A question for 9/11 conspiracy theorists

[tabea_blumenschein]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

[montag]

Evidence means little or nothing to people that are sleeping.:)

[mynameis]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

They are working to take control of the internet. Time is on their side.

[jayelowell]

Evidence means little or nothing to people that are sleeping.:)well said!!!

[tabea_blumenschein]

Jayelowell and montag, forget the "sheeple" or whatever you call them. Why is this supposedly ironclad proof of a 9/11 conspiracy so easily available online for people like you?

[montag]

Jayelowell and montag, forget the "sheeple" or whatever you call them. Why is this supposedly ironclad proof of a 9/11 conspiracy so easily available online for people like you?
The evidence isn't ironclad, but is beyond a doubt for those who see the bigger picture of the agenda and how it is being played out.

[tabea_blumenschein]

That doesn't answer the question, montag.

Exactly WHY is the evidence so easy to obtain online, and completely uncensored? It's been over seven years. What are "they" waiting for?

[montag]

That doesn't answer the question, montag.

Exactly WHY is the evidence so easy to obtain online, and completely uncensored? It's been over seven years. What are "they" waiting for?
We still have freedom of speech, what are you waiting for?

[montag]

That doesn't answer the question, montag.

Exactly WHY is the evidence so easy to obtain online, and completely uncensored? It's been over seven years. What are "they" waiting for?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7613201.stm

[acebaker]

Most of the leaders of the "truth" movement are insiders screwing up the case.

The basic idea is to take some part of the truth, combine it with something false, and something ridiculous, and package it together.

Curious people will encounter the package, decide it is wrong, and throw the whole thing away (including the piece that was true).

That's what Steven Jones is doing.
That's what Judy Wood is doing.
That's what David Ray Griffin is doing.
That's what John Lear is doing.

(to mention just a few)

[tabea_blumenschein]

I saw nothing in that news report about blocking access to anything.

The government of China is able to prevent the Chinese people from accessing any online content of its choosing.

Why can't "They" do what China's been doing for years?

[montag]

I saw nothing in that news report about blocking access to anything.

The government of China is able to prevent the Chinese people from accessing any online content of its choosing.

Why can't "They" do what China's been doing for years?
You sound disappointed, be careful what you wish for..;)

[alwun]

TBlumenschein points out that much evidence of flaws in the official tale of 911 atrocity is readily available online. TB implies that since no apparent steps are being taken to suppress or censor this stream of evidence, then the evidence is somehow suspect.

Well, Blumenschein, the perpetrators do not yet control the internet in the same way that they control the main stream media outlets such as TV and pressnews. There is talk of efforts to address this situation. The recent debates on 'net neutrality' spring to mind. Also the chief bare faced liar of the Met police is on record as saying that the internet needs to be 'controlled', and so on. I am minded to think that the present, relatively free expression on the net may not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Happily, the internet being more of an interactive medium, with more methods of propogation available than are utilised in passive media such as wireless broadcast and printed press, there is some way to go before this free expression will be fully suppressed.

[sebastian]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

The wording of your tread title alone makes me desconsider anything you might wanna say right of the bat...

[sebastian]

Jayelowell and montag, forget the "sheeple" or whatever you call them. Why is this supposedly ironclad proof of a 9/11 conspiracy so easily available online for people like you?

because there are people like YOU who are to ... to realize it even if it's right in your face ...

hope this helps

[thematrix]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

There is no "smoking gun evidence" that "proves their crimes"

There's a whole bunch of information that can enable one to make a hypothesis about what happened. There is no "evidence" to prove a case however.

For example it's claimed bysome people that the towers were designed to withstand an impact of a "fully loaded 707" - this is well documented. Where it gets tricky is how fast that 707 was calculated to be travelling when it hit.

The actual documentary evidence to prove the supposed speed of the fully loaded 707 when calculated for back when the towers were still drawings and had yet to be built - noone seems to have found that yet.

While you are asking about "evidence" to "prove" stuff - you might well as the powers that be where all the evidence is that "proves" the official version of events - thats pretty thin on the ground as well.

Another example - shortly after the attacks George Dubya was loudly stating on TV re Osama for the Afghan authorities to hand over Osama as he was teh mastermind. The Afghans said "sure show us your evidence" Dubya replied "we don't need evidence we know he's guilty"

Fast forward seven years and the FBI are now saying they cannot connect OBL with 911 - there is no evidence for it...

Makes you wonder.

Oh yeah I *know* there is all kinds of physical evidence that proves the official account by most reasonable scientific standards to be accurate - i.e. there were hijackers - they flew the planes to there targets and carnage ensued. But where is the evidence - ANY evidence that proves that it was solely the work of some "jihadists"

Also if you consider that were 911 to have been an inside job - and the Govt or some faction of it was complicit - it's agencies of the same Govt who are doing the investigating. What motivation do they have to implicate themselves??

911 is a huge clusterfuck - the real losers are the families of the victims of that day (and yes that includes the family members of the hijackers - who ever spares a thought for them?) and the hundreds of thousands of innocents who have had their lives brutally ended or changed for the worse beyond all recognition off the back of 2 wars fought as a result of public opinion in the aftermath allowing the US to go to war.

Whos "won" out of this debacle? The companies who supply weapons of war and the companies who were awarded rebuilding contracts afterwards.
Oh and the US has gained lots of new places to site military bases in far flung ands - the better to smite their supposed enemies from in the future and to indirectly terrorise people of other countries who live closer to these new bases (and I thought the war was supposed to be *against* terror)

[banoyes]

Most of the leaders of the "truth" movement are insiders screwing up the case.

The basic idea is to take some part of the truth, combine it with something false, and something ridiculous, and package it together.

Curious people will encounter the package, decide it is wrong, and throw the whole thing away (including the piece that was true).

That's what Steven Jones is doing.
That's what Judy Wood is doing.
That's what David Ray Griffin is doing.
That's what John Lear is doing.

(to mention just a few)

I am always suspecious when I read stuff like this
My attitude is .. look at the evidence .. make up your own mind
and do not let anomalies go unexplained.
Take nobodys word for anything
so
There are no "leaders" -- who says there are -- I have no leader ,,,
do you??"?
It's just people putting forth various theories and presenting evidence.
The is no doubt propaganda and misdirection are mixed in with truth in many cases
This is for the researcher to sieve through.
The truth is not stacked up like sheaths of corn, but scattered everywhere'
Trust yourself
Believe nothing

[supertzar]

I appreciate the OP's curiosity, but I think these kind of "why would" questions are not very good. There are a lot of reasons "why they might" allow damning information to be available, but its' not really important. Why waste time speculating on such things? Focus on the evidence, because that is what matters.

[graflok]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

I think a more important question is: If the evidence is so easy to find on the
net, why haven't the perpetrators been brought to justice for their criminal
acts?

[stelios]

There is loads of smoking gun evidence in the public domain.
TB and other official fiary tale story advocates might not be worried but Bush and his cabinet certainly are worried otherwise why else did they recently seek and acquire immunity from prosecution from congress?

The insurance companies who were blackmailed into paying the criminals certainly did not buy the official story otherwise why else did it take a court to force them to pay. A court run by zionist Michael Mukassey.

Is it any wonder that there was no prosecutions when Philip Zelikow another Israeli citizen led the 911 Commission and whose main aim was to cover up the crimes.

The men who made the profits Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, the men who made it possible Lewis Eisenberg and Mukassey and the men who helped cover up the crime including Eliot Spitzer, Michael Chertoff, Ari Fleischer, and the men who organised the events like Jack Abramoff, Marc Grossman, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many others all share one common purpose (excuse the pun!).
TB knows as does everyone else.

In case anyone didnt know Dov Zakheim before he became financial controller at the pentagon and helped defraud the Americans of billions if not trillions of dollars. Was from 1987-2001 CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a high-technology analytical firm. One of the products that SPC sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes, boats, missiles and other vehicles.

Now excuse me for repeating myself but this geezer ran a company that specialises in REMOTE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR PLANES. He is an Israeli. And he was in charge of Pentagon money.
911 clearly involved planes flown by remote control so i would say that Dov Zakheim is the 911 mastermind.

ps:
this is why the no WTC planers are falling into the hands of Dov Zakheim and others. By claiming there were no planes you let Zakheim off the hook.
In reality he is up to his neck in it.

http://stratezope.com/domains/worldaffairscouncils/natassociation/natboard/boardmembers/zakheim

pss:
Another reason why things have not taken off is because many of the 911 'truth' groups are controlled by MI5 or Mossad agents. In the USA TruthAction.org will not allow anyone within the group to blame Israel for 911. They state this in their charter. Nor will it's UK counterparts.
Recently it came to light that the leading public forum about 911 was actually owned and run by Simon Aronowitz who coincidentantly forbid any criticism of zionists.
http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=nineeleven.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=23&WHOIS+Submit.y=7

[cheeney1]

We still have freedom of speech, what are you waiting for?

What makes you so sure we have freedom of Speech

[lightgiver]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5HtPYv1FQ

"Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right."
speech by Joseph Goebbels on 9 January 1928 to an audience of party members

"We will only be satisfied, when we possess the masses, when we know, that the whole nation understands and recognizes us as its most noble administrators..."
Joseph Goebbels, 1933

Various Quotes
"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."

"We have made the Reich by propaganda."

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it."

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

"We hate THEM from the bottom of our souls because they threaten our very life, because they oppose our national existence out of envy, jealousy and ill-concealed national pride."

"During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information."

"If we have the power, we'll never give it up again unless we're carried out of our offices as corpses".

"The Jews are our destruction. They provoked and brought about this war. What they mean to achieve by it is to destroy the German state and nation... Every Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people."

"If the day should ever come when we the Nazis must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction."

Goebbels also discovered a talent for oratory, and was soon second in the Nazi movement only to Hitler as a public speaker. Where Hitler’s style was hoarse and passionate, Goebbels’s was cool, sarcastic and often humorous: he was a master of biting invective and insinuation, although he could whip himself into a rhetorical frenzy if the occasion demanded. Unlike Hitler, however, he retained a cynical detachment from his own rhetoric. He openly acknowledged that he was exploiting the lowest instincts of the German people — racism, xenophobia, class envy and insecurity. He could, he said, play the popular will like a piano, leading the masses wherever he wanted them to go. "He drove his listeners into ecstasy, making them stand up, sing songs, raise their arms, repeat oaths — and he did it, not through the passionate inspiration of the moment, but as the result of sober psychological calculation."

does all this not remind us of something.

[lightgiver]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

people will believe any old shit.thats it now sheeple run along.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6110/bushpelosipoperedeyevg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

make sure you kiss the ring.

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/862/dollarsp4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[harris999]

If they did cover up the info on the internet, about 9/11, wouldnt it be obvious they had something to hide? everyone whos read that 9/11 was an inside job, one day woke up and saw that, it had all been deleted of the web or whatever.. it would be like them admiting they did it.

They do have something to hide, but thier acting like they dont. 9/11 was an inside job beyond reasonable doubt. The smoking gun as alex jones put is "building 7" (think it was called building 7) the one that collapsed due to no plane hitting it. Apparently due to a fire in the basement...

Theres just to much evidence, to say it wasnt an inside job.

And peepz, dont be so hostile to the OP, were all here because we ask questions, hes just asking a question :P

[lightgiver]

If they did cover up the info on the internet, about 9/11, wouldnt it be obvious they had something to hide? everyone whos read that 9/11 was an inside job, one day woke up and saw that, it had all been deleted of the web or whatever.. it would be like them admiting they did it.

They do have something to hide, but thier acting like they dont. 9/11 was an inside job beyond reasonable doubt. The smoking gun as alex jones put is "building 7" (think it was called building 7) the one that collapsed due to no plane hitting it. Apparently due to a fire in the basement...

Theres just to much evidence, to say it wasnt an inside job.

And peepz, dont be so hostile to the OP, were all here because we ask questions, hes just asking a question :P


and we are just trying to give answers;)

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8373/peckingorderrw8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[montag]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8373/peckingorderrw8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Ha ha, brilliant! Just need to put some scientists in white coats in the middle tier now to replace the priests.;)

[stelios]

Is this reverse psychology a new directive they have sent you lot?

Anyone who has an IQ in double figures knows 911 was a controlled demolition and a pack of lies. So without the internet anyone who watched the three towers collapse could see for themselves that demolition charges were used.

But the reason people keep defending the hopeless official fairy tale is because of their own special interests.
Zionists fervently defend 911 because the all know that their boys did it and all proceeds went for the good of Greater Israel.
Islamophobes defend it because it was used as an excuse to invade countries.
Lefties support the fairy tale because enables them to carry on playing their fake right v left game.
Even Muslim leaders defend the lies because it suits them to have an angry congregation blaming a non existant al queda.

[lightgiver]

here we go:eek:;)

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/821/discoveredawaytoremovethv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8391/massddeesuh4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7718/h5n1viruste3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

there you go montag,all part of the master plan.

[alwun]

Hi harris999, you say don't be hostile to OP.
You're right and I hereby apologise for my unwarranted hostile undertones here and actually elsewhere.

tabea-blumenschein
The fact is that it was not always thus. (smoking guns all around)
The research performed by a dedicated 'bunch' of people has put at our disposal a great deal of facts. These facts are legion. These are facts which conform in part to actual laws of physics. There are many facts of omission. And so on. Much hard work, time and effort has resulted in a wealth of information and debate. Not by me, I should mention.
However these facts have only relative recently accumulated and are beginning to reach a critical viewing mass now.
The original scam was perpetrated via broadcast television, as we all know. This was the mass media of the day, back in the day. Although to a degree the TV remains a forceful factor of persuasion in public life, there is as you know, a movement toward a new means of acquiring and disseminating information.
And that is by actively seeking out forums such as these, and asking questions, and joining in the debate.
There is also, it may be said, an active real-time keyboard campaign being waged in efforts to subvert these very facts as we, eh, .. speak
Once again let me apologise for what was nothing short of a boorish set of remarks.

cheers..

[banoyes]

There is no debate
It is
or
it isn't
People who think there is room to debate have already lost
That is a trick of the propagandist
debate,,foolishness.
Facts are facts

There is loads of smoking gun evidence in the public domain.

Now excuse me for repeating myself but this geezer ran a company that specialises in REMOTE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR PLANES. He is an Israeli. And he was in charge of Pentagon money.

911 clearly involved planes flown by remote control so i would say that Dov Zakheim is the 911 mastermind.
ps:
this is why the no WTC planers are falling into the hands of Dov Zakheim and others. By claiming there were no planes you let Zakheim off the hook.
In reality he is up to his neck in it.

You cannot produce any evidence planes were used, yet you say the no plane fact plays into the hands of the Zionist
This is pure propanganda, without basis.
There is evidence no planes were use, you refuse to see it,for what ever reason
"911 clearly involved planes flown by remote control ".. not a shred of evidence..pure conjecture
everything ensusing from this conjecture is more conjecture without a shred of evidence
I call this propaganda
funny how it slipped into this discussion,ain't it

[pacoquerak]

There is loads of smoking gun evidence in the public domain.
TB and other official fiary tale story advocates might not be worried but Bush and his cabinet certainly are worried otherwise why else did they recently seek and acquire immunity from prosecution from congress?

The insurance companies who were blackmailed into paying the criminals certainly did not buy the official story otherwise why else did it take a court to force them to pay. A court run by zionist Michael Mukassey.

Is it any wonder that there was no prosecutions when Philip Zelikow another Israeli citizen led the 911 Commission and whose main aim was to cover up the crimes.

The men who made the profits Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, the men who made it possible Lewis Eisenberg and Mukassey and the men who helped cover up the crime including Eliot Spitzer, Michael Chertoff, Ari Fleischer, and the men who organised the events like Jack Abramoff, Marc Grossman, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many others all share one common purpose (excuse the pun!).
TB knows as does everyone else.

In case anyone didnt know Dov Zakheim before he became financial controller at the pentagon and helped defraud the Americans of billions if not trillions of dollars. Was from 1987-2001 CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a high-technology analytical firm. One of the products that SPC sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes, boats, missiles and other vehicles.

Now excuse me for repeating myself but this geezer ran a company that specialises in REMOTE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR PLANES. He is an Israeli. And he was in charge of Pentagon money.
911 clearly involved planes flown by remote control so i would say that Dov Zakheim is the 911 mastermind.

ps:
this is why the no WTC planers are falling into the hands of Dov Zakheim and others. By claiming there were no planes you let Zakheim off the hook.
In reality he is up to his neck in it.

http://stratezope.com/domains/worldaffairscouncils/natassociation/natboard/boardmembers/zakheim

pss:
Another reason why things have not taken off is because many of the 911 'truth' groups are controlled by MI5 or Mossad agents. In the USA TruthAction.org will not allow anyone within the group to blame Israel for 911. They state this in their charter. Nor will it's UK counterparts.
Recently it came to light that the leading public forum about 911 was actually owned and run by Simon Aronowitz who coincidentantly forbid any criticism of zionists.
http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=nineeleven.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=23&WHOIS+Submit.y=7

wow i think you might have gotten it geeze

David Ray Griffin is freakin awsome though i thought

[h2pogo]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

it would be impossible to leave no evidence.
and if they started bumping people like alex jones and davidicke off it would look more suspicious.
especially as alex predicted it
easier to call them outrageous conspiracy theories.
the internet could be their downfall and our saviour or the other way round.

[onourwayto2012]

If the perpetrators of 9/11 are a bunch of murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to keep their secrets ...

Then why is all the "smoking gun evidence" supposedly proving their crimes so easy to find on the net?

Just wondering.

In part because it doesn't make any difference... 7 yrs later and nothing has changed other than more of us now know that everything about the OS is totally bogus. Truth, for the most part, is still viewed as treason.

[oiram]

Fed Reserve US TWENTY DOLLAR BILL FORE TELLS THE FUTURE_WAKE THE HELL UP SHEEP_LOOK LOOK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPATWhux7Uo

Now if you rotate the bill 180 degrees you can clearly see the World Trade Center after it was struck.http://www.milaircomms.com/images/20tradecenter.jpghttp://www.milaircomms.com/images/20pentagon.jpg (http://www.milaircomms.com/folding20.html)
If you turn over the folded $20.00 bill you now will see smoke coming from the Pentagon.
http://www.milaircomms.com/folding20.html

[sebastian]

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/862/dollarsp4.jpg

[dangermouse]

In part because it doesn't make any difference... 7 yrs later and nothing has changed other than more of us now know that everything about the OS is totally bogus. Truth, for the most part, is still viewed as treason.

ooh but thats where you are wrong more people of aware of 911 being a false flag terror attack than ever before whether you believe planes hit the buildings or not

[hw spartan]

Goebbels also discovered a talent for oratory, and was soon second in the Nazi movement only to Hitler as a public speaker. Where Hitler’s style was hoarse and passionate, Goebbels’s was cool, sarcastic and often humorous: he was a master of biting invective and insinuation, although he could whip himself into a rhetorical frenzy if the occasion demanded. Unlike Hitler, however, he retained a cynical detachment from his own rhetoric. He openly acknowledged that he was exploiting the lowest instincts of the German people — racism, xenophobia, class envy and insecurity. He could, he said, play the popular will like a piano, leading the masses wherever he wanted them to go. "He drove his listeners into ecstasy, making them stand up, sing songs, raise their arms, repeat oaths — and he did it, not through the passionate inspiration of the moment, but as the result of sober psychological calculation."

does all this not remind us of something.
all that talent was needed to fool that generation.
today you dont need that talent(exa=george bush)
hahahaha:)

people will believe any old shit.thats it now sheeple run along.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6110/bushpelosipoperedeyevg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

make sure you kiss the ring.

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/862/dollarsp4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
may you kiss the ring..reminds me off a ex-illuminati, named Alberto, he left the illuminati because when he kissed a ring, there was a masonic symbol on it, thus he thought that italian catholic illuminatis where higher rank than jewish illuminati(mainly they where tought that)
Alberto left the illuminati... but it was the ring that made him leave at the start.

If they did cover up the info on the internet, about 9/11, wouldnt it be obvious they had something to hide? everyone whos read that 9/11 was an inside job, one day woke up and saw that, it had all been deleted of the web or whatever.. it would be like them admiting they did it.

They do have something to hide, but thier acting like they dont. 9/11 was an inside job beyond reasonable doubt. The smoking gun as alex jones put is "building 7" (think it was called building 7) the one that collapsed due to no plane hitting it. Apparently due to a fire in the basement...

Theres just to much evidence, to say it wasnt an inside job.

And peepz, dont be so hostile to the OP, were all here because we ask questions, hes just asking a question :P
true:)

Ha ha, brilliant! Just need to put some scientists in white coats in the middle tier now to replace the priests.;)
haha or maybe gangs\bikies\gansters at bottom
then police\politicians\goverment in the middle
and the rest of the stinking elite at top:)

it would be impossible to leave no evidence.
and if they started bumping people like alex jones and davidicke off it would look more suspicious.
especially as alex predicted it
easier to call them outrageous conspiracy theories.
the internet could be their downfall and our saviour or the other way round.
too true
but the ones that there really after..are the ones who know the 3rd true reason of 9\11
not the 2nd pushed conpiracy wich leads me to the answer of this thread.. its a 2nd conspiracy.
the truth...is even more Shoking..but that is none of my bussiness
:)

[stelios]

This is pure propanganda, without basis.
There is evidence no planes were use, you refuse to see it,for what ever reason
"911 clearly involved planes flown by remote control ".. not a shred of evidence..pure conjecture
everything ensusing from this conjecture is more conjecture without a shred of evidence
I call this propaganda
funny how it slipped into this discussion,ain't it

i assume you are a no planer, ok, so who do you think is to blame for 911.
Whether you think there were planes or not, someone demolished the buildings, someone stole the $1.2 billion in gold bullion, someone made $7.2 billion in insurance frauds.
So who do you blame for 911?

[banoyes]

i assume you are a no planer, ok, so who do you think is to blame for 911.
Whether you think there were planes or not, someone demolished the buildings, someone stole the $1.2 billion in gold bullion, someone made $7.2 billion in insurance frauds.
So who do you blame for 911?

Why don't we stick to the subject, how is it you post BS as fact?
How is it that you slide your "certain remote controlled airplanes"
into a thread that has nothing to do with planes.
How is it that you come up with such wild conjecture
"no WTC planers are falling into the hands of Dov Zakheim"
when in reality , there is no evidence planes were used
and you want to disparage this fact by tying it to Zioism
...with not a shred of evidence.
How is it you change direction with your "Whether you think there were planes or not, someone demolished the buildings"?
might as well say
Whether you think there were planes or not, people like biskits
You're not as slick as you think you are

[tabea_blumenschein]

Thanks to everyone who posted replies on this thread. Let's face it, a lot of 9/11 topics have been argued to death over the last seven years or so, so I thought it would be interesting to post a question that hasn't had as much consideration to see where that leads. All in all, I think the discussion has been a productive one.

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.

The attack is much easier to bring to a successful conclusion than 9/11 was, I can pin the attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a mushroom cloud over a major city would be far more traumatizing to the American public than the sight of collapsing buildings, the death toll would be equal or greater than 9/11, I don't have to wire up buildings with explosives, create holographic planes, or produce fake/doctored footage, there's no evidence left to cover up, there probably won't be an investigation to muzzle, I only need a few people involved, and all the political gains I could hope for from the 9/11 plan, I would achieve with this plan and then some.

Well, if I were an evil conspirator, that's what I would have done. For the life of me, I can't understand why the alleged false-flag planners would choose the unbelievably convoluted plan the truth movement seems to think they did. Really, would any of you choose such a plan?

[stelios]

Thanks to everyone who posted replies on this thread. Let's face it, a lot of 9/11 topics have been argued to death over the last seven years or so, so I thought it would be interesting to post a question that hasn't had as much consideration to see where that leads. All in all, I think the discussion has been a productive one.

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.

The attack is much easier to bring to a successful conclusion than 9/11 was, I can pin the attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a mushroom cloud over a major city would be far more traumatizing to the American public than the sight of collapsing buildings, the death toll would be equal or greater than 9/11, I don't have to wire up buildings with explosives, create holographic planes, or produce fake/doctored footage, there's no evidence left to cover up, there probably won't be an investigation to muzzle, I only need a few people involved, and all the political gains I could hope for from the 9/11 plan, I would achieve with this plan and then some.

Well, if I were an evil conspirator, that's what I would have done. For the life of me, I can't understand why the alleged false-flag planners would choose the unbelievably convoluted plan the truth movement seems to think they did. Really, would any of you choose such a plan?You do whatever you feel serves your people best fraulein.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Stelios, if you'd like to pontificate on why the alleged 9/11 conspirators would choose a plan with a huge number of unnecessary complications, please feel free to do so.

[kamakazi]

Thanks to everyone who posted replies on this thread. Let's face it, a lot of 9/11 topics have been argued to death over the last seven years or so, so I thought it would be interesting to post a question that hasn't had as much consideration to see where that leads. All in all, I think the discussion has been a productive one.

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.

The attack is much easier to bring to a successful conclusion than 9/11 was, I can pin the attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a mushroom cloud over a major city would be far more traumatizing to the American public than the sight of collapsing buildings, the death toll would be equal or greater than 9/11, I don't have to wire up buildings with explosives, create holographic planes, or produce fake/doctored footage, there's no evidence left to cover up, there probably won't be an investigation to muzzle, I only need a few people involved, and all the political gains I could hope for from the 9/11 plan, I would achieve with this plan and then some.

Well, if I were an evil conspirator, that's what I would have done. For the life of me, I can't understand why the alleged false-flag planners would choose the unbelievably convoluted plan the truth movement seems to think they did. Really, would any of you choose such a plan?

it may seem ridiculously insanely complicated to you but hey the succeeded didn't they? asking such questions about why they did things the way they did is pointless. all you are doing is making excuses for them.

and actually going as far as to give your own version of the way you would've done things is a bit over the top and completely unnecessary.

[thematrix]

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.

The attack is much easier to bring to a successful conclusion than 9/11 was, I can pin the attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a mushroom cloud over a major city would be far more traumatizing to the American public than the sight of collapsing buildings, the death toll would be equal or greater than 9/11, I don't have to wire up buildings with explosives, create holographic planes, or produce fake/doctored footage, there's no evidence left to cover up, there probably won't be an investigation to muzzle, I only need a few people involved, and all the political gains I could hope for from the 9/11 plan, I would achieve with this plan and then some.

There's a bunch of issues with your plan:

i) nuclear material is tightly controlled - there would be a trail - and you can bet the farm some serious investigators would follow that trail to the bitter end.

ii) There is evidence from the "Disclosure project" that nuclear explosions are being countered by an unknown intelligence with advanced craft - be they Russian/Chinese/ET whatever it seems that someone somewhere is preventing nuclear attacks by some advanced means.

iii) This damages way too much real estate. The perps that likely were behind 911 have lots of money invested n real estate - and willingly rendering a large chunk of it useless for x1000 years is very likely an anathema to the greedy scumfucks who would try to pull something like this.

iv) One of the central points of the 911 attack was that the public at large saw a plane hit a buildng on LIVE TV. Your plan has no live TV coverage. Given that we live in the TV age I wouldn't underestimate how powerful this event became because of the TV coverage. Remember Hurricane Katrina that decimated New Orleans in terms of damage was much greater in impact to the US, it gets barely as much coverage.


Is the 911 plan neccessairly *that* convoluted.

i) You discover or engineer a plot amongst a group of fundamentalists willing to die for their jihad against the US.

ii) You covertly fund this group, train them, or remove barriers like entry visas and stuff to allow them to become competent enough to carry the plot through

iii) You make sure that the air defenses at that time are incapacitated.

Then you let nature take it's course.

Maybe the collapses were "helped" somehow - maybe they were totally unexpected - there is nothing to say that the plot on 911 *has* to be so complicated it becomes unfeasible to any rational thinking person

[stelios]

Stelios, if you'd like to pontificate on why the alleged 9/11 conspirators would choose a plan with a huge number of unnecessary complications, please feel free to do so.

My dear, why do you think this all happened?
The WTC was an old building built in the late 1960s. It was riddled with ASBESTOS which everywhere in the world has been recognised as toxic and people have spent alot of money removing it from old buildings.
The WTC was bought by two Israelis - Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy for a very cheap price from their buddy Lewis Eisenberg who was in charge of the New York Port Authority.
One of the reasons they got the deal at a bargain price was because it was estimated that it would cost over $1.2 Billion to remove the asbestos and this was part of the deal.

Now coincidentally Maurice Greenberg the boss of AIG got the deal to insure the complex and he passed the risks on to British, German and Swiss insurers.

The WTC was the intended target all along and was always meant to be demolished. That was the entire plan.
It was an insurance fraud because thanks to Israeli judge Michael Mukassey the conspirators were awarded DOUBLE money.
It was a gold bullion robbery because the gold and bearer bonds that were stored in the vaults in the sub levels were cleaned out prior to the demolition.
The gold belonged to a variety of the banks upstairs but publically the Kuwaitis have admitted losing theirs. The Bank of Nova Scotia aparantly recovered some but not all.
Nobody knows for sure how much gold was stolen but it is over a $billion.

So the whole plan from the start was to bring the WTC down somehow.
Now your idea of a dirty nuke bomb is not so far fetched.
This is what they are planning to do next.
But it was not the plan in New York in 2001.
The WTC killed mostly Hispanics and Blacks who were at work as security guards and cleaners and ancilliary workers. There were also many fireman killed of all races.
I dont recall many owners of stockbroking firms or banks being killed. In fact i have heard it quoted only one Israeli died despite many thousands working there normally. Most mysteriously took the day off.
So the event was targeted and actually caused 3000 deaths instead of the 100,000 that normally occupy the two towers.

Barry Jennings a worker in WTC7 got a call telling him to evacuate the building as it was coming down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iORXhcrxkQI
Listen to these firemen and then say it was not a controlled demolition.

[stelios]

iii) This damages way too much real estate. The perps that likely were behind 911 have lots of money invested n real estate - and willingly rendering a large chunk of it useless for x1000 years is very likely an anathema to the greedy scumfucks who would try to pull something like this.


Totally agree.
Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy own lots of property in Manhattan.

[graflok]

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.


I'm afraid you wouldn't make it in show biz with that
kind of thinking. You're missing the whole point
of the 9/11 psyop.

It was done to create maximum shock value for Americans,
to convince them to go along with "The War on Terror,"
the Patriot Act and all the rest of the eroding liberties
we are now seeing.

Americans watched 9/11 as it unfolded on their TV screens
(or they thought they did anyway). They saw people
plunge to their deaths, they saw the buildings collapse,
they watched the horror "as it happened." It was a
shocking experience for many millions of people.

Simply blowing up a harbor and then showing everyone a big
hole in the ground is just bad theater. It has none of the shock
value that they needed.

[sebastian]

I'm afraid you wouldn't make it in show biz with that
kind of thinking. You're missing the whole point
of the 9/11 psyop.

It was done to create maximum shock value for Americans,
to convince them to go along with "The War on Terror,"
the Patriot Act and all the rest of the eroding liberties
we are now seeing.

Americans watched 9/11 as it unfolded on their TV screens
(or they thought they did anyway). They saw people
plunge to their deaths, they saw the buildings collapse,
they watched the horror "as it happened." It was a
shocking experience for many millions of people.

Simply blowing up a harbor and then showing everyone a big
hole in the ground is just bad theater. It has none of the shock
value that they needed.

bingo ;)

[hw spartan]

My dear, why do you think this all happened?
The WTC was an old building built in the late 1960s. It was riddled with ASBESTOS which everywhere in the world has been recognised as toxic and people have spent alot of money removing it from old buildings.
The WTC was bought by two Israelis - Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy for a very cheap price from their buddy Lewis Eisenberg who was in charge of the New York Port Authority.
One of the reasons they got the deal at a bargain price was because it was estimated that it would cost over $1.2 Billion to remove the asbestos and this was part of the deal.

.

Stel..1 question.
i dont see why, they would risk such acusations..so they can save money on rebuilding a building.
trust me...non of this was about money(but thats my opinion)
back to question;
it cost them way more, if not in money but in the people ideas.
basiccally speaking..it has allready cost them way more..now
then if they paid for a fool rebuild..and that includes the whole block..way cheaper, than the prise they are paying, in money and in people reactions.

also if you think..that all this was to go to war..your fooled
they did not need to do this, for any bullshit reson to war.
did russia blow anything up to go to war.
its all a second conspiracy.

also, ive thought the mainstream thought, that they did it to themselves
and even then you all missed the point.
you ask ,why Iraq.. well, if you start giving american money, in a parade fashion, to suicide bombers faimilies, that attack isreal.
like saddame did
of caurse they are going to remove him...wasnt for oil..cause its fucken theres anyway.

i think your all fooled..sorry, my opinion of 9\11, will make you think im crazy
but...soon, all will see what the fuk i was on about.
its like in Area 51..."when the red siren starts to go off, all humans must put on the little black bag, over there heads, all humans, even secirity???
if not...they get shot on the spot...9\11
is not what people think...thats all
check my...Religion and 9\11 thread
then you will call me crazy
hahahahahahahahaha:eek:

[veritas66]

There were thousands of apparently unconnected pieces of evidence for 9/11 that were pieced together to solve the puzzle of 9/11.
Its not like there were these conspiracy sites pupping out 9/11 info the day after.

Remember a criminal always leaves evidence at the scene of the crime no matter how careful or prepared they try to be.

[kingmonkey]

Thanks to everyone who posted replies on this thread. Let's face it, a lot of 9/11 topics have been argued to death over the last seven years or so, so I thought it would be interesting to post a question that hasn't had as much consideration to see where that leads. All in all, I think the discussion has been a productive one.

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.

The attack is much easier to bring to a successful conclusion than 9/11 was, I can pin the attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a mushroom cloud over a major city would be far more traumatizing to the American public than the sight of collapsing buildings, the death toll would be equal or greater than 9/11, I don't have to wire up buildings with explosives, create holographic planes, or produce fake/doctored footage, there's no evidence left to cover up, there probably won't be an investigation to muzzle, I only need a few people involved, and all the political gains I could hope for from the 9/11 plan, I would achieve with this plan and then some.

Well, if I were an evil conspirator, that's what I would have done. For the life of me, I can't understand why the alleged false-flag planners would choose the unbelievably convoluted plan the truth movement seems to think they did. Really, would any of you choose such a plan?

There's always the simpler explanation that terrorists did what everyone thought they did, there were no explosives, but bush/cheney etc. new damn well it was gonna happen, thanks to the intelligence services (who might've helped set it up) and let it go ahead. Simple. No complicated scenarios, no explosives, no holograms, just a bunch of cold hearted fuckers determined for this atrocity to go ahead. Bin Laden & co. coz they're fanatical nutters and bush/cheney & co to further their insane conquest of the planet in the name of the dollar, PNAC, and Molech, or whatever horned ponce they worship.


I don't know what really happened and I can't prove it, but even if you believe the version of events I just posted, what does it change? The US Gvmnt are still bent as hell. The best piece of "evidence" in my opinion is the lack of responce by the airforce. That to me speaks volumes.I don't believe the hijackers themselves were who we're all meant to think they were either.

Even if you believe the official story, the benefits that the Bush administration got out of 9'11 and the speed in which their plans were implemented is enough to set the alarm bells sounding.

[lightgiver]

Thanks to everyone who posted replies on this thread. Let's face it, a lot of 9/11 topics have been argued to death over the last seven years or so, so I thought it would be interesting to post a question that hasn't had as much consideration to see where that leads. All in all, I think the discussion has been a productive one.

If I were assigned the task of producing a false-flag attack on US soil to achieve the same ends that the 9/11 attacks did, do you know what I'd do?

I wouldn't come up with the ridiculously, insanely complicated plan the 9/11 truth movement thinks happened.

I put a small nuclear warhead on a boat, sail it into a harbor in a major city, and blow it up.

The attack is much easier to bring to a successful conclusion than 9/11 was, I can pin the attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a mushroom cloud over a major city would be far more traumatizing to the American public than the sight of collapsing buildings, the death toll would be equal or greater than 9/11, I don't have to wire up buildings with explosives, create holographic planes, or produce fake/doctored footage, there's no evidence left to cover up, there probably won't be an investigation to muzzle, I only need a few people involved, and all the political gains I could hope for from the 9/11 plan, I would achieve with this plan and then some.

Well, if I were an evil conspirator, that's what I would have done. For the life of me, I can't understand why the alleged false-flag planners would choose the unbelievably convoluted plan the truth movement seems to think they did. Really, would any of you choose such a plan?

You are dealing with secret societies,you may have your ideas but they have their own,

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

How little we really know?

[stelios]

There's always the simpler explanation that terrorists did what everyone thought they did, there were no explosives, but bush/cheney etc. new damn well it was gonna happen, thanks to the intelligence services (who might've helped set it up) and let it go ahead. Simple. No complicated scenarios, no explosives, no holograms, just a bunch of cold hearted fuckers determined for this atrocity to go ahead. Bin Laden & co. coz they're fanatical nutters and bush/cheney & co to further their insane conquest of the planet in the name of the dollar, PNAC, and Molech, or whatever horned ponce they worship.


I don't know what really happened and I can't prove it, but even if you believe the version of events I just posted, what does it change? The US Gvmnt are still bent as hell. The best piece of "evidence" in my opinion is the lack of responce by the airforce. That to me speaks volumes.I don't believe the hijackers themselves were who we're all meant to think they were either.

Even if you believe the official story, the benefits that the Bush administration got out of 9'11 and the speed in which their plans were implemented is enough to set the alarm bells sounding.

It makes a difference.
The highjackers could not have got visas, they could not have got on the planes, they could not have avoided being shot down out the sky, they could not have gotten all that faked footage onto tv - every channel, they could not have got Dick Cheney to order a stand down, they could not have gotten the WTC to collapse, they could not have foretold Larry Silverstien and Frank Lowy and the other thousands to avoid being in the WTC on that day, they could not have gotten Maurice Greenberg to pass on the insurance risks, they could not have gotten Buzzy Krongard to purchase all those share put options in UA and AA, etc
I could go on. But you get my point.
This was so totally an inside job the only question is whether there were any highjackers at all.

[stelios]

Stel..1 question.
i dont see why, they would risk such acusations..so they can save money on rebuilding a building.
trust me...non of this was about money(but thats my opinion)


Bruv, they obviously used this as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
But like any crime they also made alot of money too.
Clearly many people knew what was afoot and made billions as a result.
One day the perps will be tried and brought to justice and it will be the money trail that will bring them down.
Kiiling 3000 Goyim in exchange for over $13 billion and using the whole scene to impose new laws and invading two countries.

[hw spartan]

Bruv, they obviously used this as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
But like any crime they also made alot of money too.
Clearly many people knew what was afoot and made billions as a result.
One day the perps will be tried and brought to justice and it will be the money trail that will bring them down.
Kiiling 3000 Goyim in exchange for over $13 billion and using the whole scene to impose new laws and invading two countries.

so you could say, that all this shit with economy, is them getting rid of the money trial
PS; i dont mean thats there only objective with economy, but it could be 1 of many outcomes??

[tabea_blumenschein]

The highjackers could not have got visas, they could not have got on the planes, they could not have avoided being shot down out the sky, they could not have gotten all that faked footage onto tv - every channel, they could not have got Dick Cheney to order a stand down, they could not have gotten the WTC to collapse, they could not have foretold Larry Silverstien and Frank Lowy and the other thousands to avoid being in the WTC on that day, they could not have gotten Maurice Greenberg to pass on the insurance risks, they could not have gotten Buzzy Krongard to purchase all those share put options in UA and AA, etc
I could go on. But you get my point.

As I was saying, there are other plans that would have achieved the same results without all that hassle ...

[twistedconcept]

I find it even funnier that some people still believe that a few fundamentalists, armed with boxcutters and conspiring with a bearded guy in a cave in Afghanistan, managed to bypass America's multi-billion dollar air defence system.

It's hilarious.

[kingmonkey]

It makes a difference.
The highjackers could not have got visas, they could not have got on the planes, they could not have avoided being shot down out the sky, they could not have gotten all that faked footage onto tv - every channel, they could not have got Dick Cheney to order a stand down, they could not have gotten the WTC to collapse, they could not have foretold Larry Silverstien and Frank Lowy and the other thousands to avoid being in the WTC on that day, they could not have gotten Maurice Greenberg to pass on the insurance risks, they could not have gotten Buzzy Krongard to purchase all those share put options in UA and AA, etc
I could go on. But you get my point.
This was so totally an inside job the only question is whether there were any highjackers at all.

Easy to get visas, unless you put terrorist down as profession on your application form.

Domestic security was crap pre 9'11, they could quite possibly have got on the planes.

What fake T.V footage?

I said that Bush/Cheney knew beforehand it would happen,so where's the problem with cheney standing the jets down?

Again, if they had prior knowledge to the attacks, they could warn who they wanted not to be there that morning, and also tell whoever they wanted to
tell in the financial/insurance sector.

I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job completely, I'm just saying all they needed to do was have prior knowledge of the attacks and help it along a bit. It could be that simple. The only thing I'm not sure about is the explosives.

I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain degree, but I think it might've been alot simpler than people make out. The thing is, a bunch of terrorists designing some convoluted plot involving hijacked planes makes a lot more sense than the government doing it. But the gvmnt then not acting on it makes them as guilty as if they did plan it.

[drhemp]

I too cannot understand how they could get away with 9/11.? I cannot understand why nobody in the mainstream media will speak out? I cannot understand why politicians, like Michael Meacher, who privately think it was an inside job, will not speak out, because they are scared it will undermine their credibility?

That said, just because I cannot understand how they could get away with such heinous crimes, that does not mean I believe the Official Fairy Tale.

Ask who benefits from 9/11 then you have you answer who carried out the crime. Yes it does seem improbable that a Government would be so evil to carry out an attack on its own people in order to justify illegal wars and Patriot Acts., etc., which is no doubt why Hitler wrote in Mien Kempf that the greater the crime committed by the Government, the less willing the people are prepared to admit the Government capable of committing such a crime. I doubt very much they would have carried out 9/11 if they thought they wouldn't get away with it.

We know that buildings do not fall free fall like they did on 9/11. We know that planes don't disintegrate. We know that mobiles phones didn't work at that altitude in 2001. We know the official version of events is a crock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)
Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)

[stelios]

KingMonkey - i realise that you are playing devil's advocate, but you must accept that those visas should never have been granted.
The only reason those visas were granted was because these guys were working for the US security services. Many even wrote the US Airforce base as their address.
Ofcourse we already know that the 19 highjackers were actually false identity people and the reality is they were probably Mossad agents pretending to be Arabs as is often the way.


Visas that Should Have Been Denied
A look at 9/11 terrorists’ visa applications.


The cover story in National Review's October 28th issue (out Friday) details how at least 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers should have been denied visas — an assessment based on expert analyses of 15 of the terrorists' visa-application forms, obtained exclusively by NR.

In the year after 9/11, the hand-wringing mostly centered on the FBI and CIA's failure to "connect the dots." But that would not have been a fatal blow if the "dots" had not been here in the first place. If the U.S. State Department had followed the law, at least 15 of the 19 "dots" should have been denied visas — and they likely wouldn't have been in the United States on September 11, 2001.

According to expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion: All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face.

9/11 Terrorist Visa Applications

Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel." One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." Even more amazingly, he got a visa.

The experts — who scrutinized the applications of 14 Saudis and one from the United Arab Emirates — include four former consular officers, a current consular officer stationed in Latin America, and a senior official at Consular Affairs (CA) — the division within the State Department that oversees consulates and visa issuance — who has extensive consular experience.

All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for human error, no more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to slip through the cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable, the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15 were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel, one of the former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas "amounts to criminal negligence."

The visas should have been denied because of a provision in the law known as 214(b), which states that almost all nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants are presumed to be intending immigrants. The law is clear: "Every alien [other than several narrowly exempted subcategories] shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant [visa]." State's Deputy Press Secretary Phil Reeker recently remarked that 214(b) is "quite a threshold to overcome." It just wasn't for Saudi applicants.

Defying the conventional wisdom that al Qaeda had provided its operatives with extensive training to game the system with the right answers to guarantee a visa, the applications were littered with red flags, almost all of which were ignored. The forms were also plagued with significant amounts of missing information — something that should have been sufficient grounds to deny many of the visas. For example, while all but one terrorist claimed to be employed or in school, only on three forms is the area marked "Name and Street Address of Present Employer or School" even filled out. At the very least, the CA executive points out, "The consular officers should not have ended the interview until the forms were completed."

Any discrepancies or apparent problems that would have been resolved by way of explanation or additional documentation should have been noted in the area reserved for a consular officer's comments — yet this was only done on one of the forms. Which begs the question: Were 11 of the 15 terrorists whose applications were reviewed actually interviewed as State claims?

Though all of the 15 applications obtained by NR should have been denied, some were worse than others. Here are some of the worst:

Wail and Waleed al-Shehri
Brothers Wail and Waleed al-Shehri applied together for travel visas on October 24, 2000. Wail claimed his occupation was "teater," while his brother wrote "student." Both listed the name and address of his respective employer or school as simply "South City." Each also declared a U.S. destination of "Wasantwn." But what should have further raised a consular officer's eyebrows is the fact that a student and his nominally employed brother were going to go on a four-to-six-month vacation, paid for by Wail's "teater" salary, which he presumably would be foregoing while in the United States. Even assuming very frugal accommodations, such a trip for two people would run north of $15,000, yet there is no indication that the consular officer even attempted to determine that Wail in fact had the financial means to fund the planned excursion. They appear to have received their visas the same day they applied.

Abdulaziz Alomari
On June 18, 2001, Abdulaziz Alomari filled out a simple, two-page application for a visa to come to the United States. Alomari was not exactly the ideal candidate for a visa. He claimed to be a student, though he left blank the space for the name and address of his school. He checked the box claiming he was married, yet he left blank the area where he should have put the name of his spouse. Although he claimed to be a student, he marked on his form that he would self-finance a two-month stay at the "JKK Whyndham Hotel" — and provided no proof, as required under law, that he could actually do so.

Despite the legal requirement that a visa applicant show strong roots in his home country (to give him or her a reason to come back from America), Alomari listed his home address as the "ALQUDOS HTL JED" (a hotel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia). Alomari didn't even bother filling in the fields asking for his nationality and gender, apparently realizing that he didn't need to list much more than his name to get a visa to the United States. As it turns out, he didn't. He got his visa.

When he arrived in the United States, he connected with his friend, Mohammed Atta. And less than three months later — on September 11 — he and Atta helped crash American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Hani Hanjour
The most troubling of the applications reviewed is Hanjour's. It appears that Hanjour was the only applicant of the 15 who was initially refused — although this is not entirely clear, because the consular officers did not always circle "Issued" or "Refused" (as required by law) on the other forms. Hanjour had received a student visa in 1997 in order to study English at the ELS Language Center in Melbourne, Fla. On his first of two attempts to obtain a second visa in 2000, Hanjour requested a travel visa for the purpose of a "visit" — for "three years." An unidentified consulate employee, likely a Foreign Service national (a Saudi resident), highlighted the obvious problem with an applicant stating a desire to overstay his visa (the maximum length for a travel visa is 24 months) with an extra-long "visit." The unknown employee wrote in the comment box: "like to stay three years or more!" and circled the remark. That employee or a different one also scribbled something underneath about Hanjour's wish to find a flight school during the trip. This application was refused — but only temporarily.

On the subsequent application filed two weeks later, Hanjour was armed with all the right answers. Rather than stating "AZ, Rent home" as his U.S. location, he gave a specific address, complete with a house number and street name — the only one of the 15 applicants to have done so. On the second go-round, Hanjour applied for a twelve-month student visa, and changed the purpose of the visit to "study" and the desired length of stay to a more appropriate "one year." But so many changes, all of which smoothed out rough spots on the original application, should have troubled the consular officer. "It's never a good sign if someone cleans up his paperwork too well," comments the current consular officer stationed in Latin America.

As disturbing as the visa forms are, perhaps more disturbing is that State's handpicked candidate to be the new chief enforcer of visa policies, Maura Harty, had not even looked at them as of her Senate confirmation hearing last week — yet the Senate is poised to rubber stamp her nomination. That's a real shame, because examining the applications yields many valuable lessons. The most important is that we're not going to keep out terrorists until State figures out that it needs to enforce the law.


http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp
Have a look at the scans of the actual applications and ask yourself how could they possibly have been granted.
Remember it has NEVER been easy to get a visa to the USA.
Dont forget during World War II when people were trying to flee Europe not a single visa was granted to Jews.

If a person aids and abetts an act of mass murder and an act of massive fraud then i still think the law regards you as guilty. Alot of people are involved and the paper trail is pretty clear as to who were the masterminds.