My Personal 9/11 "Smoking Guns"
These are points I find particularly convincing regarding the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Many of these points are comprised of multiple individual pieces of evidence, so this is in large part a listing of topics, not a listing of individual pieces of evidence.
The majority of these points are generally accepted by the 9/11 skeptic community and I think each of these topics is solid evidence. Everyone, of course, is free to believe what they want about 9/11. However, I think it is extremely naive to think that the official 9/11 story is the ultimate truth. How naive is to think that the huge US government never engages in any dirty tricks? How naive is it to think that the neocons in the Bush administration merely "took advantage of the opportunity" of the 9/11 attacks but did NOTHING active to facilitate what happened?
Debunk all you want, but the question still remains: how confident are you that the government is telling the complete truth about 9/11?
My personal 9/11 smoking guns:
1) the fact that governments throughout history have used false flag terror to manipulate public opinion, and the Operation Northwoods scenario, which contemplated the use of false-flag terror by the US
2) abundant pre-warnings of 9/11, including NORAD drills of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings, terror drills simulating hijacked planes, plane crashing into building drills, warnings from other governments, FBI warnings, 50+ FAA warnings and evidence of insider trading
3) Condoleeza Rice's blatant lie that no one could have anticipated the 9/11 attacks
4) the clear evidence of CIA-Pakistani ISI-Al Qaeda connections, including the wiring of money to Mohamed Atta by the ISI chief before 9/11; the evidence that Al Qaeda (or al-CIA-duh) is not a real organization but rather a propaganda tool.
5) the blatant drug use and generally non-Islamic behaviour of the hijackers in Florida, documented by the media and most extensively by Dan Hopsicker; shady CIA-drug smuggling connections of the flight schools
6) the evidence that many hijackers had doubles; the odd story of the Portland, Maine trip on 9/10; rental car oddities
7) the general improbability of the hijackings being carried out in the manner they were officially carried out with small weapons and fake bombs; the lack of hijack alarms being set-off by any of the eight pilots
8) the lack of Boeing jet piloting skills by the hijackers
9) the lack of any meaningful air defense on 9/11, in clear violation of normal protocol, and the eventual scape-goating of the hapless FAA for the lack of response
10) the complete lack of response by Bush at Booker Elementary when told America was under attack
11) the strangely rapid and smooth collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7; the opinion of scientists that the official story of the collapses did not make sense; the opinion of my wife, who thinks it odd that the WTC towers collapsed completely to the ground after being hit near the top (I consider her an impartial source: she hates that I spend time on this stuff and has not been briefed on the demolition theories).
12) the inability of NIST or anyone else to model the total global collapses of WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7
13) the fact that the collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a perfectly executed controlled demolition
14) the abundant anomalies and irregularities of the visual record of the 2nd hit, suggesting that some or all of the "UA175" imagery is fake-- as documented by Marcus Icke, this blog and other websites
15) the fact that a large jet flew around lower Manhattan between the first and second hits was completely swept under the rug by the media and government; the author of an article on this topic received death threats
16) the fact that the four hijacked HUGE Boeing jets left remarkably little debris, including no black boxes in the case of the WTC1 and WTC2 hits, and the fact that not one picture of a seat or piece of the tail section from any of the crashed jets has been presented to the public
17) the fact that the three planes that officially hit their targets entered the buildings completely, without any significant pieces breaking off (particularly clear in the case of the south tower attack)-- even though planes are fragile and these were substantial buildings built of either thick steel columns or brick, cement and stone.
18) the extreme improbability of the UA93 crash site-- a small hole with almost no plane debris visible, little evidence of fire near the impact site, and very few human remains; the official story that the nose and the wings of the plane smashed apart into tiny bits upon impact, but that 2/3 of the fuselage burrowed 15-30 feet underground, defies physics.
19) the improbable Pentagon approach path and the fact that the attack occurred at a recently fortified and relatively empty part of the Pentagon (that also housed the Army accounting office who had recently reported a huge loss of money)
20) the many oddities/incongruities of the various phone calls from the hijacked flights
21) the presence of apparently planted plane parts at the various 9/11 attack sites, such as the engine part UNDER a construction canopy
22) the anthrax attacks, which used US military anthrax and only targeted the media and the opposition party (Democrats)
23) the invasion of Iraq, which inflamed the Islamic world, clearly should not have been conducted if Al Qaeda was a serious threat
24) the mistreatment and torture of prisoners at Gunatanamo and Abu Ghraib, which inflamed the Islamic world, clearly should not have been conducted if Al Qaeda was an serious threat
25) the complete lack of interest (or utter failure) by the Bush administration in capturing Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri
26) the lack of another terrorist attack on US soil despite the apparent incompetence and corruption of the Department of Homeland Security
27) the inability of the government or media to ever present official flight manifests for the hijacked flights
28) the lack of interest of the FBI in determining who the hijackers were, if many of them had stolen identities
29) the fact that on 9/11, several military drills were being run, including a live-fly NORAD hijacking drill
30) the complete lack of any mainstream media questioning of the government's account of 9/11, and the complete lack of any "pundit" seriously connecting the dots regarding 9/11 or even showing any interest in what happened on 9/11-- suggesting censorship at the highest levels.
31) the almost complete lack of any Democrat questioning the government's account of 9/11 or even questioning the Bush administration's actions on 9/11.
32) the clear desire of the Bush administration, prior to 9/11, to effect regime change in Iraq; and the desire of the Project for a New American Century neocons to have a new "Pearl Harbor"-type catalyzing event.
33) the apparent infiltration of various 9/11 groups by saboteurs, COINTELPRO operatives and disinfo artists; the activities of daisy committees who monitor 9/11 discussion on the internet; the strange killing of Michael Zebuhr, a student ST911.org member
(expanded somewhat 7/20 am, intro added)
(modified and expanded 7/20 pm)
The majority of these points are generally accepted by the 9/11 skeptic community and I think each of these topics is solid evidence. Everyone, of course, is free to believe what they want about 9/11. However, I think it is extremely naive to think that the official 9/11 story is the ultimate truth. How naive is to think that the huge US government never engages in any dirty tricks? How naive is it to think that the neocons in the Bush administration merely "took advantage of the opportunity" of the 9/11 attacks but did NOTHING active to facilitate what happened?
Debunk all you want, but the question still remains: how confident are you that the government is telling the complete truth about 9/11?
My personal 9/11 smoking guns:
1) the fact that governments throughout history have used false flag terror to manipulate public opinion, and the Operation Northwoods scenario, which contemplated the use of false-flag terror by the US
2) abundant pre-warnings of 9/11, including NORAD drills of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings, terror drills simulating hijacked planes, plane crashing into building drills, warnings from other governments, FBI warnings, 50+ FAA warnings and evidence of insider trading
3) Condoleeza Rice's blatant lie that no one could have anticipated the 9/11 attacks
4) the clear evidence of CIA-Pakistani ISI-Al Qaeda connections, including the wiring of money to Mohamed Atta by the ISI chief before 9/11; the evidence that Al Qaeda (or al-CIA-duh) is not a real organization but rather a propaganda tool.
5) the blatant drug use and generally non-Islamic behaviour of the hijackers in Florida, documented by the media and most extensively by Dan Hopsicker; shady CIA-drug smuggling connections of the flight schools
6) the evidence that many hijackers had doubles; the odd story of the Portland, Maine trip on 9/10; rental car oddities
7) the general improbability of the hijackings being carried out in the manner they were officially carried out with small weapons and fake bombs; the lack of hijack alarms being set-off by any of the eight pilots
8) the lack of Boeing jet piloting skills by the hijackers
9) the lack of any meaningful air defense on 9/11, in clear violation of normal protocol, and the eventual scape-goating of the hapless FAA for the lack of response
10) the complete lack of response by Bush at Booker Elementary when told America was under attack
11) the strangely rapid and smooth collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7; the opinion of scientists that the official story of the collapses did not make sense; the opinion of my wife, who thinks it odd that the WTC towers collapsed completely to the ground after being hit near the top (I consider her an impartial source: she hates that I spend time on this stuff and has not been briefed on the demolition theories).
12) the inability of NIST or anyone else to model the total global collapses of WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7
13) the fact that the collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a perfectly executed controlled demolition
14) the abundant anomalies and irregularities of the visual record of the 2nd hit, suggesting that some or all of the "UA175" imagery is fake-- as documented by Marcus Icke, this blog and other websites
15) the fact that a large jet flew around lower Manhattan between the first and second hits was completely swept under the rug by the media and government; the author of an article on this topic received death threats
16) the fact that the four hijacked HUGE Boeing jets left remarkably little debris, including no black boxes in the case of the WTC1 and WTC2 hits, and the fact that not one picture of a seat or piece of the tail section from any of the crashed jets has been presented to the public
17) the fact that the three planes that officially hit their targets entered the buildings completely, without any significant pieces breaking off (particularly clear in the case of the south tower attack)-- even though planes are fragile and these were substantial buildings built of either thick steel columns or brick, cement and stone.
18) the extreme improbability of the UA93 crash site-- a small hole with almost no plane debris visible, little evidence of fire near the impact site, and very few human remains; the official story that the nose and the wings of the plane smashed apart into tiny bits upon impact, but that 2/3 of the fuselage burrowed 15-30 feet underground, defies physics.
19) the improbable Pentagon approach path and the fact that the attack occurred at a recently fortified and relatively empty part of the Pentagon (that also housed the Army accounting office who had recently reported a huge loss of money)
20) the many oddities/incongruities of the various phone calls from the hijacked flights
21) the presence of apparently planted plane parts at the various 9/11 attack sites, such as the engine part UNDER a construction canopy
22) the anthrax attacks, which used US military anthrax and only targeted the media and the opposition party (Democrats)
23) the invasion of Iraq, which inflamed the Islamic world, clearly should not have been conducted if Al Qaeda was a serious threat
24) the mistreatment and torture of prisoners at Gunatanamo and Abu Ghraib, which inflamed the Islamic world, clearly should not have been conducted if Al Qaeda was an serious threat
25) the complete lack of interest (or utter failure) by the Bush administration in capturing Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri
26) the lack of another terrorist attack on US soil despite the apparent incompetence and corruption of the Department of Homeland Security
27) the inability of the government or media to ever present official flight manifests for the hijacked flights
28) the lack of interest of the FBI in determining who the hijackers were, if many of them had stolen identities
29) the fact that on 9/11, several military drills were being run, including a live-fly NORAD hijacking drill
30) the complete lack of any mainstream media questioning of the government's account of 9/11, and the complete lack of any "pundit" seriously connecting the dots regarding 9/11 or even showing any interest in what happened on 9/11-- suggesting censorship at the highest levels.
31) the almost complete lack of any Democrat questioning the government's account of 9/11 or even questioning the Bush administration's actions on 9/11.
32) the clear desire of the Bush administration, prior to 9/11, to effect regime change in Iraq; and the desire of the Project for a New American Century neocons to have a new "Pearl Harbor"-type catalyzing event.
33) the apparent infiltration of various 9/11 groups by saboteurs, COINTELPRO operatives and disinfo artists; the activities of daisy committees who monitor 9/11 discussion on the internet; the strange killing of Michael Zebuhr, a student ST911.org member
(expanded somewhat 7/20 am, intro added)
(modified and expanded 7/20 pm)
posted by spooked at 12:13 AM
9 Comments:
12) the fact that even my wife thinks it odd that the WTC towers collapsed completely to the ground after being hit near the top
Well...THAT seals it for me!!! Talk about definitive concrete evidence.
OMG! You stole my comment.
31.) The fact that you're a moron.
Hi Spooked.
I've always believed the Apollo Moon landings were faked. So your stuff makes sense. The government has form with faking stuff. (Though how Clinton couldn't cover up the Lewinski affair puzzles me somewhat?)
Your 911 experiments inspired me to test whether it is possible for a rocket to land on the moon. I discovered that it's very unlikely.
Funny. Number 6, about the 767 piloting skills. You gave up defending that point yesterday and instead changed the subject to all the other 'evidence'. Yet as soon as nobody's looking it pops right back into your list. Amazing.
No wonder you're all going nowhere.
The point about my wife was based on the fact that she hates me spending time on this stuff and is not into conspiracies-- but she still thinks the WTC collapses were odd. I have spent no time trying to convince her of anything regarding the WTC collapses, but the fact that she still picked up on how unusual they were strikes me as significant. They are my personal smoking guns, after all.
brainuser-- I conceded nothing on this point, I certainly never gave up on it-- I only pointed out that people like you apparently don't want to be convinced of anything that doesn't fit the official government line on 9/11
Are you really a molecular biologist? Or did you just make that up? Seems to me you'd need to know about structural engeneering or something to know about building colapses. And from your idea of how to perform an experiment, I'm gathering you've never had a paper published have you?
Congrats spooked, your lil' blog must be really worrying to someone, somewhere, somehow. The parade of gatekeepers & flock stars coming around to denounce your views, views that are seen by relatively few internet users overall, is the telling part of the tale.
If you're taking flak, then you must be over the target.
Too bad that I can't legally send to your supposedly free country, a fine hand-rolled, Montecristo Robusto for you to celebrate.
http://cigars.about.com/od/cubantradeembargo/qt/0062002a.htm
anon-
Seems to me you'd need to know about structural engeneering or something to know about building colapses
one would think so. but when faced with a prof. of mechanical engineering who just happens to be a structural engineer as well it seems to be easier to just ignore what that prof. says, doesn't it?
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
WOW! Like moths to a flame, the Government shills certianly seem to be attracted in droves to this site lately.
Wonder why....
;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home