Aaron russo on the 9-11 inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol:

(I think that will be everyone's reaction. Everyone who knows there's always potheads 'admitting' to things they didn't do. There's bound to be some public attention. And then, when serious questions are asked, it turns out all their 'inside knowledge' of the event is from public record. Which in this case was splattered all over the media.)

Oh, and I'm using lol as there's no chuckle smiley.
 
So what are your sources?
 
No I didnt. Controlled Demolitions company verified that "pull it" is used by the industry when a building is being demolished-

Link to video.

The problem is that Silverstein's comment is so cryptic and vague that it is impossible to know for sure what he was referring to.

I agree with that assessment. Obviously Silversteins purpose was merely to create more confusion.
 
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696...e-controlled-demolition-of-the-building-.html

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming that a covert military operation executed a false-flag attack on 9-11.
 
Good eye from AE911truth-

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed
 
So what are your sources?

FYI people making bold claims have the onus of proof.

(And no, posting vids doesn't count.)

I'm not clear what you are hoping to achieve by posting random lumps of text. The average CFCer is not a fan of conspiracy theories, so you really need to have an argument of substance. (And that includes experts that discount your idea, sorry.)
 
The Snowden test should apply to this. Considering how much valuable intel he leaked, we still have gotten any secret info about this from those files, yet we got a lot out of them, so it make the conspiracy theories quite a stunning piece of work to be kept secret all this time while other things have been leaked.
 
FYI people making bold claims have the onus of proof.
You claim all of the assertions are false, so what solid data do you have to prove that? Did Bush and Cheney tell the truth to the 911 Commission? Nobody knows since they
"testified" behind closed doors-

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday he "answered every question" posed to him by the 9/11 commission during what was described as an extraordinary session at the White House with the panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"It was wide-ranging, it was important, it was just a good discussion," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden, shortly after the closed-door session ended.

The entire 10-member bipartisan commission -- known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- attended the meeting in the Oval Office.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney answered questions from the commissioners for more than three hours.

The president dismissed suggestions that he appeared before the panel with Cheney to coordinate stories.

"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."

Bush said it was important for him and Cheney to appear together so that commission members could "see our body language... how we work together."

Bush described the session as "cordial," but declined to provide any details about topics discussed. He said he was never advised by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales -- who attended the session, along with two members of his staff -- not to answer a question.
'We are vulnerable'

Bush stressed that the United States remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
"So long as there's an al Qaeda enemy that's willing to kill, we are vulnerable," Bush said.
A statement from the 9/11 commission described the meeting as "extraordinary" and thanked the two men for their cooperation.

"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid," the statement said. "The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report."

Commission member Tim Roemer, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, said Bush was "very direct" in his answers.

"He was cooperative, he was frank, he was gracious with his time," Roemer told CNN.

The commission is investigating what has become the defining moment of the Bush presidency -- the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, carried out by 19 hijackers who commandeered four U.S. commercial jets.

Two of those jets slammed into New York's World Trade Center, causing the towers to collapse, a third jet crashed into the Pentagon, and the fourth slammed into a field in western Pennsylvania. About 3,000 people were killed.

The commission is charged with coming up with an authoritative account of the attacks, including any intelligence and security lapses. The commission will also draft recommendations on how to safeguard against possible future attacks.

It is rare for a sitting president to talk to such a panel. There have been only a handful of appearances since 1862, when President Lincoln discussed relieving a Civil War general.

Bush had only positive words for the session.

"They had a lot of questions and ... I'm glad I did it," Bush said. "I'm glad I took the time."

But the administration initially opposed the creation of the commission. The White House relented amid pressure from some 9/11 family members and it later backed down from its opposition to an extension of time for the commission.

The commission now has until July 26 to finalize its report, but that report may not be released publicly at that time, pending a security review by the White House.
No transcript

Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.

The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.

Bush brushed off a question from a reporter Thursday on whether 9/11 families were entitled to a transcript of the session.

"You asked me that question yesterday," Bush replied. "I got the same answer."

He did not repeat the answer, but the White House has said there will not be a transcript of the session. Bush said he expects details of his "conversation" with the commission to go into its final report.

The Oval Office session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m., although two commission members -- Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey -- left about an hour earlier.

In a written statement, Kerrey said he left early to attend "a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill."

Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also met with the commission. Their sessions were also private and, like Bush and Cheney, they were not under oath. However, Clinton and Gore appeared separately before the panel, and their sessions were recorded.

Bush and Cheney had spent several hours over the past few days preparing, aides said.

Bush, for example, reviewed intelligence briefings from 2001 and spent time talking to Gonzales, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and chief of staff Andrew Card, who was traveling with Bush in Florida on the morning of the September 11, 2001, attacks. (Rice delivers tough defense of administration)

A senior administration official said Bush's preparations also included conversations with Cheney.

Officials said that among the documents prepared for both men to review were intelligence reports from the months and weeks before the attacks and what one senior official called "chronologies and other records of events in that time period."

They also reviewed transcripts and summaries of previous testimony to the commission -- including that of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, officials said.

Clarke was critical of the Bush administration in his testimony before the commission, saying it considered terrorism "important" but not "urgent" before the 9/11 attacks. (Clarke vs. Rice: Excerpts from testimony)

The commission recently held a series of public hearings, during which some witnesses faulted Bush's anti-terrorism policies before the 9/11 attacks. And statements prepared by the commission staff have faulted the FBI and CIA for their policies and lack of cooperation before that time. (9/11 commission faults U.S. intelligence)
White House rebuke

The commission has been the subject of increasing criticism from some Republican lawmakers who say Democratic members appear to be more interesting in casting blame than finding solutions. (Republicans amplify criticism of 9/11 commission)

The Justice Department has also released documents on its Web site about Jamie Gorelick -- a Democratic member of the commission who served in the Justice Department under President Clinton -- and her role in developing a legal "wall" on the sharing of intelligence information.

Some witnesses who appeared before the 9/11 commission said bureaucratic hurdles impeded the effort to thwart terrorism.

That wall was initially affirmed by Justice Department under Bush, but the restriction on sharing intelligence information was lifted as part of the post-9/11 Patriot Act.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush was "disappointed" by the release of the documents.

"That's what the Justice Department did; we were not involved in it," McClellan said. He added that Bush expressed his disappointment to the commission.

"The president does not believe we ought to be pointing finger during this time period," McClellan said.
Nothing hidden there, nope. Duh. :rolleyes::lol:

(And no, posting vids doesn't count.)
Since when? You dictate rules now? How would you even know since you dont examine them?
I'm not clear what you are hoping to achieve by posting random lumps of text.
What part isnt clear?
The average CFCer is not a fan of conspiracy theories, so you really need to have an argument of substance.
Again, there is no such thing as a "conspiracy theory". The term is only a disinformation smear to squelch inquiry. What counts the most are facts and logic. "Trolls dont fly but the facts dont lie."

(And that includes experts that discount your idea, sorry.)
Oh dear me. What experts? No need to be sorry since your phantom "ex-a-perts havent refuted anything anyway.
 
Actually, I made no claim whatsoever. Until you produce some new facts (and once again, I don't see any in this new lump of text) all you have is a theory.

Since you seem to assume there are lots of 'hidden facts' to be uncoverered all you have is, in fact, a conspiracy theory.

In other words, a bold claim. Putting it forward in colour doesn't help your case either, I'm afraid.
 
No need for "new evidence". The current evidence is enough. Youll just have to live with it.
 
The Illuminati perpetrated the 9-11 attack to destabilize the West and escalate conflict against Moslems. Simultaneously they promoted domestic conflict within through vulgar and provocative music-

Link to video.
 
After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that the conspiracy in Deus Ex is more realistic than the 9/11 "truthers".


Link to video.
 
Now there's a revelation...

Not a bad analogy. The Illuminati actually are leading us to their Day of Doom-

Except, of course, there's as much truth to Illuminati as there is to Dan Brown plots. (Also, analogy wasn't intended. You seem to have a tendency to simply not read what doesn't agree with you, I fear.)

No need for "new evidence". The current evidence is enough. Youll just have to live with it.

If 'current evidence' is enough, why are you posting all this nonsense?
 
Except, of course, there's as much truth to Illuminati as there is to Dan Brown plots. (Also, analogy wasn't intended. You seem to have a tendency to simply not read what doesn't agree with you, I fear.)
You must be an expert on all things historical. Im glad you showed up. :D

If 'current evidence' is enough, why are you posting all this nonsense?
Just in case some people are still remotely skeptical. I just wanted to be thorough.
:hatsoff:
 
So what are your sources?

What are yours? (PS: Youtube videos don't count) Find some credible sources that aren't biased towards this ridiculous "truther" crap and maybe we'll start taking you seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom