Nuclear Demolition

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:23 am

excerpt
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/09/ ... f-911.html

9/11 Commissioners:

* The 9/11 Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

* 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

* 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

* 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"

* 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." He also said that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking

* And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true." And he said: "It's almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA's New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened"

If even the 9/11 Commissioners don't buy the official story, why do you?


Embedded links at the op link above
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am


Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:26 am

excerpt
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/09/ ... f-911.html

Senior intelligence officers:

* Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this)

* A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”

* A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe (and see this)

* A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)

* A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job

* The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup"

If even our country's top intelligence officers don't buy the official story, why do you?


Embedded links from the OP above
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:55 am

And what pray tell does any of that have to do with a “nuclear demolition” or “controlled demolition” period? That there was most likely some high level CYOA going on regarding what was obviously a massive intelligence failure is not surprising…

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:23 am

One of the comments at the above link sums it up nicely in my opinion:

The main point I'd like to make is that there is a big difference between

A)the government covering up or lying about its own failed intelligence activities and antiterrorism policies in an effort to avoid embarrassment, loss of confidence, and to prevent additional oversight or accountability.

and B) the government actively conspiring to cause 9/11 to happen or allow 9/11 to happen.

The inconsistencies and lies point to the former, but the latter seems to be the direction that the 9/11 truth movements always seem to go in. Just my 2/c


My thoughts exactly.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:46 pm

Access Denied wrote:And what pray tell does any of that have to do with a “nuclear demolition” or “controlled demolition” period? That there was most likely some high level CYOA going on regarding what was obviously a massive intelligence failure is not surprising…

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”


I never said nuclear demolition was the truth.

What I did say is I don't believe the official story
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:50 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:One of the comments at the above link sums it up nicely in my opinion:

The main point I'd like to make is that there is a big difference between

A)the government covering up or lying about its own failed intelligence activities and antiterrorism policies in an effort to avoid embarrassment, loss of confidence, and to prevent additional oversight or accountability.

and B) the government actively conspiring to cause 9/11 to happen or allow 9/11 to happen.

The inconsistencies and lies point to the former, but the latter seems to be the direction that the 9/11 truth movements always seem to go in. Just my 2/c


My thoughts exactly.



If there is a cover up....you don't know what is covered up until it is uncovered.

If lies are being told by the govt about any facet of 9/11, it throws into question everything.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:36 pm

I whole heartedly agree that if there was any conspiracy by the government concerning 9/11 it was to cover up incompetence. The whole saga is a model of security and intelligence ineptitude. The terrorists could not have picked a better time period for lax security measures. There was ample warning but the FBI dropped the ball. Also the government was highly riddled with political correctness and programs promoting incompetence. While I won't elaborate or provide examples or citations I can speak with personal experience.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:00 pm

I think it is awfully trusting of you to "believe" that everything being covered up points only to incompetence.

Regardless...it is clear that further investigation is warranted of everything regardling 911
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:45 pm

murnut wrote:I think it is awfully trusting of you to "believe" that everything being covered up points only to incompetence.

Regardless...it is clear that further investigation is warranted of everything regardling 911


Evidence of things getting covered up doesn't really point anywhere at all - except that something is being covered up. I have to agree with mosfet that given the amount of text omitted from the CIA FOIA docs concerning 9/11, even the Senate said that the CIA was not being forthright. But everyone pretty much agrees that the context of the omissions and everything surrounding what's omitted points to the CIA trying to cover up its own incompetence.

I've seen absolutely no solid evidence or even a hint of valid evidence to suggest the government had a direct hand in what happened that day. I actually find it kind of offensive when people suggest such a thing. The U.S. government has done some pretty horrible things to foreign nations and foreign citizens, and the CIA has supported some pretty unscrupulous characters through the years, but to suggest any U.S. citizen(s) working for such an agency would murder over 3000 Americans as part of some far-reaching conspiracy is offensive.

There have certainly been projects and conspiracies covered up by the agency - but it's always been related to either foreign affairs/disinformation or internal politics between agencies. This anti-U.S. government, 9/11 conspiracy crap is irritating and lacks even an ounce of evidence to support it.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:18 pm

You mean you would like to "believe" the US Govt would not sacrifice 3000 of it's own citizens....and you would rather "believe" the events of theat day were due to incompetence.

How many soldiers died in Iraq?

How many soldiers died in Afghanistan?

For want exactly did they die for?

I'm not accusing the US govt as complicit in 911....but what I am saying is that many things are being covered up...and the fact that so many died that day...and so many later died in wars because of the imagery of that day.... that every possible effort should be made to uncover exactly what is being covered up.

Hell...the Iraq war itself was based on lies.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:03 pm

murnut wrote:I'm not accusing the US govt as complicit in 911....but what I am saying is that many things are being covered up...and the fact that so many died that day...and so many later died in wars because of the imagery of that day.... that every possible effort should be made to uncover exactly what is being covered up.

Hell...the Iraq war itself was based on lies.


Okay - I can live with that. Look, I'm anti-war too, but your implications from previous posts make it seem that you are accusing the US govt as being complicit in 911, and in my mind that's just going too far. That's all I'm getting at... But if I misunderstood you, then all's good.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:38 pm

murnut wrote:You mean you would like to "believe" the US Govt would not sacrifice 3000 of it's own citizens....and you would rather "believe" the events of theat day were due to incompetence.

How many soldiers died in Iraq?

How many soldiers died in Afghanistan?

For want exactly did they die for?

I'm not accusing the US govt as complicit in 911....but what I am saying is that many things are being covered up...and the fact that so many died that day...and so many later died in wars because of the imagery of that day.... that every possible effort should be made to uncover exactly what is being covered up.

Hell...the Iraq war itself was based on lies.


Even though your memories of Vietnam might be slightly out of focus because our cause isn’t in the paper every day, that doesn't mean that it wasn't every bit as relevant as Pearl Harbor. We were caught off guard in Vietnam, it was jungle warfare, we weren't prepared for that, and there were again political restraints, it wasn't clear-cut like World War II. We lost so many because of political correctness in Vietnam. And then again we find ourselves with Muslims and again we find ourselves straddled with political correctness, you would think we would learn by now, but how many have to be sacrificed before we can turn a page on political correctness, maybe that's the price to pay for a democracy.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:49 pm

murnut wrote:I think it is awfully trusting of you to "believe" that everything being covered up points only to incompetence.

Regardless...it is clear that further investigation is warranted of everything regardling 911


I've worked as a supervisor for several gov agencies, military and civilian; have held a TS clearance for the Air Force, if you want to discount what I have to say, fine with me. I'm not much for these bbs, and don't care to waste time but of all the boards RU is a notch above the rest, and worth the effort.

And the "GOV" is a 1000 percent more likely to admit a cover-up of UFOs than incompetence. So that should give a perspective of what you can expect from the "gov".

Investigate, you ask, sounds like hope and change.
Last edited by mosfet on Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:15 pm

I'm not discounting what you have to say.

I'm saying "I" have many concerns about 911 and what happen after 911.

We embarked on two wars, and the Patriot Act was remarkably ready to go extremely quickly.

It's certainly possible that 911 was the perfect storm of incompetence, and stunning visual improbabilities.

Regardless....we and those who died on that day and since as a direct result should have better answers than what is offered by the 911 commission.

A cover up is a cover up. It's pointless to spectulate about where the cover ups lead until they are actually investigated.

Currently they are not being investigated.

They are being swept under the rug.

Just ask Sibel Edmonds
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Puppetburglar » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:19 am

Just ask Sibel Edmonds[/quote]


Perhaps you should start a thread on this Boiling Frog. There is much of interest here, and no one knows anything about it. My lingering questions remain- Did she interrupt a deeper operation? (Was that the intent?) Are there any lingering Turkish politics behind what happened? Perhaps an operation against certain Gulanist concerns?
God is a comedian performing for an audience too afraid to laugh

Voltaire
User avatar
Puppetburglar
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:17 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron