Just a question for you three:

What part of the official story (ie: explanation, etc) do you NOT believe?

They dont believe any of it. Thats the scary part.

Well it depends how thorough you're being, some quick ones

• Air quality at ground zero
• Amount of warnings issued to federal authorities pre-911
• WMD in Iraq claims
• Various claims about the strength of al quaeda including mountain strongholds and the like (oh how we laughed)

I don't think there's anything I inherently disagree with about WTC1,2 or 7. I used to believe that flight #93 was shot down and they were covering it up but as the transcripts were played to the family members and FDR data matched the transcript I have no basis to hold this belief.

If you can be a little more specific I'll answer more in depth.

You, e^n, have replied in the exact manner that i expected.

What part of the official story do you disagree with?

How much more specific can I be?

Do you agree with what we have been told has happened 100% or not?

If not, what parts of what we were told do you disagree with?

The ones I listed are immediate ones that come to mind, I don't exactly maintain a complete dictionary of all facts on me at any one time but I can't think of anything immediately I disagree with. Of course there are many many statements made by official sources I do disagree with but I assume you are talking about
1. 911 Commission report
2. ASCE performance reports
3. FEMA reports (excluding anything superseded by NIST)
4. NIST reports
5. PA reports

It's a big topic, and asking "do you believe everything you were told" is too wide a question for me to answer accurately.

Do you trust a report that was lied to by NORAD, was set up to fail, and was directed by Zelikow who essentially wrote the event in 1998?

I'm sorry mang.

That answer is BS and also, exactly what I expected out of you. I wish the other two were here as well.

You three go to great lengths, above and beyond, to play devil's advocate against anyone that disagree's with the "official explanation" of what happened that day. When you are asked what part you disagree with you counter with non-relevent info. Please, the official explanation is very specific. What part do you *NOT* agree with?

It's not a matter of trust, I am aware the 911 Commission had conflicts of interest but the actual evidence they have produced is consistent. I don't trust anyone in the bush administration or anyone associated with them as far as i could throw them but that doesn't change how accurate the report is.

Like I said:

• Air quality at ground zero
• Amount of warnings issued to federal authorities pre-911
• WMD in Iraq claims
• Various claims about the strength of al quaeda including mountain strongholds and the like (oh how we laughed)

These are all things which were publicly lied about and I do not agree with the original statements regarding them.

yes I agree, it is consistant - with the official, scripted myth.

I must admit I don't currently have a hard copy of the report but what is so inconsistent?

You have a problem seeing the bigger picture:

1998: Zelikow writes an article titled "Catastrophic terrorism: Imagining the transformative event". He writes that the towers collapsing would be a new pearl harbour.

2000: PNAC say " The process of transformation is likely to be a long one absent...a new pearl harbour"

2004: Zelikow is director of the 911 commission report.

If you dont see a problem here then we cant help you.

I'm feeling a little better now. not 100% mind you, but definately better.

of course, those are the "easy" things to disagree with.

of course, those are the "easy" things to get anyone who reads this on your side of things.

Look. I'm not trying to downplay anyone that is actively AND effectively playing devils advocate here as you three seem to be doing, but even when thrown what appears to be (to me) rock solid (no, im going to be a bitch and not provide links to what im talking about) evidence to the contrary of the official story you three seem to pop up and debunk it.

I'm mostly just curious as to why you three seem so intent upon bringing this movement down.

It would be awesome if an admin round here could give a "confirmed" or "u r full of sh*t!" to my assumptions that you, gwb and ranb all come from the same/similar IP.

1. I've never seen that 1998 document although I have seen it referred to, do you have a copy?
2. I assume you've read PNAC? The entire document is premised on describing how to conduct the process of transformation without a 'new pearl harbour', if they are trying to propose it they spent a few hundred pages assuming it wouldn't happen
3. I understand there is a conflict of interest here and I don't disagree with that.

You can at least mention what you're talking about rather than claiming it and not backing it up! I have a pretty thorough knowledge of WTC1,2 and 7's failure modes but as to specific details about the Pentagon/93 I am not that well informed.

I have no desire to bring any movement down, I just dislike the idea that people can post 'the official story that the jet fuel melted steel' and not have every member of this forum shouting at them for misrepresenting the official story.

I doubt it, I have logged on to my knowledge from 2 IP addresses as I have a static home IP.

No, e^n, I dont have a copy. It was published in Foreign Affairs. You are not going to get away with pretending it doesnt exist.

Now do you see the problem?

I never said such a thing, I simply want to check that it does mention the towers collapsing as a pearl harbour event. Where do you get this information if you have no copy of the article?

I've mentioned what I am talking about from the start: The Official Story (of what happened on 9/11/2001).

I have asked what part/s you (and gwb_23 and RanB) disagree with.

You have evaded this question by asking me to be more specific. The Official Story is very specific in it's claims and I am asking you what parts d oyou disagree with. To me, that doesn't seem that hard to answer as they (as in, our government) have offered a very specific account of what happened that day.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101faes...new-danger.html

I have listed the things I can immediately think of, there are other minor issues like the evacuation time of the OEM or the mass of the towers etc which are too specific to mention. Suffice it to say I don't disagree with any of the major premises, facts or conclusions in the official story to my knowledge.

Seriously though, this question is like me saying to you:

Darwinian evolution, what parts don't you agree with?

edit:

I've seen the summary, do you have a copy of the full article where it mentions collapse of the WTC?

Do you agree osama was behind it?

Yes, almost undoubtedly.

Are you saying a nuclear bomb wouldnt collapse the towers?

Here's one for e^n.

It is a fact that Bush didn't ask a single question when supposedly told "America is under attack" for at least 15 minutes? It is a fact that Andrew Card didn't expect a response from Bush when he whispered in Bush's ear. It is a fact that Bush's team in the classroom told him off camera "don't say anything yet". It is a fact that Bush's security people thought Bush was not under threat and saw no need to move him.

Why do you believe that Bush was unaware of what was happening when all of this behaviour points to some knowledge of what is happening. After all you'd have some simple questions like "are there any more planes?", "what are we doing about it?" and a few million others.

So tell us e^n, how can you believe that Bush didn't know what was happening?

Could I see the hard evidence?

So, you e^n, believe that our government has not lied and/or elaborated the events of 9/11/2001 in the least?

I doubt you would find a single piece of the towers if a nuke was detonated under them. Are you now claiming that his talk of the 1993 bomb being nuclear is equivilant to him talking about the towers collapsing?

He's an idiot and wouldn't have a goddamn clue what to do if someone gave him a sheet telling him? I have absolutely no faith in Bush and no desire to debate what he may or may not have been thinking.

Well you can start by viewing 'The Usual Suspects' which is available on myspace I believe, there's also The Paladin of Jihad and of course the 'fatty bin laden' video which has been endlessly misrepresented by the truth movement and unfortunately corroborated by people appearing in it.

Not with regards to the events of 9/11 no, they certainly did exaggerate the presence and power of Al Qaeda and most likely tried to hide their involvement in its creation and militarization.

Stop wriggling. He wrote that a larger catastrophic attack on the wtc would be a new pearl harbour and be a transformative event. Do you not see a problem?

Please present the evidence against bin laden. Dumping links to google video wont cut it im afrad.

No, he wrote that a weapon of mass destruction attack on the WTC would be like pearl harbour. You are twisting his words to suit your perspective on things.

What sort of evidence would you like? The best evidence against him is the video found in (I believe) islamabad.

Bear in mind I have to leave in 20 minutes for the day so I will be quick.

O

M

F

G

did e^n just admit that OUR(US) gubment omfgLIED on 9/11/2001?????


If so, I have SOOO much more hope for this movement (TRUTH) than I did prior.

Devil's advocate is teh shizzle. A major problem (as I see it) in OUR movement is our disagreements. WHO (TheFuck) cares about the how's and why's???? Let's just focus on the serious shit like "O M G THEY ARE LYING TO US SOMEONE CALL THEM OUT FOR THE LOVE OF WHOTF EVER PLZ K THX!!!!!"

Focus on a new investigation.

That is the only hope that this movement has. Sorry for calling you out e^n but I needed to hear from you that you are on our side. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with playing devils advocate here but, gosh darnit, we need some real research mixed in.

Your evasion of the zelikow question is duly noted.

The video of bin laden is not even accepted by the fbi as evidence. It was mysteriously found lying around in a house and in it bin laden does not take responsibility for the attack. Just admit there is no evidence against him, or present it.

Kovah i think you are confused. e^n is not on our side. He is a jrefer. Go check his posts over there. He doesnt agree with us atall.

That's convenient.

You see it wasn't just Bush, it was Card, the Aides and the security people. Calling Bush an idiot is not enough.

In Bush's own words he said "I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack".

Can you smell the bullshit?

So come on e^n, why do you think Bush didn't already know? His behavior is a dead giveaway.

I am not on 'your side', I am on the side of whatever is accurate! I have no problems with a new investigation but I do not support the controlled demolition theory or anything of it.

I'm not evading any question, you directly lied and are now trying to make it seem as if the two statements are equivalent. They are not. I am not going to get into a slanging match with you as your reputation precedes you on all forums. I have no interest in such a pathetic war of insults.

What? Your entire premise here is based on the presupposition of guilt. You have no logical argument beyond "he sat there for a few minutes therefore he must have known about the attacks therefore inside job", this is fallacious reasoning based on the absolute poorest of evidence. Have you ever met the president? Do you have any idea what he was thinking at the time?

e^n I have not insulted you atall. Please present the evidence against bin laden.

By the way, heres a little quiz for you:

Who said this:

What would you like me to do? Transcribe the islamabad video?

That would be Lee H. Hamilton, vice chairman of the 911 commission.

Well done. If the chair of the commission says that then you cant criticise us for saying thats the official story.

Now do you have any evidence against bin laden?

You see this is why my reputation preceeds me. I ask the hard questions that you would rather dance around.

The vice chair, he's a lawyer. Is this statement in the 911 commission report or the NIST report or any official report?

Again, what evidence do you require of bin laden's involvement. If you won't accept a video of him discussing it would you like a signed paper of him ordering it or what? Please provide me with some evidence of government involvement which is equal or better than a video of someone involved admitting it.

No it's because you ignore what people say and simply restate questions.

Bin laden did not admit it in that video. The fbi dont accept it as hard evidence.

You claimed that almost undoubtedly bin laden did it. Please present your evidence or retract your claim.

Like I said, you simply restate questions. Please present your evidence of government complicity, I expect at least a video of one of them talking about it!

So your proof that bin laden did it is that i dont have proof of the government doing it???? It doesnt work that way.

You said bin laden did it. Do you have any evidence? If not, doesnt this trouble you?