You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #63: no smoking gun for nine one one [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
63. no smoking gun for nine one one
There is no "smoking gun" evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy there is not one single, conclusive piece of evidence that you could hang an alternate theory on. However, if you take a good look into the state of the art of the truth movement you will find a collection of anecdotal, empirical, circumstantial, and yes, forensic physical evidence with which to build a case. I believe the case is very strong strong enough at least to warrant a new and truly independent investigation.

Below you will find several links, many of them from credible, mainstream sources. The mainstream media, which has been unsurprisingly "pseudo-skeptical" regarding the evidence, will only detract from the official narrative to the point where it might suggest negligence; not misfeasance or malfeasance. I believe that by considering the following four quotes we can understand why there hasn't been serious investigation into the alternate 9/11 theories by mainstream media:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
- William Colby, former Director of the CIA (1920-1996)
Source: Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don't Want You to See (2000), by Dave McGowan

"In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called 'alarmist' for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote 'in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media' -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies... When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market."
Source: /

"The military's propaganda program largely has been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the 'home audience' as one of six major targets of the American side of the war."
Source: Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability

"Daschle and Leahy held the most important roles in Congress, as Majority Leader and Chair of Judiciary, respectively, in the possible blockage of the PATRIOT Act, which both men had originally indicated they might oppose.

The long-time attacks on NBC News and other media outlets perceived to have a 'Liberal' bias are well known.

It should be noted that Anthrax letters were also sent to the Editor of the New York Post (a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper) and the National Enquirer offices, whose political bent, if they have one, seems difficult to discern."
Source: Corporate Media Coverage of Now-Deceased U.S. Army Bio-Researcher/Suspect Fails to Note Obvious 'Liberal' Targets of Deadly Post-9/11, Pre-War Letter Campaign
Brad Friedman,

The typical arguments against US government complicity are (1) "Thousands Would Have to Have Been Involved", (2) "Someone Would Have Blabbed", (3) "Why Would the Government Kill Its Own?" or (4), the "Incompetence Theory". These are nothing more than boilerplate denials that rationalize the dismissal of evidence and the abandonment of science, reason, and a truly independent investigation. Specifically:

1. It's a logical fallacy to assume that government complicity would require "thousands of conspirators" when the official conspiracy theory alleges it only took 19 radical Islamic fundamentalists with little more than box-cutters and airplane tickets.

2. Governments can keep secrets. The Manhattan Project (Atomic bomb) was kept secret from the American public for several years. The illegal slaughter of 40K Indonesians in East Timor between 1975 and 1976 was kept secret from the American public for almost a decade. There are plenty of precedents for governments keeping secrets. More to the point, however, is that there are whistle blowers: Ask yourself why you've never heard of Colonel Anthony Schaffer ("Able Danger" intelligence program, US Army), or Sibel Edmonds (former FBI Translator).

3. Why would the government kill its own citizens? A stock response to this might be "for the greater good", but the question itself is essentially nave. Why would the government send thousands of soldiers to fight and die in unjust wars when the US was neither attacked, nor under the threat of an attack? The case for morality in the context of a black operation is irrelevant and there are many precedents for state-sponsored false flag terror events.

4. The Incompetence Theory is another logical fallacy: We failed in our response to the hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war is supposedly an abysmal failure so how could the government pull off controlled demolitions (and cover up thereof) of the twin towers? The illogic of this argument is apparent when contrasted by the six manned lunar landings, the development & proliferation of nuclear energy and weapons programs, or nanotechnologies as applied to advanced biology and medicine. Governments recruit the brightest minds from the best schools and there are privatized versions of every resource required to plan and execute a black op at the scale of 9/11.

But even after competently responding to the above skepticism, for the average American, questioning the veracity of the official story is more akin to questioning articles of faith. Therefore, it appears that the decision to not investigate 9/11 is an emotional decision, and those who defend the official story do so almost anti-intellectually (in how they selectively argue points or review the evidence). Defenders of the official conspiracy theory rarely consider the facts of 9/11. One cannot review the facts of 9/11 and still believe the official narrative, as even the authors of the official narrative (Keane & Hamilton) have admitted that they were lied to and misdirected during their investigation.

The articles and essays in the following section present some more or less divergent views of what the establishment media asserts, and most are referenced from the establishment media itself (as notated). But what does this say about media complicity in these crimes? It only takes a few people in powerful positions to affect the flow of information in any system. With the above quotes in mind, we can surmise that not everyone is/was "in on it" and those who were complicit may have been unwittingly duped or intimidated into buying/propagating the official story; people self-censure for the sake of continued employment and pure self-interest all the time. It's nothing new.


The Pakistan connection
2004-07-22, The Guardian (One of the U.K.'s leading newspapers),12271,1266520,00....

This war on terrorism is bogus
2003-09-06, The Guardian (One of the U.K.'s leading newspapers),3604,1036571,...

On 7th Anniversary Of Attacks, White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The 'Mastermind' of Sept. 11: /


9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon: Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
2006-08-02, Washington Post

Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill Sept. 11
2002-08-22, USA Today/Associated Press

<9/11> Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
2001-09-23, BBC News

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
2008-08-05, Wall Street Journal

Senators Accuse Pentagon of Obstructing Inquiry on Sept. 11 Plot
2005-09-22, New York Times

'State secrets privilege' blocks fired translator from suing FBI
2006-11-24, USA Today

Officer: 9/11 panel didn't receive key information (CNN): /

Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases (Newsweek):

Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"? (Wall Street Journal):

Getting Agnostic About 9/11 (LA Times):

Why I Resigned From the CIA (LA Times):

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket (LA Times):

Lou Dobbs on CNN Asks Why Government is Lying about 9/11 (CNN):

Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is 'Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources': /

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall
2001-12-25, New York Times

What happened to building 7?
2008-06-06, Financial Times


9-11, Six Years Later
Paul Craig Roberts

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin

118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
Graeme MacQueen
August 21, 2006

9/11 Research: Molten Metal

Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?


Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero


Jeff King, PhD (MIT): (part 1: 6:04 minutes) (part 2: 7:58 minutes)

Debunking the "Pancake Theory", Steven E. Jones, PhD; (Brigham Young): (9:29 minutes)

Confronting the Evidence, David Ray Griffin: (7:29 minutes)

Molten Metal, Steven E. Jones, PhD: (4:15 minutes)

WTC high temperatures & molten steel: (7:41 minutes)

Molten Metal: (2:53 minutes)


9/11 The Myth and the Reality, David Ray Griffin, PhD (Claremont University): (138 minutes)

Steven E. Jones, PhD; (Brigham Young): (122 minutes)

9/11 Blueprint for Truth, Richard Gage AIA: (120 minutes)

9/11: Press for Truth, "The Jersey Girls":

9/11: Fabled Enemies, Jason Bermas:


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage AIA: / (beginners: ) / / (Mike Ruppert's 9/11 timeline)

9/11 NEWS:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC