I think most who read these pages understand the puppet show that is western 'democracy'.

"And 99% of the theories are utter complete bollocks, and when you point out how bollocks they are, the conspiracy theorists just ignore the point and move onto something new."

Here is a part of the 1% of the theories that therefore aren't 'complete and utter bollocks'
OK? Ready?

How do you explain the 2.25 second (8 story) 'free-fall' measured during the 6.5 seconds of the 'collapse' of building 7?

"Look, mate, it might have been an inside job, "

It was a false flag operation. Empirically, a controlled demolition.

Peace
Boycott Oil

Read this

 http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_fox_1

Were jets scrambled BEFORE THE TOWERS WERE HIT? yes.

The hijack code has to be initiated by the pilot. Difficult if someone's just cut your throat. "10-15 minutes after the transponder goes off and the airplane does not respond to radio calls". What was the time lag between the transponders going off and the aircraft arriving over New York? The 'wrong direction' myth originated from the fact that when the fighters did leave the ground, they were vectored clear of the main airlanes first - not surprisingly.

Anyway, try this for size:  http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

And for 2% intelligence:

"This is a really naive argument, and shows a complete ignorance of how the Ruling Class maintain their power. How a compartmentalised Intelligence operation in a hierarchical authoritarian system works. You need to do some research I think, as you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance."

Better arguing from a position of complete ignorance than from a position of complete and certifiable derangement.

Although that historycommons link is quite useful.

Arguing from a position of ignorance IS complete and certifiable derangement.

I notice you avoid awkward questions and scuttle off 'sailing'.

Cue Rod Stewart ............

Just to repeat that awkward question

How do you explain the 2.25 second (8 story) 'free-fall' measured during the 6.5 seconds of the 'collapse' of building 7?

Boycot Oil

@drive by posting

You wrote : "The hijack code has to be initiated by the pilot. Difficult if someone's just cut your throat."

Come on dude, before cutting the pilot throat you've got to break in the cockpit, etc...