News facts, as mentioned below, do not align with the findings of the 9/11 commission report, which is strange since the objective of the commission was to deliver \\\'the fullest possible account\\\' of the events surrounding 9/11. Forums such as this one are universally hostile to any question of a cover-up by the government. The \\\"official story\\\" has a counterpart narrative which is far more credible, based on mainstream news articles alone.

1) No preventive measures were taken by the US Government prior to 9-11 after receiving very specific warnings from own intelligence agencies, the German, French, Jordanian, Israeli, Russian, Britain\\\'s, Egyptian and Canadian governments Also FBI translator Sibel Edmonds states: \\\'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaida would attack cities with airplanes\\\'.

2) The head of ISI Pakistani Intelligence, Mahmoud Ahmad funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta just prior to the attacks on 9-11. Moreover he was in Washington DC with CIA and FBI heads during the week of 911. ( http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html )

3) CIA Head of Station meeting with Osama bin Laden in an American Hospital in Dubai several times in June 2001. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...584444,00.html )

4) Ranking Pentagon officials canceling travel plans for morning of 9/11. Also San Francisco\\\'s Mayor (Willie Brown) being warned on 10 September not to fly the next morning.

5) Several war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01. NORAD (as of 9-11) having already planned an upcoming exercise involving a simultaneous hijacking scenario. FAA bans takeoffs at 9:26 am for all civilian, military, or law enforcement aircraft ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...174912,00.html )

6) Bush Administration vigorously opposing Congressional Hearings that might investigate details relating to the attacks on 9-11. More suspiciously Bush/Cheney only agree to testify without an oath, in private, without note-taking.
( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/ )

7) Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were deliberately destroyed. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true )

8) Sn. Mark Dayton, investigating 9/11, saying publicly that NORAD \\\"covered up truth\\\" and \\\"lied to the American people\\\" ( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...521846767-3035 or on video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...13291572630132 time 00:00:30 )

9) Fire Engineering stating that the investigations were \\\"corrupted by political forces\\\" and called the investigation sanctioned by FEMA a \\\"half-baked farce\\\". ( http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...ICLE_ID=131225 )

10) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would assert that Cheney called him earlier in the day to urge him to avoid an inquiry into 9-11. ( http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI....terror.probe/ )

11) 9/11 panel criticizes Defense, Justice dept\\\'s for not cooperating fully and CIA, FBI for intimidating witnesses. ( http://web.archive.org/web/200308290...0708_1993.html )

12) Dept. of Defense changes hijacking rules, few months before 9/11, which states that for all non-immediate responses, assistance from the DoD must get approval from the Secretary of Defense who is currently Donald Rumsfeld ( http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjc...i/3610_01a.pdf )

13) Large number of \\\"put\\\" options are placed on American Airlines stock betting that the stock price would fall. ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...-SearchStories and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9/MN186128.DTL )

14) Jeb Bush activating the National Guard four days prior to the 9-11 attacks. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=25051 )


15) FBI agents publicly complaining that their efforts to track and investigate Al Quaida agents in the US were being blocked ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm )

16) President Bush issuing Executive Order 199-Eye demanding that all investigations of Osama bin Laden\\\'s relatives cease ( http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/200...ws_story3.html )

17) Two employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service, received e-mail warnings of the attack two hours before the first assault on the WTC (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/se...etz_odigo.html - cached)

18) attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui\\\'s computer ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...oussaoui_x.htm )

19) Not one of the perpetrators (19 in all) was caught on videotape before boarding. Atta was videotaped boarding a flight in Maine. Also the alleged video of Hani Hanjour doesn\\\'t look like him at all.(compare these images http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo...7/13512460.jpg with http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/...anihanjour.jpg )

20) White House staff given Cipro, before first cases of anthrax reported. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...201158_000.htm )

21) President Bush\\\'s phone logs on 9/11 don\\\'t exist mysteriously. \\\"The President was cut off,\\\" panel chairman Thomas Kean said later. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-176138c.html )

22) 7 of alleged 19 hijackers are reported alive, moreover FBI Director admits some identities are in doubt. ( http://web.archive.org/web/200109272...101probe.story and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1558669.stm and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...784541,00.html)

23) Bush mentioning \\\"I don\\\'t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don\\\'t care. It\\\'s not that important. It\\\'s not our priority.\\\" ( http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/003691.html )

24) Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S. The powder used in the anthrax attacks is virtually indistinguishable from that produced by the United States military, according to federal scientists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/na...odaysheadlines )

25) All 4 hijacked planes were well below normal passenger loads, averaging only 27% full. ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/9...jack091101.htm )

26) Sept 10 - FEMA deployed to NYC, arrives night before attacks in downtown Manhattan. ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/oth...d05_22_02.html )

27) undamaged passport of one of the perpetrators (Satam al-Suqami), surviving the fire at wtc ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/1...ism/index.html )

28) Hani Hanjour couldn\\\'t fly a single engine Cessna airplane but was able to navigate a commercial jet .( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...hijackers.html )

29) Mayor Rudolph Giuliani bans all video and photography at Ground Zero for unknown reasons. ( http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm )

30) Three low flying white planes where spotted at each terror location. (plane image at wtc http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JetDixon4.pdf , image at pentagon http://www.loosechange911.com/img/ev...pentagon54.jpg and witness reports at Pennsylvania http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm

31) Video recordings of pentagon strike from adjacent businesses were immediately seized by the FBI.

32) Alleged Flight 175 hijacker pilot Marwan Al-Shehhi reportedly leaves behind Boeing 757 manuals, east coast flight maps, an airplane fuel tester, and a protractor in his hotel room. However Flight 175 was a Boeing 767. ( http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories...124-7402.shtml )


33) Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III, the president\\\'s brother, involvement with the security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. Security contracts for the WTC complex ended on 9-11-01.

34) Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC 7, signs a 99-year lease for the rest of the WTC just six weeks before the attacks. ( http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003...6_person.shtml )

35) US pulls the plug on Muslim websites on 9/10/01. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...253580,00.html)

36) secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified for the 9/11 commission about a young man asking Cheney \\\'...do the orders still stand?\\\'. This must have been a stand-down order.

37) Excessive financial transactions totaling more than 100 million dollars that electronically passed through the World Trade shortly before the strike ( http://www.wanttoknow.info/011218reuters.orig and http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/in...arddrives.idg/ )

38) FBI says it has \\\"No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11: http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13664.htm

39) The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets among WTC. ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm )

40) Military chief Myers states: \\\"the goal has never been to get bin Laden.\\\" ( http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip..._t407genm.html )


41) fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene.

about the 9/11 report itself:

42) the 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101300.html )

43) The official report of the 9/11 Commission does not address the collapse of WTC7; an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain.

44) The Report did not include key testimony by secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta

45) The Commission\\\'s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives, and claims: �that after all is a matter of no great importance�.

46) the report\\\'s time-line of the event on 9/11 is the third official change of these time-line.

47) The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was \\\"a hollow steel shaft\\\", a claim that denied the existence of the 47 steel columns.

48) no mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance

49) The omission of Gerald Posner\\\'s account of Abu Zubaydah\\\'s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks

50) The Commission\\\'s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar\\\'s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives

Funny you should leave the link out from some of your supposed facts, like this baby here:

As for this one:
Isn't this standard procedure at any crime scene? At least it should be.

So they should've just left the rubble at Manhattan and call in David Caruso?

And finally:
Doesn't the second fact pretty much contradict the first?

edited for typo

Talk about spam. So just gather it all up in one post and toss it out and if every, single one isn't debunked to your satifaction, you win. Ok, you win. Now what?

Does anybody really think the towers had hollow steel shafts? It was a bunch of steel beams, we all know that. Hardly some dark secret. Perhaps you wish to argue verbage?

Editation: I got to ask this - If it isn't included, how do you know it was key testimony? What would Meneta have to offer? Was he there, anywhere that mattered? FAA Policy maybe? Perhaps, hardly key testimony though. More breathless conspiracy mongering.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

toulouse, shotgun style lists aren't terribly helpful. I glanced at a few and gave up after that. I did find this amusing:

Wow, that would be pretty astounding, but checking the reference, I found:

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
[snip]


This is an allegation based on what a newspaper says it got from somebody in French intelligence. That is hardly convincing evidence.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This is -new- evidence? All I'm seeing is the same old same old that has been debunked numerous times here.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The initial source was from Le Figaro. Actually both the French and UK news agencies are both very respectable.

You seem to question their source of information,yet the source of the 911 commission you seem to be accepted without questioning that.

This thread wasnt meant as a hit & run post, but just to summerize a list of news items that questions the findings of 9/11, and to debate or debunk them for the same.

Of course, I can not defend any of the articles mentioned, becuase I have not written them myself.

Nevertheless, there are many articles that do raise the questions about the official story.

I do not see how you can debunk news reports,unless some of them are simply wrong. Should that be the case, I welcome that as long as you provide a source which debunks that.

for instanse, the war games (item 5) itself is no proof itself of complicity, but it is strange that they are not mentionedin the 911 commission, but is interesting because it is very strange that game-scenarios about hijacking planes happened together with real-hijacking. What are the chances of that happening?

Many are wrong, or parts of them manipulated to more than they were. Take the 7 alive hijackers. It's been shown that many of the so called alive hijackers were people with the same names as the hijackers, or similar names, though in one case the FBI got the wrong photo and once that was determined fixed the problem.

The War Games is another case. There were no Hijacked Planes wargame. This was caused by one person getting the wrong name of the war game that was going on. This was a simulation where a lear jet had crashed into a building shortly after take off. In the CT world this confusion became hijacked planes crashing into buildings.

How about the destroyed ATC tapes? They were destroyed because of privacy issues and that descision was made by one of the managers of ATC. Really they shouldn't have been made in the first place, but all they were was the ATC's understandings of what occured during the incident.

Marvin Bush was no longer a director on the board of the security company in question re Dulles Airport and the WTC. Not only that but their contract ended several months before 9/11, not the day before.

The passport surviving the crash wasn't the only thing to do so. If you go and look at the evidence released from the ZM trial, you'll find vairious objects that somehow survived, including a Saudi Driver's Lience from the crash of flight 93. Other items were found that survived the Pentagon and WTC crashes either intact or partially intact.

The ruins of the WTC were removed quickly because they wanted to reopen downtown Manhatten. That and any real crime scene had been destroyed, the planes were the crime scene not the collapsed towers. This is a smoke creen by the CT's in making this claim. That and FEMA and NIST and several others have had not problem getting samples of steel as they required them.

I am sure that if you look through the various threads about 9/11 here you'll find that most of these things have been answered, if not, then feel free to open a discussion on them.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The problem with these so-called 'lists' is most folks don't even do any investigation themselves to verify it before they post them all over the internet. The 'alive' hijackers, for example.

This site http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html gives a very logical explanation of that. Does it really make sense that the all-powerful evil American government would pick 19 random Saudis who could simply see their name and come forward and blow the whole thing?

There are many more 'smoking gun' reasons on that list that are either false, half truth, or out-and-out propaganda. If you find even ONE item on your list that is not legitimate, doesn't it make you want to actually do some real investigation for yourself instead of letting others think for you?

Further, if you actually took all the bogus information out of your list, it would be very small and more easily debated.

If news items are wrong, I will accept them,and am open to new interpretations.

yet you mention:

So in that case I would like to have a source. Moreover reading this part, I think it is odd that privacy issues overrule crime investigations. So what privacy issues where at stake?

example item 2, which says that money was funneld to Atta through ISI . Why did the 911 report mention that in fact -found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives-.

So who is wrong, the times, or the commission?

What I do not understand is, that the CTs argue against the removal of the debris of the WTC. There were dead people in there that could partly not be recovered. If they hadent removed that pile those bodies would have started to decay in mid of Downtown Manhattan.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

So in that case I would like to have a source. Moreover reading this part, I think it is odd that privacy issues overrule crime investigations. So what privacy issues where at stake?

Dicussed in this thread The main consern seems to have been that the controllers were stressed and the tape later could have been made public which would have put the controllers under public scrutiny. This is a privacy issue, remember these guys weren't being interviewed by the FBI or Police, but were having a discussion about what happened with a manager and union rep. How would you like one of your tense and stressfulled work meetings being exposed to the public, played over and over on TV, and then you being made accountable for everything you said in it?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

toulouse, I suggest you check out 911 Myths as many of the points are answered there with their sources. I note the the alleged payment was brought up here in a short thread, but haven't found much on it yet. If I find more I'll let you know.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

News facts, as mentioned below, do not align with the findings of the 9/11 commission report, which is strange since the objective of the commission was to deliver \\\'the fullest possible account\\\' of the events surrounding 9/11.

First, you are assuming that everything that ever appears in a newspaper or on a conspiracist web site is absolutely accurate, and that initial news reports and eyewitness accounts are never mistaken. Second, every one of these "facts" which is verifiably correct has an explanation other than "massive US Government conspiracy."

Forums such as this one are universally hostile to any question of a cover-up by the government.

No. Most regular posters here are "universally hostile" to extraordinary claims for which little or no real evidence is presented. This happens to include every conspiracy theory we've ever seen.

The \\\"official story\\\" has a counterpart narrative which is far more credible, based on mainstream news articles alone.

First, I note that many of your "news articles" either lack any sources at all, or are taken directly from conspiracist web sites. Second, few if any of the items presented actually contradict the September 11 Commission report.

I'm likely to end up regretting this, but I'll respond to your points in groups of ten.

1) No preventive measures were taken by the US Government prior to 9-11 after receiving very specific warnings from own intelligence agencies, the German, French, Jordanian, Israeli, Russian, Britain\\\'s, Egyptian and Canadian governments

Here is one of the more well-known "very specific warnings" from the President's Daily Briefing, August 6, 2001.

From a slate.com/MSNBC article:

Also FBI translator Sibel Edmonds states: \\\'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaida would attack cities with airplanes\\\'.

a) Edmonds was a translator, and not an intelligence analyst, and therefore would not necessarily have been in a position to evaluate the credibility of the documents in question; b) she was hired after September 11, 2001, so any first- and secondhand opinions of hers about the information available must necessarily be colored by hindsight; c) she claims to have been fired for whistle-blowing unrelated to the September 11 attacks, and has attempted to sue the US Government, which calls into question her objectivity; and d) the fact that certain government employees might have possessed information that could have indicated the attacks were imminent does not prove that that information was properly correlated and evaluated ahead of time. See here and here for more information. Conspiracists love to grossly oversimply intelligence analysis, cherry-picking certain information that might have pointed to a surprise attack, when in fact there was plenty of information that pointed to other possible attacks. This is also very common among those who believe in Pearl Harbor conspiracies.

2) The head of ISI Pakistani Intelligence, Mahmoud Ahmad funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta just prior to the attacks on 9-11. Moreover he was in Washington DC with CIA and FBI heads during the week of 911.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, it is not evidence of US Government involvement.

3) CIA Head of Station meeting with Osama bin Laden in an American Hospital in Dubai several times in June 2001.

Already debunked, as noted.

4) Ranking Pentagon officials canceling travel plans for morning of 9/11.

From a 911myths.com article:


Also San Francisco\\\'s Mayor (Willie Brown) being warned on 10 September not to fly the next morning.

From a San Francisco Chronicle article:

Brown wasn't warned "not to fly" by anyone; he was simply advised to "be cautious" by his own security people.

5) Several war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01. NORAD (as of 9-11) having already planned an upcoming exercise involving a simultaneous hijacking scenario.

The US military conducts exercises all the time. That's how military personnel prepare in case "the real thing" ever happens.

FAA bans takeoffs at 9:26 am for all civilian, military, or law enforcement aircraft

How is this even remotely suspicious?? Further, the ban was only for civilian aircraft.

6) Bush Administration vigorously opposing Congressional Hearings that might investigate details relating to the attacks on 9-11. More suspiciously Bush/Cheney only agree to testify without an oath, in private, without note-taking.

Affirmed consequent. Other possible reasons for this behavior include covering up their or their underlings' perceived mistakes or incompetence, avoiding the release of information that could damage national security, and preventing hostile members of Congress from engaging in "fishing expeditions" into arguably unrelated areas of inquiry.

7) Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were deliberately destroyed.

Already discussed. I'll just add that the controllers were protected by their contract from having to make such tapes; they and their union agreed to waive that right provided the tape was eventually destroyed. How is this even remotely suspicious?

8) Sn. Mark Dayton, investigating 9/11, saying publicly that NORAD \\\"covered up truth\\\" and \\\"lied to the American people\\\"

The Defense Department's Inspector General has concluded that these misstatements were due to honest mistakes. From an article in The New York Times:

Also, Jim pointed this out to you in another thread; why are you repeating the claim?

9) Fire Engineering stating that the investigations were \\\"corrupted by political forces\\\" and called the investigation sanctioned by FEMA a \\\"half-baked farce\\\".

And, as you conveniently ignore, because it doesn't help you proclaim a conspiracy, the article claims that what was being covered up was inadequate fire protection; not "controlled demolition" of the buildings.

Further, the NIST investigation was far more comprehensive than the FEMA/ASCE investigation. Note also that fire engineering professionals have no problem accepting that the buildings collapsed due to impact and fire damage, with no help from explosives required.

10) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would assert that Cheney called him earlier in the day to urge him to avoid an inquiry into 9-11.

Again, affirmed consequent. See response to point 6) above.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I'll second that Fire Engineering does not support any CT position. (I have a subscription.)

The problem with posts like toulouse's is that it's easy to throw out dozens of half-truths, misrepresentations, insinuations, quote-mines, and flat-out falsehoods, but it takes much longer to carefully refute them. Such high-volume word dumps are a staple of conspiracists, Apollo hoax believers, and creationists.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Toulouse, you've simply cribbed this list from any of a couple dozen 9/11 conspiracy sites that reproduce them verbatim. I'm inclined to believe you've done absolutely no homework yourself on any of these points, much less expended any more thought than it took you to cut and paste them.

I'm simply not interested in being told that I'm a sheep for accepting the 9/11 Commission's report implicitly and entirely (which I do not do), when the arguments you present are simply the standard cut-n-paste crap that contains many long-debunked and simply erroneous claims. You have absolutely no basis for suggesting that we have a burden or obligation to explain away all these points.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Toulouse,

Je suis d'accord avec le Jay et les autres ici. Ceci n'est rien nouveau - vous traitez des experts ici, les gens avec l'éducation d'université. Si vous voulez commencer à prendre ces points, faites un à un si. Mais vous devrez défendre chaque point individuel en détail, pas juste sites (what's French for website?) de CT de citation. Bonne chance!!

__________________
Okay, okay, Mr. Contractor...you can have an extension of time under clause 25 but forget the consequent direct loss and expense under clause 26 - I mean, hell, I thought it was obvious that the foundations went under the walls but there you go.....

...now, I need a clause 13A quote for C4 coated rebar, please.

Gary Sinise, isn't it? David Caruso's in Miami.

Look, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that everything on the list is true. It manifestly isn't; you have had this proven to you repeatedly, whether you'll acknowledge it or not. But let's pretend, shall we?

How does any of it disprove the Big Frickin' Plane theory? All the motive and suspicious behaviour in the world does not show that Big Frickin' Planes didn't crash, one each, into the towers of the World Trade Center, start Big Frickin' Fires, and cause the collapse. Do you understand this? To attack the "official story" of the collapse, you must attack the mechanics of the collapse--and you can't. Why not? Because two planes crashed into the WTC, one into each tower, one of live television in front of millions of viewers. There is no even remotely logical refutation of that. Each crash caused enormous fires, also caught on live television. There is no even remotely logical refutation of that. And when buildings fall, they tend to pancake. There is no even remotely logical refutation of that.

So. The three salient points cannot be refuted with logic, so they are confused with rhetoric. And you wonder why we don't believe you?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

No no no. Gary Sinise in the Apollo 13 and we all know (ahem) that Apollo was a CT so he's in on the plot! Mind you, is Caruso not embrolied in some kind of dodgy fake death of his own brother...........

Oh wait a minute, that's make believe - rather like most CT rubbish.

__________________
Okay, okay, Mr. Contractor...you can have an extension of time under clause 25 but forget the consequent direct loss and expense under clause 26 - I mean, hell, I thought it was obvious that the foundations went under the walls but there you go.....

...now, I need a clause 13A quote for C4 coated rebar, please.

29) Mayor Rudolph Giuliani bans all video and photography at Ground Zero for unknown reasons. ( http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm )

OK, then:

a) Why are there so many photos and videos of ground zero?
b) Why is the primary source a Boston newspaper? Couldn't they find the announcement in the Post or the NYT?

b) Probably has something to do with the Curse of the Bambino.

As for the photography ban, here's a bit more about it (and how effective it wasn't):

The policeman yelled at people: "Put your cameras away, show some respect. This is a graveyard, not a place to come and gawk." … "This is a crime scene, no pictures," yelled a third. I did not have my camera with me on that day (September 29), but I had already taken pictures the previous week when people were first allowed to walk to the area around ground zero. ...

I started thinking about these issues specifically in response to the ban on photographs - a very short-lived ban, as it turned out, since later a viewing platform seemed actually to invite photography...

Thus I was at the "Here is New York" gallery when a rescue worker came to donate 200 images he had taken during the three weeks of working there. "All the guys there have cameras with them," he reported.

http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/sfonline/ps/hirsch.htm (emphasis added)

Civilians hoping to take pictures from police barricades a few blocks away from the devastation were warned that cameras and video equipment were forbidden and could be confiscated. Giuliani issued the order Tuesday, saying the site is a crime scene.

The ban did not apply to news photographers.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...h/1064023.html (emphasis added)

So, there was a reason (were reasons) for the ban, but the ban wasn't total or terribly effective.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Unknown reasons? What is so mysterious or conspiratorial about:

That's from the linked Boston Globe (online) article too.

September 26, 2001 is a Wednesday. Since the article does not specify a date for the ban, one can presume that it was issued on September 25 (and a camcorder site has an entry for the 25th that said that the statement was issued "today"). The early Wednesday mention would imply that the reporter asked for comment before filing story.

An action taken out of context to make the conspiracy case?

Many of these are so bad they're not even arguments. Just one example (but I could have chosen several others):
Heads toulouse wins, tails reality loses. Suppose something else had happened with these interviews:

7) Interviews with air traffic controllers were not taped.
Why are they not keeping a taped record of the interviews? That proves there must be a conspiracy!

7) Interviews with air traffic controllers were taped and archived, despite a labour contract forbidding such taping.
Why were the interviews taped when there was a specific agreement never to do this? Someone's going to great lengths to cover something up! Cue the theremin music!

If you decide there's a conspiracy before you start, any evidence at all can be beaten with a stick until it fits.

10) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would assert that Cheney called him earlier in the day to urge him to avoid an inquiry into 9-11. ( http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI....terror.probe/ )

According to the source you provided, Sen. Daschle says that Cheney requested that the inquiry be limited, not avoided. The article also says that Daschle did not agree to limit the inquiry. Do you have any resources which state the final scope of this particular inquiry and/or it's results?

__________________
If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you. - George Bernard Shaw

11) 9/11 panel criticizes Defense, Justice dept\\\'s for not cooperating fully and CIA, FBI for intimidating witnesses.

Yet again, an affirmed consequent for reasons previously stated. Further, you claim that this is evidence that the panel's own report is false. Please explain how a commission's criticism of certain agencies for not fully and freely cooperating in an investigation is evidence that the commision's report of that investigation is false.

12) Dept. of Defense changes hijacking rules, few months before 9/11, which states that for all non-immediate responses, assistance from the DoD must get approval from the Secretary of Defense who is currently Donald Rumsfeld.

How is scrambling fighters to deal with a group of potential suicide hijackings a "non-immediate response?"

To be perfectly clear, here are some relevant passages from the Instruction in question and two referenced directives:

13) Large number of \\\"put\\\" options are placed on American Airlines stock betting that the stock price would fall.

Because American had just announced a great deal of bad financial news. See here.

14) Jeb Bush activating the National Guard four days prior to the 9-11 attacks.

The activation was for training purposes, as clearly stated in the order. The order also indicates that the Guard members must be on active duty during training so that they would be covered under the state's life-insurance program. Finally, if there really was some sinister purpose, why not wait until after September 11 to issue the order? You are clearly just parroting every conspiracist factoid you can find, no matter how tenuous the potential connection to the September 11 attacks.

15) FBI agents publicly complaining that their efforts to track and investigate Al Quaida agents in the US were being blocked

They were blocked for three reasons--fear of compromising ongoing criminal prosecutions, fear of revealing sensitive intelligence sources, and bureacratic inertia. Further, contrary to conspiracist claims, this was happening in 1999, during the Clinton Administration. See here.

16) President Bush issuing Executive Order 199-Eye demanding that all investigations of Osama bin Laden\\\'s relatives cease

You obviously didn't even bother to read the linked articles carefully (and your links appear to be mixed up). According to your own source, 199-eye WF 213 589 is merely the FBI's case number for a certain national security investigation. No real evidence of bin Laden family involvement is presented in the BBC piece; merely conjecture and the opinions of one conspiracist author.

17) Two employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service, received e-mail warnings of the attack two hours before the first assault on the WTC.

From an atNewYork.com article:
Also, even if the messages were actual warnings, how would that be evidence of US Government involvement?

18) attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui\\\'s computer

At the time, Moussaoui was being held on suspicion of immigration violations. In the United States, obtaining a search warrant requires "probable cause." Whether a judge would have agreed that the FBI had such cause to search Moussaoui's computer is debatable. Senior FBI officials may have been hoping to develop additional evidence from other sources before seeking a warrant. Or, they may have had other priorities. From your own source:

19) Not one of the perpetrators (19 in all) was caught on videotape before boarding. Atta was videotaped boarding a flight in Maine.

No. The hijackers of American 77 were recorded as they boarded at Dulles. See here. Logan and Newark lacked checkpoint surveillance cameras.

And, again, how is this evidence of a US Government conspiracy?

Also the alleged video of Hani Hanjour doesn\\\'t look like him at all.

The "alleged video" that you just claimed doesn't exist?? Further, I disagree that it "doesn't look at all like him." Allowing for the poor quality, the difference in viewing angle, and somewhat longer hair, it looks like it could be him.

20) White House staff given Cipro, before first cases of anthrax reported.

Given on September 11, as a precaution, possibly due to an "anthrax scare" in connection with the terrorist attacks, as your own source states. Again, how is this evidence of a September 11 conspiracy?

The rest will have to wait until I get back from GenCon, assuming that I don't have anything more fun to do then, such as have a root canal.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Toulouse, you've simply cribbed this list from any of a couple dozen 9/11 conspiracy sites that reproduce them verbatim.

Are you sure about this? Some of these claims are so bizarre that I don't think I've ever seen them before.

I'm inclined to believe you've done absolutely no homework yourself on any of these points, much less expended any more thought than it took you to cut and paste them.

It is quite clear that Toulouse didn't even bother to read several of the linked articles.

I'm simply not interested in being told that I'm a sheep . . .

I think we decided that the singular of "sheeple" is "sherson."

You have absolutely no basis for suggesting that we have a burden or obligation to explain away all these points.

Well-stated as always, Jay, but I'm concerned about those that might read this, especially as some of the claims are new (at least to me).

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Are you sure about this? Some of these claims are so bizarre that I don't think I've ever seen them before.

Pick a representative phrase and do a Google search on the exact wording. You'll get at least a dozen sites where that claim has been made in exactly the same words and that it's among several of the same claims that appear here. You can do this with any of several of the phrases. I don't mean that the same list appears identically in all locations where some subset appears, but the same claims are being repeated essentially verbatim among the usual suspects of conspiracy sites.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

D'ohh---thought maybe the new book ["Without Precedent"] was being discussed here:

Just one minor thing about the Bin Laden/Dubai thing.

There is an American Hospital in Dubai; that is a fact I can confirm having lived in the UAE from 1999-2003. However, the major hospital for inpatient treatment is the Sheik Khalifa Hospital--and I should know, I compound fractured by left elbow in Dubai in December 1999 (you know you are in trouble when you reach around and you can feel TWO elbows about 5" apart).

I first asked the nurse at the amusement park I was injured at to have me taken to the American hospital (hey, I'm American, right?) but she said they would not have the facilities to operate or take care of this type of damage and I should go to Khalifa. I did and they did a great job of putting my elbow back together. So I have some doubts that an 'outpatient" hospital like the American would have the necessary capability to treat BinLaden.

I would also note that the name BinLaden was not unknown in Dubai; one of the largest Construction companies in the UAE was a BinLaden family organization so it is concieveable that a BinLaden family member (the family name is quite extensive) was at the American hospital and who knows--an American visitor who knew him from the construction trade might have vistied him. Unknown and possibly incorrect, but certainly plausible.

Sorry, I have just seen this story arouynd one time to many, and I wanted to make a remark somewhere on it, and you guys are the lucky Forum to get it.

Press on.

__________________
JayUtah wrote:
The marketplace of ideas ensures that each item is put on display, but does not compel its purchase.