Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
1) Lead 9/11 Hijacker Atta was wired $100,000 shortly before 9/11. ABC News/ Wall street Journal / India Times reports that transfer came from the head of Pakistani ISI. US government officials were meeting with that head days before 9/11. No mention of this in any US official report. Cover-up. We should be bombing Pakistan.
The man who wired the money resigned as did the general who knew about the transfer but didn't stop it. Just because there were two people in the Pakistani government involved with the attack does not warrant war with Pakistan.
Wow,
classic government apologist. You're the type that allows the government to get away with half arsed investigations which omit anything remotely incriminating. Never ask questions!
1) Tell me why that wire transfer didn't make it into the 911 Commission Report

They funded the deaths of 3000 Americans, and nothing happened? Anything to protect the big lie, right? Who cares about the money trail!
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
2) FBI translator Sibel Edmonds believes 9/11 was an inside job. Concidentally, she has the most gag orders placed on her in history

Why could they possibly be silencing her? I haven't a clue
Thats not evidence.
"That's not evidence"? Huh? Wtf are you smoking?
From Sibel Edmonds:
"My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up.""
Not evidence huh? Shame on you. Stop lying apologist
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
3) Explosions can be heard + smoke rising up from the streets before any collapse began.
Bombs in the towers
All that video did was place a little rectangle around the bottom of one of the towers and claim thats where the initial sound came from. It did nothing to prove that claim.
So what are those large explosions? If you're going to blame it on structural failure, then the government is going to have to competely change their collapse model to account for structural failure before the "collapses" began from the top of the buildings. Oh, not to mention they will also need to account for corroborating testimonies of large explosions in the basements before the planes even struck the towers (thank you 9/11 hero william rodriguez and his friends).
So which is it? Maybe you'd be better off just denying explosions were even heard...oh but you can't do that. Too many news reporters / fire fighters reported huge pre collapse explosions
So what's your story? Feel free to amuse me.
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
4) Secretary of Transportion Mineta testified that Cheney monitored Flight 77's path into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission then changed Cheney's timeline so that Cheney appeared to have arrived in the PEOC bunker after flight 77 was struck. Proof of cover-up / strong concealment of conspiracy charges + negligence charges. Oh yeah, Mineta's devastating testimony was omitted from all official records. What a coincidence.
What basis do you have for believing Mineta over the 9/11 Commission?
The fact that his testimony which implicates Cheney in conspiracy / negligence was omitted from all official records? The fact that video of his testimony was lost in an electronic snafu...even though it was all across the internet? The fact that the 9/11 commission refused to refute his testimony or have Cheney clarify his time frame at the PEOC bunker? Who am I going to believe? I'll believe the credible government official who testified under oath. It's a very simple concept...if you can't even acknowledge this is a cover-up, you're beyond the help of reason. But, do entertain me with your explanation as to why the 9/11 Commission would decide to completely omit such devastating testimony given under oath

Are you saying Mineta lied? If so, why hasn't he been punished? We drilled Clinton didn't we? If you are saying Mineta lied under oath, he deserves the same. So what's your answer?
"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
5) At least 4 different wargames involving US Fighter jets were active and ongoing during the morning of 9/11 (Thank you Cynthia and General Myers

). this helps to explain why the first 3 airliners were not intercepted. Talk about luck...those terrorists should've played the lottery!
This point makes no sense at all. Not only was it not U.S policy to intercept hijacked airliners but the planes had their transponders turned off anyways.
I suppose that's why the military had been tracking Flight 77's location, right? Not U.S. policy to intercept hijacked airliners? Now you're a liar
It is standard operating procedure to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. [FAA news release, Aug 9, 2002; Associated Press Aug 13, 2002] In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times
Not US policy huh?
The question you should be asking is why there 4+ wargames on the morning of 9/11. Why are there no details of such wargames in the 9/11 Commission report aside from a footnote? Why is it the official "investigation" makes no mention of the false radar blips?
Maybe we should ask Cheney why these wargames were scheduled, since he was in charge, afterall
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
6) WTC Building 7: Too easy. Looks exactly like a classic Las Vegas styled demolition. The government can't even issue a report explaining why it "collapsed". NIST's report was supposed to be due out in Spring of 2006. Haha.
The explanation for why it fell makes sense. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided any evidence that it was demolition.
You can't search for a video and see how the penthouse caved in first, along with indenting kinks in the columns, typical of a controlled demolition? Or is it that you don't want to admit numerous witnesses were told that WTC7 was coming down before it actually did, including numerous television networks? Wow, lots of magic happening that day... The theory keeps changing. What is it today?
Of course, you're going to explain why the evidence from wtc7's "collapse" was destroyed before being thoroughly examined. Man, those NIST boys sure have it rough.... having to theorize a reason for such a miraculous collapse without any concrete evidence. Hey, what's with the molten steel?!
Edit: Demolition experts around the world are saying WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Here's one such expert: Jowenko reaffirming what he has stated before:
Demolition expert says WTC7 brought down by explosives
According to apologists like blacklotus, demolition experts are crazy! they've been wasting their time and money by planting explosives to bring down buildings! According to blacklotus, all they need to do in the future is light a few fires, use a crane to knock a few dents into the buildings, and then buildings will magically collapse! Demolition experts are useless! :laugh:
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has gone public and said there is a cover-up of 9/11. Again, too easy.
The "cover-up" that Freeh alleges is that the government covered up its incompetance in preventing 9/11, not that the government caused 9/11.
incompetance? or was it intentional to allow the attacks to happen?

either way, it's a grand coverup. now you have to explain why the government continues to pretend the program never existed, and why the truth is not coming out. then again, maybe that's what you want.
also, do tell why the president and v.p. refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission.
also, do tell why the v.p. was on cipro before the anthrax attacks occurred. you know, the attacks that killed hard working americans.