I wonder if you realize that personal attacks on the issue discredit nobody but yourself?

I'm still curious as to why debris was carted off without more than cursory inspection. As I understand, It was moved and destroyed so quickly it was illegal. It raises my suspicion, regardless of whatever ad hominem attacks you decide to throw my way as a result of my being curious. I just want answers.

I'm curious about the people who made a massive killing (pun intended) on the stock market playing off of the airline stocks of the airlines involved in those attacks. Did we ever identify them? Such a huge aberration in normal trading, with so specific and accurate a future time frame, raises questi...

I wonder if you realize that personal attacks on the issue discredit nobody but yourself?

I'm still curious as to why debris was carted off without more than cursory inspection. As I understand, It was moved and destroyed so quickly it was illegal. It raises my suspicion, regardless of whatever ad hominem attacks you decide to throw my way as a result of my being curious. I just want answers.

I'm curious about the people who made a massive killing (pun intended) on the stock market playing off of the airline stocks of the airlines involved in those attacks. Did we ever identify them? Such a huge aberration in normal trading, with so specific and accurate a future time frame, raises questions in the minds of the rational and curious. Call us whatever hyperventilating, angry names you want as proof of your pristine sanity, but admit its unusual at least, would you?

People with no real piloting experience crashing not one but two massive airliners into two skyscrapers with pinpoint accuracy? Haven't airline pilots with years of experience said not even they could pull something like this off? Its curious, isn't it?

People identified by US intelligence as hijackers suddenly turning up in their home countries, confused and angry over being accused of causing 911? Yeah, I wonder about that. Don't we have airport surveillance video of these guys in airports in the States? How did they get to be in two places at once? What's your explanation? I'd like to hear it. Do you have one?

Do I believe a missile hit the Pentagon? Highly unlikely. Do I believe the towers were brought down by interior explosives? Possibly, but those pinpoint accurate airliners do seem to have hit hard!

I'm not prone to the more extreme theories.

Those of you who choose to believe the party-line explanation, can you at least admit there are strange discrepancies?

If you refuse to see the obvious, what does that say about *your* sanity?

Because I'm curious. Should I apologize for that?

I wonder if you realize that personal attacks on the issue discredit nobody but yourself?

I'm still curious as to why debris was carted off without more than cursory inspection. As I understand, It was moved and destroyed so quickly it was illegal. It raises my suspicion, regardless of whatever ad hominem attacks you decide to throw my way as a result of my being curious. I just want answers.

I'm curious about the people who made a massive killing (pun intended) on the stock market playing off of the airline stocks of the airlines involved in those attacks. Did we ever identify them? Such a huge aberration in normal trading, with so specific and accurate a future time frame, raises questi...

I wonder if you realize that personal attacks on the issue discredit nobody but yourself?

I'm still curious as to why debris was carted off without more than cursory inspection. As I understand, It was moved and destroyed so quickly it was illegal. It raises my suspicion, regardless of whatever ad hominem attacks you decide to throw my way as a result of my being curious. I just want answers.

I'm curious about the people who made a massive killing (pun intended) on the stock market playing off of the airline stocks of the airlines involved in those attacks. Did we ever identify them? Such a huge aberration in normal trading, with so specific and accurate a future time frame, raises questions in the minds of the rational and curious. Call us whatever hyperventilating, angry names you want as proof of your pristine sanity, but admit its unusual at least, would you?

People with no real piloting experience crashing not one but two massive airliners into two skyscrapers with pinpoint accuracy? Haven't airline pilots with years of experience said not even they could pull something like this off? Its curious, isn't it?

People identified by US intelligence as hijackers suddenly turning up in their home countries, confused and angry over being accused of causing 911? Yeah, I wonder about that. Don't we have airport surveillance video of these guys in airports in the States? How did they get to be in two places at once? What's your explanation? I'd like to hear it. Do you have one?

Do I believe a missile hit the Pentagon? Highly unlikely. Do I believe the towers were brought down by interior explosives? Possibly, but those pinpoint accurate airliners do seem to have hit hard!

I'm not prone to the more extreme theories.

Those of you who choose to believe the party-line explanation, can you at least admit there are strange discrepancies?

If you refuse to see the obvious, what does that say about *your* sanity?

Because I'm curious. Should I apologize for that?

Do you, BitDrifter and cniq_cniq, have complete trust in your government, at all times, regardless of who leads it?

I, for one, have a whole lot less faith in our government than any of those truthers do. For example, I don't have the faith that our government could have pulled off 9/11 by hijacking those planes, ditching one where no one could find it, flying a missile into the Pentagon, or perform demolitions on those three WTC buildings. And I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that if they did pull off some type of inside job of that scale that they could keep it quiet for even a week, let alone for nearly six years now. It is just not possible. I have more faith in Big ...

Do you, BitDrifter and cniq_cniq, have complete trust in your government, at all times, regardless of who leads it?

I, for one, have a whole lot less faith in our government than any of those truthers do. For example, I don't have the faith that our government could have pulled off 9/11 by hijacking those planes, ditching one where no one could find it, flying a missile into the Pentagon, or perform demolitions on those three WTC buildings. And I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that if they did pull off some type of inside job of that scale that they could keep it quiet for even a week, let alone for nearly six years now. It is just not possible. I have more faith in Big Foot, Nessie, and UFOs than I do in our government's ability to keep a secret.

What I think is too bad is that the wild conspiracy theories overshaddow much more reasonable doubts. Then, they are used by those with an interest in treating the whole issue uncritically to dismiss any and all questions.

I am not a nut job. I do not believe in vast conspiracies. I do believe in agendas and I know for a fact that politics is a diabolical business. The doubt we should be raising is not whether Bush planned 9/11 or something like that. The far more alarming reality is that his government had no interest and took no action to prevent terrorist attacks. In the first year of his Presidency diplomacy and security were completely undermined not through conspiracy but neglect.

Re...

What I think is too bad is that the wild conspiracy theories overshaddow much more reasonable doubts. Then, they are used by those with an interest in treating the whole issue uncritically to dismiss any and all questions.

I am not a nut job. I do not believe in vast conspiracies. I do believe in agendas and I know for a fact that politics is a diabolical business. The doubt we should be raising is not whether Bush planned 9/11 or something like that. The far more alarming reality is that his government had no interest and took no action to prevent terrorist attacks. In the first year of his Presidency diplomacy and security were completely undermined not through conspiracy but neglect.

Red flags were lost in among all the red tape, and nobody seemed concerned enough to look for the warning signs. Since then, nobody has sought to understand the complex causes of this tragedy. We simply explain it away as "insanity," dismissing any need to realistically analyze the situation. The sad truth is that the people who commit the worst atrocities are seldom mad. The frightening truth is that they are people not so different from the rest of us.

To this day, Bush takes alarmingly little interest in protecting America other than through our wars abroad. Although he urgently invaded Iraq to protect our country, what has he done to address the underlying problems that fuel the conflict? What has he done to fund reasonable security measures? Look at how careless his administration is in who it associates with?

The question should not be: Did Bush know? The question should be, if he had known, what would he have done?

And I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that if they did pull off some type of inside job of that scale that they could keep it quiet for even a week, let alone for nearly six years now. It is just not possible. I have more faith in Big Foot, Nessie, and UFOs than I do in our government's ability to keep a secret.

Exactly. People don't realize the scale and scope of such an undertaking. Not only that, we can't keep laptops and hardrives from 'vanishing' on a regular basis chock full of secrets. What it boils down to is the awful truth and they just can't accept it, so they make up their own. That's where conspiracy theories are born. I have yet to see any plausible...

And I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that if they did pull off some type of inside job of that scale that they could keep it quiet for even a week, let alone for nearly six years now. It is just not possible. I have more faith in Big Foot, Nessie, and UFOs than I do in our government's ability to keep a secret.

Exactly. People don't realize the scale and scope of such an undertaking. Not only that, we can't keep laptops and hardrives from 'vanishing' on a regular basis chock full of secrets. What it boils down to is the awful truth and they just can't accept it, so they make up their own. That's where conspiracy theories are born. I have yet to see any plausible or even possible theories presented to date that weren't 'chock full o nuts'. ; )

Nice try on your wording there sooners. The US did not pass multiple times, they failed multiple times in trying to have him killed. What you refer to passing on is the worn out Sudan arguement. The 9/11 Commission addressed that already and determined that there was never a legitamate offer to the US at any time. Link

Here is the wording of the 9/11 Commission report:

The U.S. government was also interested in another individual with disturbing ties to terrorists, a Saudi named Usama Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was then based in Sudan. Under the influence of the radical Islamist Hassan al Turabi, Sudan had bec...

Nice try on your wording there sooners. The US did not pass multiple times, they failed multiple times in trying to have him killed. What you refer to passing on is the worn out Sudan arguement. The 9/11 Commission addressed that already and determined that there was never a legitamate offer to the US at any time. Link

Here is the wording of the 9/11 Commission report:

The U.S. government was also interested in another individual with disturbing ties to terrorists, a Saudi named Usama Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was then based in Sudan. Under the influence of the radical Islamist Hassan al Turabi, Sudan had become a safe haven for

violent Islamist extremists. By 1995, the U.S. government had connected Bin Ladin to terrorists as an important terrorist financier.

Since 1979 the Secretary of State has had the authority to name State Sponsors of Terrorism, subjecting such countries to significant economic sanctions. Sudan was so designated in 1993. In February 1996, for security reasons, U.S. diplomats left

Khartoum. International pressure further increased as the regime failed to hand over three individuals involved in a 1995 attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the regime.

Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. Du...

read more»

Since 1979 the Secretary of State has had the authority to name State Sponsors of Terrorism, subjecting such countries to significant economic sanctions. Sudan was so designated in 1993. In February 1996, for security reasons, U.S. diplomats left

Khartoum. International pressure further increased as the regime failed to hand over three individuals involved in a 1995 attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the regime.

Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. During

the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan’s defense minister visited Washington and had a series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan’s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their

Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan.

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG)...

read more»

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to

the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

It's amazing that you miss the point or even the debate that has swirled around the events of 9/11. Tenet isn't the one in question here. It is Condolezza Rice, Bush, and Cheney.

Tenet asserts that he gave a full briefing to Rice about impending threats and the administration gave their time and effort to different matters. Rice copped this "I don't recall" (which amazes me how these people get into positions of power and authority without being able to remember jack sh**)

Records show that she was briefed by Tenet. Which brings us back to the petition to find out exactly what W and his administration were informed of and how they chose to respond (or not respond).

What I remember most a...

It's amazing that you miss the point or even the debate that has swirled around the events of 9/11. Tenet isn't the one in question here. It is Condolezza Rice, Bush, and Cheney.

Tenet asserts that he gave a full briefing to Rice about impending threats and the administration gave their time and effort to different matters. Rice copped this "I don't recall" (which amazes me how these people get into positions of power and authority without being able to remember jack sh**)

Records show that she was briefed by Tenet. Which brings us back to the petition to find out exactly what W and his administration were informed of and how they chose to respond (or not respond).

What I remember most about the Bush administration prior to 9/11 was their constant appearances on the Sunday talk shows, cheerleading a recession by dolling out doom and gloom in excess of the situation so they could reward their campaign donors with friggin huge tax breaks.