Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11

[Btodd]

Cocoa the monkey could draw up alt theories that are just as respectable as the ov. But hey, i understand. It's scary terrority.

Could you get Cocoa to do it, then? You certainly won't. There appears to be no other scenario that explains the events of that day, six years later. And after all that internet research, too.


Btodd

 

[WayWord]

From the BBC:

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI. The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findingsa detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names. and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage,


In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
​

The FBI can be confident all day long, but that doesn't answer my questions about the DNA evidence and the passports.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That bbc story is garbage for claiming the fbi positively tagged all the hijackers. None from the Pentagon received a positive id and certainly none from the towers. Btodd-i must ask you refrain from making false statements about me. I have posited an alt theory for the pentagon but for ad infinitum-the OV needs to stand on its own or it cant stand at all.

 

[Btodd]

Btodd-i must ask you refrain from making false statements about me. I have posited an alt theory for the pentagon but for ad infinitum-the OV needs to stand on its own or it cant stand at all.

Please direct me to your alternate theory about the Pentagon, then.


Btodd

 

[oldbetang]

That bbc story is garbage for claiming the fbi positively tagged all the hijackers.

The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
​

So who are you claiming was lying ? The BBC or the FBI?

 

[WayWord]

The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
​

So who are you claiming was lying ? The BBC or the FBI?

Perhaps both.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

We've been over this before. A positive id never happened since the AFAIP already stated their official position is the hijackers were id'd through a process of elimination. There were several victims that never received a positive id either. Process of elimination is a negative id by any common sense standards. In short, it's an assumption.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Btodd, i dont remember which thread and iam not going to hunt for it because i dont care if you believe me or not. What i do care about is false statements being made. Besides, if you think bush is more trustworthy than me then we truly are living in different worlds.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

If the terrorists who leveled the Twin Towers were from any other religion than ISLAM, the official report would be treated as gospel. ESPECIALLY if the hijackers had been Christians.

Only Muslims could hijack planes, kill thousands of civilians, and have all these people go through all these intellectual and logical contortions and distortions to blame anyone or anything else.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That gets the Strawman of the month award.

 

[Btodd]

Btodd, i dont remember which thread and iam not going to hunt for it because i dont care if you believe me or not. What i do care about is false statements being made. Besides, if you think bush is more trustworthy than me then we truly are living in different worlds.

As I remember, I eventually left the thread we last discussed this in because you never DID do such a thing, despite saying that you would. I specifically said so at the time, after Oldbetang had already warned me that you would do no such thing and I was wasting my time with such a request.

Which is why I was extremely surprised to hear you say such a thing now.

So unless you're willing to state your alternate theory, or show where you have stated it, then your offense at a 'false statement' is unwarranted until I make a statement that actually IS false.

As it stands, I was correct: Nobody on that side of the table, after six years, has a single plausible explanation to counter the OV. I hope you will show me how wrong I am, or stop taking offense at statements that are factual.


Btodd

 

[jamesrwright3]

So what is your theory on the Pentagon realdeal? You are dodging the question

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Btodd, your accusation is correct because you know what i have or have not said? This thread isnt about me or the pentagon. I simply corrected a false accusation that no alt theories have been provided. If the accusation is made again after it has been corrected then it will be lying. And no, i dont need to re-state it here because bush apoligists demand it. What a waste of time.

 

[Btodd]

Btodd, your accusation is correct because you know what i have or have not said? This thread isnt about me or the pentagon. I simply corrected a false accusation that no alt theories have been provided. If the accusation is made again after it has been corrected then it will be lying. And no, i dont need to re-state it here because bush apoligists demand it. What a waste of time.

So apparently, the only one who made a false statement about an alternative theory is you. You can't be bothered to state it, and you can't be bothered to show where you did.

Case closed.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Like i said, i dont care what you think. You may continue to make false claims but the only result is more peeps wont care what you think either.

 

[Btodd]

Like i said, i dont care what you think. You may continue to make false claims but the only result is more peeps wont care what you think either.

Peeps? Am I in a rap video?

Apparently, it wasn't a false claim or you could show that it was. If you don't care what I think, then you shouldn't have been offended in the first place, should you?

Six years, no theory whatsoever.


Btodd

 

[whatbogsends]

I have no recollection of RealDeal ever posting an alternate theory. I'm not saying he didn't (i can't search through all his posts to show he hasn't), but i don't remember it.

That being said, here's an "alternate theory":

19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes, and used them as missiles. The omissions in the report relate to who the terrorists were/worked for. The terrorists identified as "Al Qaeda" had more than minor financial ties to Saudi Arabia. The US isn't ready to lose it's valuable trading partner, so any evidence pointing to those ties was cast aside. Moreover, by removing the true financiers of 9/11 from the equation, the Bush administration was free to use 9/11 to justify it's pre-existing agenda: regime change in Iraq.

Now, if the Saudi's implicated by financial ties (and yes, there were indeed Saudi's government members involved in financing 9/11) had direct ties with some in Washington, or actually got information to help plan the attack from within the US - then you have a serious question of "complicity" of some in the US government.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/

http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/839269.htm

 

[Btodd]

I have no recollection of RealDeal ever posting an alternate theory. I'm not saying he didn't (i can't search through all his posts to show he hasn't), but i don't remember it.

Thank you for an honest reply. I think it's pretty obvious that he's done no such thing, and normally issues a disclaimer that 'he doesn't have to' anyway. At any rate, he could easily prove me wrong if I were. I'm sure Oldbetang remembers his prophetic warning to me, as well.

That being said, here's an "alternate theory":

19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes, and used them as missiles. The omissions in the report relate to who the terrorists were/worked for. The terrorists identified as "Al Qaeda" had more than minor financial ties to Saudi Arabia. The US isn't ready to lose it's valuable trading partner, so any evidence pointing to those ties was cast aside. Moreover, by removing the true financiers of 9/11 from the equation, the Bush administration was free to use 9/11 to justify it's pre-existing agenda: regime change in Iraq.

So essentially, it's the OV plus some extra conspiracy thrown in. That's fine. It will need to be supported by hard evidence, lest it be sliced by Occam's Razor. The OV already explains the hijackers' ties very well, without the necessity of any additional explanation. But at the very least, it completely wipes out 99% of the other claims made by the 9/11 Truth movement (or 'people who question the OV', if you wish), and is instantly plausible, just not any more plausible than what has already been explained.

Now, if the Saudi's implicated by financial ties (and yes, there were indeed Saudi's government members involved in financing 9/11) had direct ties with some in Washington, or actually got information to help plan the attack from within the US - then you have a serious question of "complicity" of some in the US government.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/

http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/839269.htm

I don't see any evidence that 'there were indeed Saudi government members financing 9/11' in your links. Is there hard evidence of such a thing?

As I noted above, your first paragraph is the OV plus extra conspiracy thrown in (the implication of the Saudi government). Now on top of that, you've further proposed a possible US Government conspiracy as well. So we've taken the OV (which already explains 9/11) and added two extra steps in the explanation.

That doesn't mean they're false out-of-hand......just that they're unnecessary steps that are so far un-evidenced.

Thank you for being a stand-up person, though. It gives me hope for the 'other side', wherever you fall in that group.


Btodd

 

[whatbogsends]

Thank you for an honest reply. I think it's pretty obvious that he's done no such thing, and normally issues a disclaimer that 'he doesn't have to' anyway. At any rate, he could easily prove me wrong if I were. I'm sure Oldbetang remembers his prophetic warning to me, as well.

So essentially, it's the OV plus some extra conspiracy thrown in. That's fine. It will need to be supported by hard evidence, lest it be sliced by Occam's Razor. The OV already explains the hijackers' ties very well, without the necessity of any additional explanation. But at the very least, it completely wipes out 99% of the other claims made by the 9/11 Truth movement (or 'people who question the OV', if you wish), and is instantly plausible, just not any more plausible than what has already been explained.

I don't see any evidence that 'there were indeed Saudi government members financing 9/11' in your links. Is there hard evidence of such a thing?

As I noted above, your first paragraph is the OV plus extra conspiracy thrown in (the implication of the Saudi government). Now on top of that, you've further proposed a possible US Government conspiracy as well. So we've taken the OV (which already explains 9/11) and added two extra steps in the explanation.

That doesn't mean they're false out-of-hand......just that they're unnecessary steps that are so far un-evidenced.

Thank you for being a stand-up person, though. It gives me hope for the 'other side', wherever you fall in that group.


Btodd

From the 1st article:

"There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry. "

From the 2nd article:
"About two months after al-Bayoumi began aiding Alhazmi and Almihdhar, NEWSWEEK has learned, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving regular stipends, often monthly and usually around $2,000, totaling tens of thousands of dollars. The money came in the form of cashier's checks, purchased from Washington's Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family."

Both reference the same payments, made by the wife of a Saudi Ambassador to the US, with ties to Bush. Yes, the funds were routed indirectly (i.e. there was an intermediary), but that certainly constitutes evidence (no, not enough to convict on, but enough to investigate).

Here's some more:
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

In his book, "Intelligence Matters," Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured [sic]….The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

http://www.nswbc.org/Op Ed/Op-ed-Part1-Nov15-06.htm

In other threads, i've presented evidence of Saudi royals, including members of the Bin Laden family (oh, i know, i know, Osama was the black sheep) being flown out of the US in the immediate (few days following) aftermath of 9/11.

Here's more:

'When it comes to Saudi Arabia, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Some of them received money in the U.S. through an account that went through the Saudi embassy.

"We still don't know if the Saudi government had prior knowledge of the attacks,” Cressey said. “What it does mean, though, is that the Saudis did have a relationship with the hijackers.”'
...
"Still, three years ago when Congress released a report on 9/11, 27 pages were redacted.
President Bush said that "declassification of that part of a 900 page document would reveal sources and methods that will make it harder for us to win the war on terror. But intelligence sources in Congress say the redacted section contains information about Saudi Arabia."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=14791493&

Now, are you going to tell me straight faced that there isn't significant evidence to support Saudi (government) involvement in 9/11?

As far as US government foreknowledge, i've shown this in (at least one) of the other threads where Pentagon officials changed travel plans to not use commercial airlines in the weeks leading up to 9/11. There is definitely reason to believe that some in the US government had at least limited (i.e. timeframe and type of attack) foreknowledge of 9/11. It does also work as evidence of direct knowledge (i.e. they didn't know what flights would be impacted).

Realize that when i say that i believe there is a possibility of US complicity in 9/11, i'm not suggesting that the entire Bush administration orchestrated, or even that many (or any) members of the Bush adminstration were involved. The complicity could be from within elements of the CIA, and limited to a handful of conspirators.

I do believe, ultimately, that the government has misrepresented what exactly happened on 9/11 to enact it's already determined middle east agenda, which has Saudi Arabia as an ally, and entailed removing Saddam from power.

 

[oldbetang]

We've been over this before. A positive id never happened since the AFAIP already stated their official position is the hijackers were id'd through a process of elimination. There were several victims that never received a positive id either. Process of elimination is a negative id by any common sense standards. In short, it's an assumption.

You never answered my question. You called the BBC article garbage for claiming 'the fbi positively tagged all the hijackers". What the article claimed is that the " FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

So, I ask again, who was lying? The BBC or the FBI?