Well, this video focuses on the allegations of "missed warnings" and of Pentagon staff apparently lying to cover up their mistakes in dealing with the hijackings. Both of these allegations, of course, are completely incompatible with your claims of bogus plane crashes, thermite and controlled demolitions. So, it seems slightly odd to see you espousing an investigation into them. It appears that even your own fantastical beliefs are internally contradictory.

so Par you Are saying that you know what other people believe? I suppose you deduce this from evidence

Precisely. I've witnessed him making those kinds of conspiratorial claims on a number of occasions now.

This video actually reinforces my beliefs. I think you misinterpret my theorizing before as declarations of what I believe.

In reply to your comment:
“Well, this video focuses on the allegations of "missed warnings" and of Pentagon staff apparently lying to cover up their mistakes in dealing with the hijackings. Both of these allegations, of course, are completely incompatible with your claims of bogus plane crashes, thermite and controlled demolitions. So, it seems slightly odd to see you espousing an investigation into them. It appears that even your own fantastical beliefs are internally contradictory.”

To clarify, here are some declarations of what I believe:
Par, I never claimed that planes did not hit the towers. I do believe that those planes hit the towers. I saw the 2nd plane hit on tv that morning like most people. I am just not sure if thermite was used to assist the collapse. I just don't know like many others. I do find it unusual that absolutely none of the tower's core structure survived in-tact based on the public pancake theory one would expect some of the core to be standing. Building 7 seems to be an anomaly that even none of the experts can agree upon.

I do believe that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon but rather a cruise missle hit it since the titanium engines would have been visible at the pentagon site... I'm sorry.. but an entire airliner woudl not vaporize. Especially the engines and they would have left distinct marks.

Also the supposed flight 77 hijacker pilot(Hani Hanjour) was a horrible pilot and couldn't even control a cessna and a seasoned pilot would have had a hard time controlling a 757 above the ground for such a distance. I'm a pilot with about 150hrs and I can easily land a 737 in the simulator but accurate approaches in a 757 are much more difficult and highly unusual that a person with crappy piloting skills (according to the aviation school that Honjour attended) could execute the maneuvers. He couldn't even maintain a Cessna according to them. Most noteable is the corkscrew descent to the pentagon - a very difficult maneuver in a 757 and the subsequent leveling off at 20ft. above the ground, striking the first floor of the bldg, not damaging the lawn and leaving no traces of the engines. Also, the amount of confiscated videos around the pentagon just minutes after the incident and utter refusal to release such videos that should corroborate the official story.

I believe that flight 96 was shot down (based on the scattering of small debris at the crash site).

I believe that our govt definitely knew about the attacks and it was not only not-thwarted but used to their advantage by the creators of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) that claimed they needed "a new Pearl Harbor" in the PNAC document. Therefore it was in their best interest to have the catalyzing event that would allow them to enact the Patriot Act (which was already written and ready to go in case of such an event) and allowed Bush to call for war with almost unanimous public, senate and house consent.

I'll give it a vote because I do think we've got unanswered questions, but I do have a lot of reservations about the issue myself and it's one I'm hesitant to get involved in. Not because it's not a valid issue but because so many seem intent on discrediting both themselves and the movement which makes it messy to get involved in.

The investigation was flawed no doubt. Telling us that nobody was responsible for anything or could have prevented anything is garbage when they stripped the nation of air cover for exercises and went ahead with the plan even though that info had been released to the press. If they had remembered the basic principle of what a defense was for in the first place the first plane might have hit but probably not the rest.

It was underfunded, one of the members themselves said it was like they were set up to fail. They were blocked at too many turns for access to information such as not being able to interview high level prisoners or their interrogators but being confined to reports instead. The story we got wasn't their story from their investigation so much as it was the administrations.

You've got so many good issues and reasons to ask for another look, there's just one problem. Alex Jones and the type. Reasonable questions and reasonable doubts get lost in all the wild stories and theories being tossed around as proved in some way till the issue is the punchline for a joke rather than anything people want to get involved with.

From what I've seen the family members, firefighters, and commission members who want answers aren't attaching themselves to Jones and the type. He's just hanging on to them for the ride. If the movement never watched a thing he made or said again and followed the families and firefighters and such instead, then you'd get somewhere. Its biggest enemy right now is itself.

Sorry for the long post, activism is what I do and it frustrates me to see an issue blown like this one has been. The point is to reach people and change minds, if nobody listens it doesn't even matter if you were right, you aren't changing a thing. The wild stories I don't think are right, but even so. You have to work in a way people hear and understand.

Constitutional_Patriot:

Your last post is extremely disheartening for three prominent reasons:

1. It betrays even further your complete ignorance of even the most fundamental issues surrounding 9/11.
2. It demonstrates that you've been lied to by conspiracy theorists and have simply accepted those lies without question; with even a limited quantity of your own research, you would have disembogued yourself of some of these falsehoods.
3. It shows that you're willing to simply ignore evidence that refutes your theories.

I suspect the reason you find it unusual that none of the World Trade Center towers' cores survived is that you're not a structural engineer. To appeal to one's own personal and laymen's incredulity hardly makes for a compelling argument. Further, I'm not sure what basis you have for your claim that "none of the experts" can agree about the collapse of World Trade Center 7. The official report is still being drawn up, so we don't know whether there's a consensus.

Please realize that the official account of the fate of Flight 77 simply does not claim that the entire plane vaporized. I know that the conspiracy theorists have led you to believe that is does, but they have lied to you. There is overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This includes (but isn't limited to) dozens of pieces of eyewitness testimony, numberless pieces of recovered debris (including engine wreckage), recovered and functional flight data recorders and the DNA identification of all but one of the passengers. This is the third time that I've referred you to this evidence. You must be straightforwardly and intentionally ignoring it. The engines did leave a rather distinct mark -- they were instrumental in creating the seventy-five foot wide hole in the building. There is absolutely no evidence of a cruise missile. If an amateur pilot with little experience can recreate Hanjour's Pentagon strike in a professional simulator with a consistency level of three successes in three attempts, it's fairly clear that the manoeuvre was nothing like the complex array of aerobatics you've been to led believe it was. Hanjour was a commercially licensed and instrument rated pilot. The chief flight instructor at Hanjour's flight school doesn't seem to foster any of your doubts:

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

three things, par,

first, i'll leave alone all the various theories about what happened on 9/11 because nobody is really being swayed one way or the other with the incessant chatter about the subject. plus, this video doesn't really concern any of those items anyway.

second, stating that this video is somehow contradictory of those positions and therefore should be included with them in its uselessness is very strange. it's like telling a judge who declares a mistrial because the prosecution withheld evidence that his position is invalid because he clearly believes the defendant is innocent. in reality, another trial/investigation is the perfect prescription.

finally, regarding PNAC: the document you are referring to is "Renewing America's Defenses" and it's premise is laughable. how could a nation that spends more money on defense than countries #2-6 combined need to increase spending unless it was a pretext for something else? and, even without my mere speculation, you are flat out wrong:

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Oh yes, the "incessant chatter." How shallow, trite and superficial we must be for engaging in it. Unlike your sophisticated self, of course, who simply chooses one and a half issues to pick over.

I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to communicate with your second point, but I was merely pointing out that the original poster seemingly held two mutually contradictory conspiratorial beliefs simultaneously. (Those being "The government ignored the warnings!" and "The government destroyed the buildings themselves!")

I have no real interest in critiquing the actual content of the Project for a New American Century Report itself. It could well be utterly ludicrous (and given who wrote it, that would hardly come as a surprise). What I was saying, however, is that one contributor had completely the wrong impression of its nature. Also, you seem to be claiming that the sentence "[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor" means "[T]he process of transformation... is likely to be far too long a one, therefore we need to engineer a catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." Clearly though, there's no reason to think that it means any such thing. Further, given that the kinds of satellites, missile defense systems etc. in question are practically useless for fighting a non-lateral "war on terror", 9/11 could hardly be considered an effective tool in securing them.

It's not necessarily contradictory if the govt. intentionally ignored the warnings and assisted in destroying the buildings Par... I really don't understand why it's so hard for you to conceive this notion. However regardless of what you or I believe I'm tired of trying to clarify these things to you. I have other things I need to do.

I see you're trying to frame things as though you've become unbearably frustrated with my supposed inability to comprehend your theory and have given up on the discussion. Clearly though, that's not what's actually happened; for one thing, so far, you've supplied me with only the most elusive fragments of your entire hypothesis, so I could hardly have been expected to understand the whole thing. In reality, the reason you've fled is because every piece of alleged evidence you've presented has either straightforwardly been shown to be utterly wrong or clearly exposed as deceptive; every piece of counterevidence has been completely ignored by yourself so as not to interfere with your ongoing fantasy.

Quite how your theory is realistically compatible with your belief that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon would make for an interesting discussion, I'm sure. Well, either way, if you ever come across anything remotely resembling compelling evidence for your claims, be sure to let me know.

You are incorrect. and every piece of "counterevidence" you claim does not show my beliefs as deceptive. Really, believe what you want to believe. By the way.. the citing you spouted off three times doesn't prove that a plane hit the pentagon. The engines weren't even recovered from that crash. If you think you've proven me wrong your the one that's ignorant.

I didn't claim that the fact that I mentioned the evidence shows that a Flight 77 hit the Pentagon; I claimed that the existence of that evidence shows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Either way however, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof. It's not my responsibility to show that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It's your responsibility to prove that it was a cruise missile. Also, you claim that the engine wreckage wasn't recovered; well, have a look at the following photographs: A, B, C, and D.

Hmm, don't remember saying that you were being "shallow, trite and superficial" for engaging in the discussion, but as the last few comments between yourself and constitutional_patriot demonstrate, "nobody is really being swayed one way or the other." Either you believe the official story, as put forward by the 9/11 commission, or you don't. That was exactly the point of my second comment.

Rather than having a bunch of amateurs (myself included) debating the finer points of the arguments, the best prescription would be to have a second commission/investigation look into the matter (preferably after the current president leaves office). Clearly, many questions were left unanswered and need to be resolved and the best way to appease both parties would be to have another, less flawed, investigation.

And finally, regarding PNAC, I was saying nothing of the sort. There would be no need to engineer such an event. Rather you could simply let things that seemed to be unfolding on their own occur and then cynically use them to further your own agenda. You don't have to engineer the actual event, you merely have to engineer and control the aftermath.

I think aaronfr has the right approach. Just establish that we've got unanswered questions and need another look at things.

My personal opinion is that negligence is clear at the least with the air cover being stripped and the plan continued in spite of people knowing it. Cover up for that negligence is likely and was probably illegal in itself. It's possible that they knew about an attack and allowed it though I don't see proof so much as reason to wonder, more than that I get doubtful about. I'll grant some slim chance of more, but I've seen no "proof" so much as questions people assumed was proof. I've done some welding and torch work though I've never worked with explosives and some of those look like oxy/acetylene cuts to me. What do I know though, maybe that's what an explosive cut looks like too.

We can convince people we've got questions and need a look, but the more Alex Jones we get on them the more of them we lose. Do we want an investigation, or to push our pet theories? The movement needs to settle that among themselves best they can. I don't think it's a hard issue to move people on if you stick to the core details that can be shown. There are questions, just not the proof some claim. Not yet at least.

I am an open minded individual and I admit that I might be wrong however I'm not fully convinced that I'm entirely wrong. I think that the government knows more details than we do by the simple fact that they refuse to release information. The amount of secrecy is really high in this govt. and it's really pissing a lot of people off.

I have but one last question to you all.. do you think it's right that the government confiscate all video footage via sweeps of agents just minutes after the event and refuse to release but a few frames of ambiguous shots of video footage?

I'm always in favor of transparency. If we had that any number of things including this, drug war, media and a number of others would be easier to deal with. The biggest reason people have so much doubt is probably that the government acted like it was hiding something.

There have been some thoughtful points made in the last four posts and they deserve a considered reply. Perhaps I'll get round to that at a later date. For now though, I'll just address your two-part question, Constitutional_Patriot.

Firstly, yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the FBI to have gathered as much evidence as possible in the immediate aftermath of the event (and I suspect the conspiracy theorists would be amongst the first to cry foul had they done anything else). Secondly, as far as I'm aware, there were only three security tapes capturing anything of the impact sequestered at that time. A few frames from the Pentagon tape were released immediately, but the rest of the footage remained confidential as it might have been needed during the Moussaoui trial. Since his conviction though, all three have been released.

Osama Bin Laden committed 9/11, yet somehow now he's not a important target anymore. Pakistan or rather Warizstan is a base for Al Qaeda and Taliban which sends arms and forces northward to fight coalition forces in Afghanistan. The CIA's main component responsible for tracking Osama Bin Laden was closed down in January of 2005.

What does that say.

Well, I can tell you what it doesn't say: It doesn't say that the intelligence services are any less devoted to tracking him or that they no longer consider him an important target; it doesn't say that 9/11 was a conspiracy, either.

Right Par.

Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:46:59 AM PDT

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/5/144659/0244

Well, if you'd actually bothered to read the article itself (as opposed to a selective quotation on a hard-left blog), you'd have probably seen the following:

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

I can't believe you buy that...

You are basically saying that we are fighting a 'conventional' non-intelligence based war in two failed states while ignoring the intelligence war of going after a terrorist organization which everyone knows is based within the unruly parts of Warizstan.

Not to mention the psychological and political coup of capturing Osama Bin Laden the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks, who in his elusiveness fuels anti-American aggression, resistance and sentiment.

Let's imagine this was Iraq back in 2003 and suddenly the US army decided NOT to go after Saddam Hussein because it is better to deal with regional insurgents then going after the leader of the Baath party.

How Kafkaesque.

Al Qaeda is being consecrated into becoming the un-capturable, unstoppable, multi-lateral, international terrorist bogeyman. Have you read 1984?

Firstly, initially, you claimed (and linked to a selective quotation on a hard-left blog to support the claim) that the CIA has clearly and straightforwardly given up both the tracking of and, more generally, the hunt for Osama bin Laden. I merely pointed out that that claim is simply false.

Secondly, you now seem to be suggesting one should arbitrarily disbelieve the parts of the article that contradict said claim whilst continuing to believe those parts that, when orphaned, seem to support it.

Thirdly, you're committing the begging the question fallacy by presupposing the truth of (and also my acceptance of) said claim. In actuality, the question of whether or not the CIA has simply given up on such activities is precisely the point at issue.

Fourthly, regardless, none of this seems to constitute compelling evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Fifthly, yes, thank you, I have.

In none of my comments did I state that I thought 9/11 was a conspiracy. That was your previous argument with others on this thread.

There is a wider question to this issue then whether or not 9.11 was a conspiracy and that is Why have we given up everything that makes America great in this stupid paranoid fear laden conflict.

Al Qaeda is nothing compared to the nemesis of the USSR during the Cold War. Yet watch the news and you'd think it's the end of the bloody world as we know it.

Terrorism and the war on terror are being used for self interested parties to play out their insane ideas using the lives of our voulantary army.

This not a conventional war. Yet we are fighting it in that way. The intelligence part? Well where is that? For all the ideals we have thrown away running Gitmo and violating Human Rights charters all we did is come off as hypocrites talking about bringing democracy and freedom to the world.

Check out - http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-we-have-terrorism

And this is not a contest by the way. We might have differing views but I can see no way where we can say that this war was conducted properly post 9/11.

Well, put as succinctly as possible, I don't particularly agree with you (though that's not to say I entirely disagree either). However, I don't really have any interest in discussing politics on Videosift. For the meantime at least, I merely wish to combat the superfluity of fallacious empirical claims made by the 9/11 fantasists and would-be historical revisionists who seem to have found something of a safe-haven here.

What a jolly faustian person you are Mr. Par.

And you have already discussed politics, although implicitly.

Implicitly is all the New World Order pays me for. CoIntelPro isn't all glamour, you know.

Par, I only hope you hold the US Constitution sacred. If you don't then your motives are at question. Why don't you post some videos for a change?

Given that, for the meantime at least, I'm only interested in discussing matters of empirical fact (and more specifically, those surrounding 9/11), my motives for doing so are perfectly irrelevant. If I happen upon any videos I deem worthy, then by all means I'll consider posting them.

This post has been removed from the Latenight channel by channel owner eric3579. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Wake up fooooos!!