The 9/11 attacks

@caricature.  Yes I thought that too, though it could have just been the quickness of the plane I suppose. Planes or no planes is a big issue that nobody seems to have the answers to regarding 9/11.

@Deecoy. Here's the link. It was the good old BBC in fact who first reported this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Well well well. Thanks TBR. How stupid of them to use real identities!

Dee Coy wrote:Well well well. Thanks TBR. How stupid of them to use real identities!

What I don't really understand is why they can't make a better job of these things. Bizzarre

Today is the anniversary of 9/11 and we have this story

Karzai calls al-Qaida a 'myth' and denies 9/11 attacks were plotted in Afghanistan

On the eve of the anniversary of the 2001 attacks, the former president of Afghanistan expressed doubt that the terrorist group was responsible


Hamid Karzai, the former president of Afghanistan, has questioned the existence of al-Qaida, and denied that the 9/11 terror attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people were planned in Afghanistan.

On the eve of the anniversary of the 2001 attacks, Karzai, who left office last year after 12 years, used an interview with al Jazeera to express his doubt that the terrorist group led by the late Osama bin Laden was responsible for the operation which prompted the invasion of Afghanistan.

“I don’t know if al-Qaida existed and I don’t know if they exist,” said Karzai. “I have not seen them and I’ve not had any report about them, any report that would indicate that al-Qaida is operating in Afghanistan. It is for me a myth […] For us, they don’t exist.”

Karzai, who had a poor relationship with successive leaders in Pakistan, also claimed in the interview that Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan are “definitely” members of “Pakistani militias”.

The former politician, who was the chosen candidate of the US to take over a new administration in the wake of the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the 2001 war, clashed repeatedly with Washington during his rule.


Appearing on Al Jazeera English’s new weekly show, UpFront, Karzai declared as “fact” that 9/11 was not plotted in Afghanistan, despite overwhelming proof that Bin Laden and close associates such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed organised the operation while based in camps or houses in the east and south of the country between 1999 and 2001.

In the interview on Thursday, the former president said he had “never come across” al-Qaida.

When asked if he agreed that al-Qaida in Afghanistan had been behind the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington DC, Karzai replied: “I can tell you for a fact that the operation was neither conducted from Afghanistan, nor were the Afghan people responsible for that.”




Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks on several occasions, and videoed testaments of participants in the attacks were recorded in Kandahar, where the men trained in al-Qaida camps.

Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan in 1996, flying from Sudan where he had been living in exile since 1991. He was based first in hills south of the eastern city of Jalalabad before moving south to Kandahar, the spiritual and administrative headquarters of the Taliban.

Many witnesses have described Bin Laden’s movements in Afghanistan during 2001, while vast quantities of al-Qaida-related material was recovered from training camps across Afghanistan by journalists, soldiers and spies.

Only last month an audio tape surfaced including a segment of a speech made in Afghanistan by Bin Laden in the summer of 2001 in which he promises a significant operation in the US soon.


Al-Qaida has since been largely eclipsed by its own offshoot, the Islamic State, which has established a small but growing presence in Afghanistan.

Most analysts and security officials believe the group’s affiliate in Afghanistan is largely composed of disaffected members of the Taliban, but Karzai dismissed any Afghan connection with the group and pointed the finger at neighbouring Pakistan.

“[The Islamic State] … has no ground [in Afghanistan] at all. There is no element, there is no medium, for them to grow, or to rise, or to strengthen,” he said.

“Those who are working in the name of [the Islamic State inside Afghanistan] are definitely Pakistani militia forces,” he added. “Some of them have been captured and ID cards found on them, […] And they are very well supplied. That we know for a fact.”

In recent months, Karzai has repeatedly been accused of attempting to undermine his successor, Ashraf Ghani, but in the interview, he ruled out an attempt to return to the Afghan presidency.







Hamid Karzai's tangled legacy: inept failure or anti-Taliban hero?




Read more

A daring and bloody operation involving US special forces and the CIA put Karzai back in Afghanistan in the last weeks of the 2001 war and then into power as a supposed consensus candidate.

As the Taliban regime crumbled, Karzai was seen as a the man of the hour. He was the head of a major tribe, of Pashtun ethnicity like around 40% of his compatriots, but moderate, educated and pro-western. Educated in India, with credentials as a “freedom fighter” during the war against the Soviets of the 1980s, he enthused officials in Washington, Kabul and London.

But Karzai quickly proved himself independent and contrarian, not hesitating to launch vitriolic attacks on his backers when they were responsible for civilian casualties during the bitter war against insurgents in the decade that followed or criticise broad western policies.

Officials from the US, the UK, Nato and the UN all repeatedly criticised Karzai for failing to crack down on rampant corruption and the booming narcotics trade in Afghanistan.

By 2009, according to Robert Gates, the former US defence secretary, Washington was so keen to oust the Afghan president that officials connived in delaying an Afghan presidential election and then tried to manipulate the outcome in a “clumsy and failed putsch”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/hamid-karzai-al-qaida-myth-september-11-afghanistan

I have copied these posts from the Pat Brown topic here.

chirpyinsect wrote:

You don't have to believe 911 stories that is your right and there is a thread somewhere to discuss it so wont hijack the thread with discussions on it except to say my husband was the biggest believer that 911 happened as we were told until I persuaded him to watch a documentary on it.

AndyB wrote:

Just out of interest, which one?

chirpyinsect wrote:

I have literally watched hundreds of hours of video so not entirely certain of the one hubby watched but thus one is a good starting point.

https://youtu.be/hWiusdy1miI

The thing that initially got me thinking that something was wrong was not the collapse of the towers but the story that people on the fourth plane were phoning their relatives and leaving heart-rending messages.

Mobiles don't work from such a high altitude and that started me looking into the whole subject and I realised that everything about the whole story was hokum.

No cctv /cameras outside the Pentagon (well apart from 1 dodgy one) did it for me.

It used to be something you whispered in case you got accused of being a nutter but as more and more respected and credible voices have joined the truth movement, ie airline pilots, scientists etc it is becoming more unusual to find soneone who believes it happened as tptb claimed. Attar's passport surviving the crash, thermite found in the girders, building 7 collapsing at freefall 20 minutes after it was reported to have fallen, Bush saying he saw the first plane hit on the news when no footage existed of that until next day, Norad stood down, no plane wreckage in Shanksville, and numerous other bits of fakery convinced me.

It has convinced many chirpy as you say, but what gets me is why has no one been brought to book for such a heinous crime of perpatrating such a hoax and injuring so many?  People are even now still dying from the effects of the dust etc., so why is this not being investigated thoroughly?  How can you cover up something as big as this with what many believe were lies done in full view and get away with it?

Fear, coercion, brainwashing....who knows but I certainly believe governments are capable of anything including the sacrifice of its own citizens. As for why it has never been properly investigated, even the 911 commissioners admitted they were set up to fail.
And look how many of those who might have gotten near the truth have met untimely ends.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.libertybylogic.com/mysterious-911-witness-deaths/&ved=0ahUKEwiul96ipqfLAhVpnXIKHdv4AFIQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGLHpslodgWzJ-wxVHOh-xEyT76PA

Like certain other stories, it simply can't have happened the way we've been told. One oddity maybe you can explain away but there are so many.

chirpyinsect wrote:thermite found in the girders

According to the video that you linked to above (copied in by Freedom) traces of thermAte, the military grade version of thermIte were also found

AndyB wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:thermite found in the girders

According to the video that you linked to above (copied in by Freedom) traces of thermAte, the military grade version of thermIte were also found

Correct AndyB. I have even had people argue that the terrorists were able to get hold of it and planted the explosives in the towers and other buildings. Funny how the government didn't latch on to that theory but they have never stated that the buildings were pulled.
Silverstein got billions from the insurance companies and he was heard to order WT7 to be "pulled" a demolition term for blow it up.


Home : WRH Store : WRH Index : Reader Letters : Archives : Advertise : Donate
Deal of the Year: World Trade Center, New York, NY

Weighing in at $3.2 billion, the acquisition of the 99-year leasehold of the World Trade Center was the largest of the year. "Notwithstanding the emotional difficulty of celebrating anything related to the World Trade Center is the fact that upon completion of its acquisition by Larry Silverstein, it was clearly the deal of the year for the industry, and now more than ever, a deal of [a] lifetime for Silverstein" said Ken Zakin, managing director at Insignia/ESG. [iiRealEstate]

Silverstein Makes a Huge
Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks

Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.

From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. [BusinessWeek]
How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.

Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]

Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]

The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks.

See also:

Westfield, Silverstein and the WTC Golden Goose
Ground Zero Worker and 9/11 Hero Dying of Cancer From Toxins at WTC

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html&ved=0ahUKEwjM3s7fj6nLAhVHQJoKHW3JDH0QFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNFM8fT-ho9TkuNX5PhYrW9YHP_cSg

Obama faces pressure on secret ‘28 pages’ ahead of Saudi trip

As Barack Obama heads to Saudi Arabia next week, the US president is under increasing pressure to declassify redacted pages of a 9/11 report detailing Saudi connections to the attacks.

Secured behind a locked door in a secret vault on Capitol Hill in the heart of Washington, DC sits a 28-page document that only a small group of people have been permitted to see. Members of Congress may go into the room and read them – but they cannot take notes or be accompanied by members of their staff when doing so.
Such is the veil of secrecy behind what has come to be known as “the 28 pages” – or the final chapter of the 9/11 investigation report by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The 28 pages documenting Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers were redacted in 2003, when the 838-page report was released, due to national security concerns.
More than a decade later, that piece of the investigation into the worst terrorist attack on US soil is still – very controversially – under wraps.

But as Obama heads to Saudi Arabia next week for a visit that will include a meeting with King Salman, the outgoing US president is facing increasing pressure to declassify those pages.
The pressure comes amid rising tensions in US-Saudi relations, with the Sunni Wahhabi kingdom – under an increasingly bellicose Salman – opposed to Washington’s overtures to its arch rival, Iran, which culminated in a nuclear deal last year. A decreasing US reliance on Saudi oil has further strained a bilateral relationship once considered too important to fray. Suddenly, realpolitik imperatives are not sufficient to silence the howls for accountability from the families of the 9/11 victims and the US public at large.

What lies in the pages?

The clamour to unseal the 28 papers ahead of Obama’s Saudi trip was sparked by an April 10 report on the respected US television magazine, 60 Minutes, which detailed the level of frustration among senior US officials who have been pushing for a declassification over the past 13 years.
These senior former and current officials include Florida Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committe and co-chairman of the inquiry, and former CIA director Porter Goss, who was also a co-chairman of the inquiry.
Two days after the 60 Minutes broadcast, Sen. Graham told Fox News that the White House had informed him that a decision on whether to declassify the documents would be made in one to two months.
Graham provided no details on why it would take a month or two, although White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Tuesday that the 28 papers were the subject of an intelligence community “classification review.”
Asked about any alleged Saudi ties to 9/11, Earnest cited the 9/11 Commission's findings that there was no evidence the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials funded al Qaeda.
Saudi authorities have long maintained that support for the hijackers did not come from the government.
In the absence of public access to the papers, rumours have long circulated that the 28 pages detail funding for the 9/11 al Qaeda hijackers – not necessarily from the Saudi government, but from wealthy Saudis, including members of the royal family.
In the 60 Minutes report, Sen. Graham was asked if he believed support for the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

“Substantially,” Graham replied.
CBS reporter Steve Kroft pushed the US Congressman further: “And when we say, ‘The Saudis,’ you mean the government…rich people in the country? Charities?”
“All of the above,” Sen. Graham replied.

The times have changed

US government officials, however, argue that the redacted pages do not contain any information the public does not already know.
But advocates for the declassification point that if that were true, the Obama administration has no reason to maintain the redaction.
They also note that the redaction probably made sense under the George W. Bush presidency given the close personal relationship between the Bush and Saudi royal families.
Given the sensitive nature of US-Saudi relations in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, as well as the US dependence on oil, a redaction was understandable under the circumstances.
But those circumstances have changed.

A report entitled “The Obama Doctrine” in US monthly The Atlantic details the extent to which the current US president is willing to shake up the old ties of dependence that bound Washington to the Sunni Arab world.
The Saudis – involved in a military campaign in neighbouring Yemen and a soft power conflict against Iran that exasperates Washington – have appeared increasingly truculent over the past year.
Eyebrows were raised last year when King Salman decided not to join a summit of Gulf leaders hosted by Obama at his Camp David country residence.

Although Obama has already made three visits to Saudi Arabia during his presidency, both Washington and Riyadh know the dynamics of the US-Saudi relations are changing.
When Obama meets with Salman on Wednesday, the families of the 9/11 victims – including those supporting a lawsuit seeking redress from the Saudi government for the loss of their loved ones – will be carefully watching for any public comment on the 28 pages.


http://www.france24.com/en/20160415-obama-faces-pressure-saudi-arabia-trip-secret-28-pages

15 years on today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/september-2001-truther-conspiracy-theory-1.3756431

I see the bag that is blue is holding court elsewhere on the planes vs no planes on 9/11. He has even brought back the old adage about compression and artifacts. Then Sonic72 posted this.

Not seen that vid before. Bloody hell.

I've always been a bit on the fence with the planes v no planes argument myself.

For me, the idea that no planes hit the towers gives ammunition to those who denounce all conspiracy theorists as being away with the shape-shifting lizard brigade.

I certainly think that, whatever caused the damage at the Pentagon and the hole in the ground in Shanksville, was something other than planes though.

I'm just concerned that I agree with Aquilla

Occasionally I agree with Aquila but not this time!

One or two oddities can be explained away (maybe) but not everything. I don't know who was really behind the attacks but there must have been preparation weeks if not months beforehand to make the towers (not to mention the third building on the site) collapse via a controlled demolition.

As for the third and fourth planes, there is absolutely no way on Earth that they and their passengers could have been vaporised in the way that they supposedly were.

I hear what you are saying Freedom and I, whilst very quickly thinking something was "up" still believed that there were planes but the more I watch, the more convinced I am that there were no jets. I have even gone away from thinking that there were planes, just not commercial ones.

The thing that convinced me was that a huge number of pilots confirm that there is no way those manoevres could have been carried out by skilled pilots, never mind a bunch of untrained guys. The planes could not fly at that speed at that altitude. Not ever.

Also, an ununrelated piece of engine turned up in a Manhattan street which didn't belong to any plane that crashed.
And the most incredible thing of all is that a fire, strong enough to collapse buildings, gave up a handy passport.

Obama fought to stop the bill being granted to allow 911 families to sue Saudi Arabia. I would imagine he fought for a very good reason.

ETA I was writing my post as you were submitting yours F so my comment was in regard to your post about the planes or no planes theory. I know you don't believe in the terrorist angle.

I can accept that they might not have been passenger planes.

I expect that everyone knows that the only video footage of the first impact was from a routine (till then) documentary about the work of New York firefighters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY

That's an extract. Here is the whole programme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAHTpFhT5AU

Note the bit where they arrived at the tower and the ground floor was wrecked. How could the impact of a plane many floors up have done that?

The mention elsewhere of people who try to cash in on tragedies has reminded me of this case, though to be fair she didn't actually gain anything financially and she did some good in setting up support groups for survivors.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/09/10/tania-head-fake-survivor-september-11/21467377/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Esteve_Head

Another hoaxer whom I've just found out about.

http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/

If this is true, how could they know when to set the detonators if the whole of 9/11 wasn't planned?



CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’

July 13, 2017 Baxter Dmitry 278