There you go. Al Qaeda finds some guys who are willing to die for the cause, trains them to fly planes, then they hijack four planes and we all know the rest.

So all this **** you've been arguing about for the last mirrion posts is proven false as the government's account of what happened is more or less what actually happened...

THAT seems a bit more realistic, doesn't it? Then you have a couple dozen Americans who are in on it instead of several hundred if not thousands.

MMR tried this in the other thread and it didn't work. Reason? I don't play under the same name that I post here. Sorry. I tried to help MMR reach that conclusion without just coming out and telling him, but he just couldn't do it. I suspect it is too tough for most of you guys to guess, so I'll just end that right here.

You can give up sharkscoping and PTRing me. I don't play poker under the name Gorgonian.

What's worse is I don't play the poker games that those sites track. So even if you knew my handle, you still couldn't accurately attack me on unrelated issues.

Shucks, huh?

How is this not possible in an inside job scenario?

No, that's why many of the 9/11 Commission members thought the official investigation was a cover-up, manipulated by certain people. I don't think most people believe the US government's account of what happened is more or less true. You, gorg, tri, phil, foal, and the like are in the minority.

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the Truth: 16%
Hiding Something: 53%
Mostly Lying: 28%
Not Sure: 3%
+/- 4%

NYTimes/CBSNews


Explain the above quote please.

at claiming the ISI as a source for anything other than the Taliban and India.

It's completely possible. If 9/11 was MIHOP or LIHOP, it was more than likely the way it was done. Let the "bad guys" do it.


That poll is misleading at best. Hiding something != MIHOP or LIHOP. I would answer hiding something and I believe that what they say happened generally happened. The hiding part comes in because I think the Bush administration was thoroughly embarrassed by their complete incompetence leading up to and on 9/11. Had they provided the complete truth it would have destroyed any of their remaining credibility. So no, I don't think we're in the minority.


Basically it states that if the CIA had done it through Al Qaeda, only a couple dozen Americans would have to been knowledgeable about the mission and it would be very easy to keep it secret. If it happened the way you describe with three controlled demolitions and whatever at the Pentagon, you're talking about hundreds if not thousands of Americans with knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job and that would be next to impossible to keep secret. You don't think that out of all the people that would have been involved with the inside job at least ONE person would have come forward to expose their role, however small? Plus, it's been proven many times that the US Government is pretty incompetent when planning and executing "secret" missions.

All I'm saying is the much of the truther movement is focused on the wrong stuff. Why not spend your time building a case that Al Qaeda was directed by us to pull 9/11 off instead of spending your time arguing minute details with people that are more qualified than you to understand what happened? The points that you argue over and over about don’t prove the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. You provide quotes that witnesses heard explosions. Don’t you think that when a building is on fire things that are in the building may explode? You don’t think that when a building is falling down it doesn’t make a ton of noise, including sounds that may be interpreted by non-demolition expert witnesses as explosions? Or was it thermite that cut the columns? Thermite doesn’t make noise that sounds like explosions.

It takes weeks for a professional demolition crew to plan and execute a controlled demolition in a completely empty building that’s 10, 20, 30 stories tall. How long would it take to wire up a 50 story building for a controlled demolition while completely occupied, so you don’t have complete freedom to set it up however you want, and be completely undetected by any of the building’s occupants. Oh yeah, apparently it wasn’t your normal CD like in Vegas but some special CD that allowed for zero charges to go off before the building actually started falling down. Almost forgot, it would have to be completely void of seismic activity and be 100% foolproof even though the building would be on fire and maybe or maybe not have a giant piece of WTC lodged in it. Seems totally possible.

Lmao @ the head of the Pakistan's Directorate for Inter Services Intelligence not even being a reliable source for Pakistan. Umm... Earth to Hue.

Ok, just checking.


Clearly most everyone thinks the government is hiding something. The Bush and company incompetence argument is the only explanation that really makes sense if our government was in no way involved. However with these two things provided, cover up of certain facts and near total incompetence, we are expected to fully trust the "official" story and all the government sponsored speculation. In the example of WTC7, NIST had pictures, videos and interviews... that's it. The rest is pure speculation and is a hypothesis based on the what most anyone has access to a good deal of (aside from the computer simulation). So the government is covering things up and/or hiding things about the events and the government is totally incompetent (and lies to it's people incessantly)... but you choose to believe the government's "official" story. That is the typical layman's train of thought (and the coincitards/falsers as well).



850,000+ with top secret security clearance. I am not sure how many would have to be aware. Your statement also unintentionally intends to discount the countless whistleblowers:
9/11 Commissioners Kean, Hamilton, Roemer, Lehman and Clelan (count them if you want)

Coleen Rowley, who is responsible for exposure of the Phoenix Memo.

J. Michael Springman

Indira Singh her blog is here

Robert Wright

Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

Edmonds has been fighting the corruption permeating the FBI since her unfair dismissal and sued to contest her firing in July 2002. On July 6, 2004 , Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds' case, citing the government's state secrets privilege. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Edmonds in her appeal of that ruling. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 21, 2005.

The privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block the release in litigation of any material that, if disclosed, would cause harm to national security. However, the government has employed the privilege to dismiss Edmonds' entire case in an effort to protect itself from embarrassment. While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.

Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds' allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) sued the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft in June 2004 claiming the retroactive classification of Edmond's testimony was a violation of the First Amendment. That lawsuit is still pending, although Ashcroft and the Justice Department have moved to dismiss the suit.



I could go on...

I know the above are not saying what you want to hear, but many people have risked a good deal to come forward (9/11 com. excluded).

I guess you don't pay attention to our fine US special forces.

So it would take a while... this is your argument. Why would this be a problem. It took a long time to set this crime up, no matter who did it correct?



False, we'll go over the seismic activity later.

It's natural to assume the government is hiding something. The reports were based on incomplete information, we all know this. I believe that the hiding has more to do with the fact that the United States completely dropped the ball when there was plenty of evidence to support that Al Qaeda was going to crash some planes into some buildings. It's easy in hindsight to put the pieces together but on September 10, 2001, it was unconceivable that there would be suicide plane attacks. With WTC7, it's possible that the investigators were told not to do a good job because there was stuff to hide, or maybe because it was pretty obvious to everyone to see that the building had been beat to **** that day and collapsing was the result. To me and most people, the latter makes more sense.



All of these people are stating that there was evidence that could have prevented the attacks. Doesn't prove anything. It demonstrates that the US was incompetent. What is doesn't prove is that 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP.

What I'm looking for is someone that was involved in the planning and/or executing of the mission. Even the guy on the bottom whose job it was to drywall the holes left by the demolition experts after they had rigged a column.



These people don't bother me. They're out there exposing what they feel is something that could have been prevented but was ignored. Good for them. It still doesn't prove that it was an inside job.

I take that back, we generally only hear of the failures. But it would take a whole lot more than just special forces to rig two of the biggest buildings in the world to come crashing down after being hit by airplanes.


My point is the longer something takes and the more people involved, the larger the chance of being discovered and that the job at WTC would be nearly impossible due to the nature of what needed to be done. Has anyone come forward with evidence that the buildings were being prepped for demolition in the weeks prior to 9/11?




I have difficulty with this since I haven't seen any evidence that there was anything resembling a CD.

Actually, there was a reporter that was within about 1/2 mile of 7WTC that was recording.

Here is that video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZp...os=cEzTSE8cTq0 Starts at about 35 seconds. Notice, you can hear the collapse in the background, but no loud booms. None. Zilch. An explosive capable of cutting a core column would have been anywhere between 130-140 db. at 1/2 mile. Hummm....and not a sound. BUT, we ear the collapse? Funny that is eh?

Point?

Nope, not hollow accusations. You lie.

Sure, and human remains, and well, anything at all that they could find.


I wonder what these guys are doing?


Or these guys.....


Yes, you are wrong. The people sifting through the debris were doing so at Fresh Kills.

Now, what is your point about the recycling?

100%. Absolutely everything that came from around GZ was sifted and sorted.
I honestly dont know, but I amagine a very small precentage. But yet, they were able to find:
144 Rings, among the 65,000 personal items recovered from ground zero. Other items include 437 watches, 77 necklaces, 119 earrings and 80 bracelets
4 Autographed baseballs,
See here http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101.../anumbers.html

Now, if they can fin 119 EARRINGS don't you think they could find 1 foot, or even 6 inches of det cord? yeah, thought so.


No, none of the steel was saved. Not that they didn't sift through it. I mean, especially considering the fact that the SEC and other federal agencies had offices there, I know that they wanted to retrieve anything they could.

Logistically difficult? How about next to impossible. Considering the fact that there were people in and out of that building, 24 hrs a day, and the fact that you could not rig a building for CD without doing what I said, yes, it is logically impossible.

And yes, every 3rd day, I do work 24 hours straight.

Can you be more clear/specific? It's not in doubt that Al-Qaeda was assisted by the US when they were fighting the Soviets. But here's obviously a big difference between a former ally turning into an enemy and the CIA training/funding Al-Qaeda specifically to carry out 9/11.

It seems unlikely that Al-Qaeda members, even if secretly working for the CIA somehow, would agree to sacrifice their lives for the sake of helping nefarious forces in the US to invade Iraq and so on.

NP. I didn't watch the vid, though, because there's been a ton of "___ thinks 9/11 was an inside job" posts. It doesn't mean much unless they have some specific evidence (in which case you could post that instead maybe).

Well, lets se, when you quote NFPA and use the term "Violations" it implies something nefarious. But, what you of course, coveniently leave out, is that the NFPA guidelines are not law. They are suggestions.

Fwiw im not someone who takes the government message on face value and i assume there are lies out there - in fact on this page (or the one before) i said that the whole passport surviving wasnt true. I was wrong and i can take that evidence, absorb it and come to a new conclusion. Troofers cant.

There is just a huge logic gap in LIHAP and MIHOP. There was nothing of value in Afghanistan, other than these minerals that it is extremely hard to extract and some terrorist training camps that can be broken up. Oh and a pipeline that they wanted but the Taliban werent too receptive on building. We didnt need an excuse as big as 9/11 to stop the terrorists as we already did it after the 98 embassy attacks using cruise missiles.

As for Iraq, they had nothing to do with 9/11 which everyone knew at the time. If the goal was to go into Iraq and get their oil then 9/11 makes no real sense and it makes less sense to sideline ourselves in Afghanistan.

The problem with all the conspiracy theories, the major ones and not the whole "there was no passport" minor stuff, is it relies on an extremely complex web of events achieving goals that arent all that beneficial. 7 doesnt need to be brought down when 1 and 2 already were. 1 and 2 dont even need to be brought down as just flying the planes into them is enough. Putting a cruise missile into the Pentagon achieves no more public outcry than the civilian targets and it also means there are a bunch of nearby witnesses who didnt see a plane who you somehow need to hush up.

So take the simplest conspiracy, LIHOP. They got forwarning and did nothing to stop the attacks. No controlled demo, no cruise missiles, nothing like that. They can still stop the attacks before they happen and not only look amazing doing so "zomg, ty GWB for saving us!", they avoid any potential risk of future murder prosecutions AND they can still attack Afghanistan for merely planning these attacks and then tie in Iraq pretty much how they did anyway. If they want they can have some routine training near NYC and save the WTCs, maybe let the Pentagon plane get through or just shoot it down before hand too.

The problem i have with all this LIHOP and MIHOP is it assumes the events of that day were a requirement. We actually went to Iraq on a series of lies and could have easily gone to Afghanistan on "diet 9/11", where four planes are hijacked and then shot down by the Air Force, where they lost however many passengers and could have lost so many more civilians had they successfully hit their targets.

The hijackings alone are more than enough excuse to invade and topple the regime. It is also a much easier conspiracy to create and cover up so there are huge upsides balanced against small downsides.

you posted on 2+2 a link to your badugi 'training' video. it was a 1 dollar sit n go. you were playing on pokerstars under the name gorgonian.

that account was playing 1c/2c nl just last month. it is up 24 dollars after 20k hands.

i understand you play mostly KCL which isn't tracked and may play on other sites, or hey maybe you have another stars account since there is a lot of lowball played there.

but you are still likely terrible at poker. logic skills and strong thought processes are usually helpful in those games. and now a liar? but hey, you have come off like a condescending wank in this thread so i am not surprised.

foal,
no not too weird. i first searched tryforcharity's just to see what was up with him and thought it v strange for literally 100% of his posts on a poker forum to be defending the 'official story' of 9/11.
so i took two seconds to check out gorgonian since he has been most vocal and i didn't care for his posts. i was not surprised by the results

Why are you telling me what I play? I told you, I do not play under that name, and that was not a lie. I now play at a different site under a totally different name. That video was made when I first started learning Badugi. I made a lot of money off of the game in the year following that. Then, I moved my entire roll to Full Tilt, where I played Rush Poker primarily.

Later, a friend of mine bet me that I couldn't turn $2 into $200 in a month playing only NL5 or less. I won the bet, then steamed off a bunch of what I won in the process, just screwing around. I won a lot more than the $200 on the bet. Now, I don't really care what you think of all of that, but it is the truth, and it has absolutely zero to do with this topic, so take it somewhere else.

Perhaps ot crashed in PA

I was invited here to post my views and facts regarding 9/11. If you had read the entire thread, you would see what Gorg posted as to why.

Oh, and I can't stand poker. I couldn't care less.

I meant it's weird that you think either of those things are relevant in any way. Posting about them just comes off as petty and vindictive.

-Post ad hominems on one street
-Post an appeal to intelligent debate on the next street
-More ad hominems on the next street

Villain's line makes no sense. Ship the space bux.

P.S. Isn't ikestoys the best poker player in the politics forum?

So you have a problem with my condescending tone but no problem with the lies and deceptions being posted that I am responding to? That is what is telling to me. No wonder you went through all that trouble to try to find some mud to sling (and failed in the process).

Oh yeah, the mud didn't even have any water in it.

"Triforcharity hasn't posted ANYWHERE else in this forum"........

And the point is?? Oh, that my experience with playing poker is playing spades at the station for dibs on who rides on the engine, and who rides on the rescue.....

PS, I usually ride the engine, as I played spades often in the military, and in NYC.

Spades is not poker.

I wonder how I would be received if I was in a firefighter forum and said, I can't stand firefighters and I couldn't care less about them.

Lol, Gorg, you are full of fertilizer little buddy.

Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel

from a while back...

Any takers, Gorg, Tri?