Author Options:

9/11 Eight years later. Are we being told the truth? Answered

So here we are, 8 years after the events of 9/11. Are we being told the truth? Was there a multinational conspiracy to commit these attacks? Was there a U.S. cover-up of the facts? Who has benefitted from the attacks? Do you feel safer today? Are your rights being infringed in the aftermath, in the name of "national security"? I don't know about you, but I get the feeling we've been lied to!


These are my answers.

Some truth is told, but a lot of is not revealed or altered to change the way people interpret it .
People who benefit from the wars (*cough* certain oil companies *cough*).
Not at all. 
I'm not old enough to really know, but I'd say so.

I'll just say, your generation is growing up in a VERY different America than the America your parents and grandparents knew.

Flying USED to be fun.
We actually expected things done and said in private to remain private.
Free speech did not make you a terror suspect.
It was considered patriotic to question our leaders.
Buying fertilizer or gunpowder didn't get you put on a watch-list.
Carrying cash wasn't considered a suspicious activity.
Funny clothes or art projects were not percieved as bomb threats.
You could profess your faith publicly, without beeing seen as dangerous.

Sadly, I could go on and on.......

Yes, you're quite right (unfortunately). I think the paranoia has created more fear and danger.

I don't care if it is a Southern Baptist ,  Roman Catholic ,  Muslim or Hindu ,  hardcore religious fundamentalists scare th' crap out of me I

Anyone who is conviced that only his faith is THE WAY  and is prepared to slaughter any one who dares to say different is insane and should be put in a round , rubber lined room in  a custom fit "i love me ! " jacket !

Obsessive religous conviction of this sort has been responsible for more death ,  destruction and sheer human misery than all other sourcers combined !!!

Especially when you mix politics in to th' equation !

when faced with an unexpected , unpleasant event ,  th' first impulse of ANY proffessional politician is to LIE !!!  Loudly ,  repeatedly and accuse anyone who has a different view of th" situation of tryin' to pervert th' "facts" in an attempt to hide th' "truth" !

Unfortunatly ,  It works just far too often ( check "W's" track record ! )

Yep, you got it.  It's amazing how dis-satisfied I've become with both major parties.  I consider myself a patriot, and fairly conservative, but neither party has been faithful to the Constitution in the last 20 years or so. 

And yes, it works FAR too often.  Their motto is "When in doubt, LIE like a dog.  When anyone questions the lie- call them Un-American/Racist/Conspiracy Wackos."

I would like to point you to this article posting. Sorry about it being NSFW, I did not write that in the first place.

I looked at it. It's kinda funny. It's a little superficial, but might be right. Like I said, I'm not pointing fingers at our gov, or anyone else for that matter (except to say at least 19 or so middle eastern terrorist definitely were involved). The things I question are primarily the 9/11 Commision Report, media coverage, and potential cover-up and misinformation of the attack AFTERWARDS.

Yeah, I thought it was funny, and I like that he can back up his statements.

Man!!! It's blocked on my work computer!!! I'll have to see it at home. What was it about?

Maddox, the creator of the site, was blocked by filter companies like websense. He is also blocked in several countries. He posted an article about this, I will link you to it tomorrow. It's pwnage

That's ok, I can access it in the morning, at home on my computer. THe one here at work blocks TONS of stuff.

Oh, and read this article he wrote explaining how he got blocked whenever you can. Its very funny, and he pwn3d all the filter companies by blocking them from his site.

I don't know if there was a proper conspiracy in this case, but I do see evidence that they were aware of something that was about to happen ahead of time, and simply did not act on it because
1) they weren't sure of what and where (incompetency, miscommunication)
2) they wanted something like this to happen to excuse the declaring of war (mr. Bush should have spent a month in Israel if he thought our incident was bad), btw, I would find this choice violently immoral and cold blooded, by ANY standards, and a side note, I am not trying to play down the tragedy because I see useless loss of life as a tragedy even if only one.

As for my own feelings of being safe are concerned, I don't worry to much about it (worry can give you worry lines, and one could then worry about that too ;-) BUT I certainly don't feel any safer then before.

I'd say those are my feelings (at a bare minimum). I hope that's all there is too it. If they'd re-open the investigation, and fess up to at least that much, it might dispel some of the darker suspicions. I can "fill in the blanks" with some pretty benign solutions, but the government/media tendancy to gloss over the questions, and provide misleading info about the simple/obvious stuff, makes it seem like the powers-that-be (or were) have something to hide.

makes it seem like the powers-that-be (or were) have something to hide

Or, at very least, believe they have something that might have to be hidden, whether there is something of it or not. I fear many of our politicians have a streak of paranoid/schizophrenia ;-)

Just like the JFK conspiracy;;-) sometimes we have overactive imaginations (if you are not familiar with Red Dwarf, check out that link, it is humorous at best ;-)

Red Dwarf!!! Now that's funny! But my views on the JFK assassination are similar to this. I won't (openly) speculate on the forces behind the assasination, or all the true players in it. I just don't think we have MUCH of the truth. All I can say clearly is: "He didn't survive the attack". And it really did happen in Dallas. However, Oswald as a lone gunman, with no backers or inteligence agency affiliation (ours OR theirs)- That dog won't hunt! Also, the explanation of Ruby's shooting of Oswald out of sympathy for Jackie and the kids, sounds like it was cooked up by a naive 3rd grader!

I have a friend with a little inside info on CIA (or secret service) possible-foreknowledge of the assassination. He was in highschool, and a teacher he knew was "connected". The teacher said, "watch the TV boys". Then only about 4 hours later, (even though they were about 300 miles from Dallas), they saw the teacher (on TV) in the security detail for Kennedy at Daley Plaza. It soesn't PROVE anything, but it sure was unusual.

...they saw the teacher (on TV) in the security detail for Kennedy at Daley Plaza...

Could that not just be different standards of security back then?

When Phil the Greek the Duke of Edinburgh visited my university to open the new library, some of my friends made up the security "detail". As far as I know, none of them had any military or security experience (they were 19!), but they still got the job for a day.

(About a year later that I got pulled off a wall by one of Charlie's security goons, but that was in public, in Liverpool.)

I'm sure standards were quite different then. But he somehow rushed 368 miles (I looked up the distance) to be there when asked by someone (likely CIA or Secret Service) asked him at the last minute. As far as I know, the prez has always had (at least semi-) dedicated gaurds for those duties. My friend is pretty sure his teacher had previous inside-experience. The odd thing was to call him urgently for that job 368 miles away, and rush him there in 4 hours or less, when he'd not been involved in Kennedy's visit to Greer's Ferry, AR (fairly nearby) the week before.

The thought did occur to me this morning that they would have to call the school and request someone fetch the coach to the phone urgently? This being the case, either it would be told that coach left to take an urgent call, returned and said "watch TV all night.", then left. Or he would have cancelled his next period and left without having the chance to speak to students, maybe he shouted out the window of his car as he drove-off? Phone call: "Hello mister coach, we finally got the plan together to take-out JFK! ...except Ian twisted his ankle this morning so he's not fit for it. You're the nearset guy we've got so be (there) at () hours, we're sending transport. Oh and because this is a bit of "a biggie" keep quiet about it eh, tell the school your grandmother's just died or something..." L

Yeah, I thought about that too. If he knew before school, why did he even show up that day? Also, this was before cellies (basically), so the message would've probably followed "old--school" (pun acknowledged, but not intended) procedures to get to him. It would seem strange for him to go BACK to the kids. I guess as a coach, he might've gotten the call in his office, and passed by the team/locker room/class and made his comment on his way out. But the whole thing seems strange. My friend didn't think his coach was involved in the attack, but thinks he may have had foreknowledge of a conspiracy, and was sent to try and stop it. I've been trying to get in touch w/ him today, but I think he's still somewhere up north flying the last of the season (he's a cropduster).

Another detail - so maybe he was expecting the kids see him "going out" in style saving the president? As in "I may not see you again if this comes off, but you'll see me (onTV)"? Mmm, sounds more like it. L

That was just my friends opinion (that he was sent there, ****probably/possibly**** to stop or counter an assasination plot. When the coach said "watch the TV boys", my friend was thinking sports event, or space travel, or issue with Cuba. But as soon as he saw the Kennedy footage, he was astounded. I don't think they had any hint to the coaches "connections" before that. I think the kids knew he was ex-military, maybe even involved in a Cuban operation, but I don't think they thought of him as a potentially active operative/agent until the Daley Plaza incident. And my friend never suggested the coach was there for malicious purposes. He just thought the timing of the whole thing, and the apparent depth of the coaches intelligence involvement to be really weird.

BTW- It was a really innocent time in the US (at least outside of intelligence circles), and it was probably quite sometime before your average, tradional, patriotic American would ever suspect that it may have been an inside job. Previous assasinations had been (at least viewed as) fairly straight forward affairs, with all the (small number of) players seemingly brought out into the open. No real sense of a widereaching conspiracy, or cloak-and-dagger intrigue. ....But obviously times have changed.

Anyway, it is a peculiar train of thought to ask people what they were thinking BEFORE the assasination. Everyone who was alive at the time tells you where they were and how they felt when they saw the footage on TV, or heard the coverage on Radio. But nobody talks about what they were thinking in regard to Kennedy in the hours before his killing. Most everyone was just going about their baby-boom, work-a-day, God bless America life. And then they were blindsided out of left field with this occurence.

No real sense of a widereaching conspiracy, or cloak-and-dagger intrigue. ....But obviously times have changed.

Yeah, now we have the X-Files to tell us what is true and what is not ;-)

That's interesting. What I heard is that the mafia had been laying plans to hit him on the tour he was on, and for whatever reasons they had to scrub the previous locations.

I've heard that too. Ruby's murder of Oswald MIGHT hint in that direction. But there were a LOT of people with motive to kill Kennedy. Cubans, Mafia, Russo-Commies, LBJ, strong anti-commies/CIA, (not to mention Jackie, and Marylin Monroes other lovers-RFK excepted) and maybe others. Possibly the weirdest "suspect" was Woody Harrelson's father!

One lover had some serious ties with the Mafia - In his time running with the "Rat Pack", I do believe he made a few too many friends, then when he tried to clean up his image AND Las Vegas, that was just a bit too far for them...

OR he knew he was going to be there, and wanted to wave at the camera and look cool to his students.....Ockham's razor :-)

Sounds a bit odd. As far as I'm aware there was no TV footage available that quickly? L

The assassination wasn't shown live, but several events leading up to it were. The aftermath, hit the air a bit later. Next time I get my friend alone, I'll ask him the specifics. It was his football coach, and they were in south Arkansas. I know my friend saw him on TV, and I'm pretty sure it was about 4 hours later (but not positive). The thing that my friend was amazed by, was the length of time from when he last saw the coach at school- till the moment he saw him on TV in Dallas. It was almost impossible by car, and VERY unlikely by private plane. He most likely travelled in a private or military plane/chopper. And then he found it funny, that the teacher told them to watch the TV. If you were involved in something that classified, would you mention it to a bunch of high school kids?

He didn't say what TV to watch & when though, another channel and they could have missed him / his twin brother...? Ask what the football coach said about being there after the event, that'd be interesting. L

My friend implied that the coach knew ALL tv would be covering it. Also, it wasn't so much "Watch me on TV", as it was "Something historic is going to happen." At least that's the way my friend took it. I will ask him what the coach said afterward. I think he's told me before (but I can't remember), and whatever the coach said was anticlimactic.

Yeah, in Red Dwarf episode Tikka To Ride JFK assassinates himself ;-)

Maybe they are onto something!!! ***Returns to bunker, steps over perpetual motion machine, sits on stack of Soldier of Fortune mags, and resumes work on TIme Machine*****

Do you remember the episode: Tikka to Ride ?

I think for sure that there was an epic failure amongst those in the security community, and then cover up work to say they didn't fail epically. As for a full blown internal conspiracy, I doubt it, but I wouldnt be overtly shocked if the ball wasnt dropped by some individuals for political or strategic gain. I'm not a skyscraper engineer, I dont know what to say about the towers collapsing or secondary explosions. BUT I will say flying into the pentagon took some serious doing that I feel is beyond most pilot's abilities. To be gunning full throttle at some insanely low altitude (25-100ft), then going straight into a 4 (3?) story building is something that only a military pilot in my mind could accomplish in a jumbo jet. Simply banking would put you into the ground. To fly anything at low altitudes with speed takes years of practice (the vast majority of all aviation accidents are landing and take off). The tape rather clearly shows a frontal impact, not a dive bombing. Smacking into the WTC's isnt too hard, and the large debris field in PA is simply what happens when you let people who have no clue about aircraft at the controls. I dont think even CameronSS and myself (together, as Ible's resident aeronuts) could land a jumbo jet any where close to safely without some serious ground support. That's my 2p...

My concern about flight 93, was that it may have been shot down, or bombed before crashing. I love the story of the passengers fighting for control (and I'm sure it was actually true), but I don't think THEY took the plane down. Eight miles of debris and bodies suggests (to me) a mid-air explosion of some sort. And "so what?" if that were the case? It's perfectly right to shoot down a terrorist controlled airliner which is headed for a large population. IF that's the case, why not just admit it?

It may very well have been shot down. I recall that they said fighters where scrambled to shoot down any other terrorist controlled jets.

The pentagon attack is still the one that leaves the most questions in my mind.

A caller who claimed to be locked in the lavatory of flt 93 (ok it could've been a VERY WELL TIMED hoax), called authorities saying there was a blast and smoke on board several minutes before the ground impact. A couple of witnesses on the ground reported a blast, and debris miles before the impact. Unless the structure was overstressed by radical maneuvers (which is possible), causing the plane to break apart, there must've been a bomb on board OR a missile attack. Also, a(n) alledged portion of the voice records ( I listened to them last week) indicate the high-jackers were making a list of demands (suggesting they were not intending a suicide mission). However I'll admit, that might've been a clever (though ineffective) way to try to keep from getting shot down, before arriving at their target.

I'll play ball, IF so there would be great reason to lie. Saying that you had to shoot down a plane filled with innocent people doesn't make for a nice headline however the passengers overpowered the terrorist does. That being said I don't think they were shot down.

I'll put it this way, I HOPE they weren't shot down. If they were though, and we find out about it later, how much worse than just fessing up!!!!

Look I could argue all day about how the facts do make sense. It's this simple close to three thousand people lost the lives on that day, and no investigation was needed to find to the terrorist that did it. Within hours Al Qaeda took credit for there attack. Then came retaliation, question became were are they-Afghanistan, and Iraq. So that's were we went and were we are nothing more. Would you rather fight the war there or here.

Those were my feelings for a long time. And no doubt bin Laden and Hussein were/are bad men and a threat to our way of life. I'm glad to be rid of one, and would like to see the rotting carcas of the other. Despite the CIA origins of Al Qaeda, I also think they needed to be crushed. And believe me, I've been saying I'd rather fight OVER THERE all along. I'm thankful we've not had another successful attack on American soil since 2001, and I want it to stay that way. However, I don't believe the facts add up. (I used to.) I understand your thoughts, and I honestly hope you're right. But the things that are questionable to me are: -prior inteligence (which was apparently ignored) that this would occur -the "other" explosions in at least WTC 1, as reported by numerous witnesses -the true cause of the WTC 7 collapse, and apparent cover-up -the hundreds of commercial/military pilots who don't believe the maneuvers of the plane that hit the Pentagon were possible under the circumstances. -the numerous engineers who's questions are unanswered concerning the towers collapse. -the nature of the calls coming from flight 93, as well as the wreckage scattered over 8 MILES. -the eerily similar nature of Operation Northwoods, to the effects of the 9/11 attacks. Like I said, I'm not pointing fingers. I just don't think we are getting the whole truth, and I suspect we are getting some outright lies. I'm definitely not calling it conspiracy, or even complicity, but I am strongly suggesting there is a cover-up to the true players, and actual procedures in the attacks.

You know the funny thing is the facts either fit together too perfectly and never fit together fell enough. WTC7 has been discussed and defeated numerous times. As always, you have disagreeing "Armchair Admirals" and such, that use their "field" experience to tell you th government is wrong. "other explosions" could easily be caused by a build up in pressure as the trade center fell. As for prior possible warnings. I doubt possible warnings are rare and you can't spend time checking ever one. Finally, I have never heard of Operation Northwoods feel free to "educate" me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods - All I can say is that there are eerie similarities. As Kiteman said, maybe terrorists planned it to LOOK similar to Op. Northwoods. It would make me feel better if there were evidence to support that idea!!!

Could you send me a link on the good WTC7 explanations. My honest impression (at this point) is that 7 was damaged, and dangerous. Therefore the NYFD or similar agency took it down in a controlled fashion. That would make sense and is pretty benign. IF that's the case (and I understand it might not be, which would render this point moot), why not just say so?

And the "Armchair Admirals" are from a pretty diverse background. SOme of them may be kooks, and some may have an axe to grind, but somehow I think quite a few are sincere (even if they are mistaken).

The Operation Northwoods plan was public knowledge four years before the Twin Towers attack.

If I had been a foreign aggressor with harmful intent towards a nation, relatively few resources, and knowledge of that plan, would it not make long-term sense to model an attack on that plan?

After all, the US nation (and the world) as a whole has suffered more inconvenience, and been subjected to more paranoia and hysteria, from US actions since the attack than AQ attacks.

How many resources have been put into countering the internal effects (say, policing a demonstration demanding "the truth about 9-11") that could otherwise have been put to much better uses, such as combating "real" crime, or paying for public health care?

After all, the real purpose of an attack like 9-11, or the London Tube Bombings is not to "kill the infidel", but to disrupt his actions? Just like the Bishopsgate bombing in the 90s was designed to disrupt the City, not kill people?