It was done to write the report. You really don't have a clue do you?

Still, reasonable doubt, unanswered questions, and a history of government lies leads me to be a non believer in the official story.

And I would like to know the truth, EVEN IF THE OFFICIAL STORY IS THE TRUTH. -- but so far it is losing the race.

I have yet to be convinced, and the government does not seem to care if people believe them or not.

Many other stories, some could be true, some lies, but there are thousands of stories, witnesses, etc. that lend reasonable doubt to the official story.

And the people telling the official story have not proven very trustworthy ...

This is my dilemma. Other than just expecting the people to believe what they say, they make no effort to actually open up the investigation to questions or present evidence or proof of anything. They cover it with a shroud of "classified secrecy" and "national security" crap.

Is this directed at my last post?

If you wish. It is my response to the entire subject.

I don't believe the official account of 9-11.

Speculating Motives:

Why the towers had to go down the way they did:

They needed to go because they were full of Asbestos insulation that was outlawed -- and was going to have to be removed. It would have taken a lot of time and money to remove all of that.

There was probably some kind of law preventing a regular demolition to remove the building because of the Asbestos pollution it would cause, and they may have been required to remove that before any controlled demolition. It was too expensive.

So an insurance policy was taken out on the buildings and a black flag terrorist attack was planned.

This event served many people and many agendas. It got us into Iraq, it got the Patriot act passed very quickly without Congress even reading it, Silverstein got his insurance money, they got rid of the old outdated Asbestos filled buildings and they blamed the attack on Al-Qaeda to promote and further the fake war on terror.

The building 7 being destroyed got rid of the CIA offices which may have had a lot of incriminating evidence against the bankers or other unknown evidence. Also there are rumors of some missing gold that was said to have been under the Trade center buildings.

Who know what else. There could be more reasons.

No ad hominem intended, but that is just ridiculous. To go through all that for those motives? Talk about cracking a nut with a locomotive. The expenditure and logistics required for the conspiracy in respect to the 'possible' gains does not balance.

As I said, its just speculation. If I don't believe in the official account, I am free to speculate motives from other possible accounts.

I don't think it is ridiculous at all. There was a lot to gain (and gained) by the twin towers going down. You have no idea how important to the Elite's agenda the Patriot act is, and the war on terror.... Do you have any idea how much money the Bush family personally made on the Iraq war? Deals were made. Money was made hand over fist. It is all about money, oil, power, etc. That is all it is always about.

Many had been told not to come to work that day. They (someone) knew what was going to happen in advance.

It is true about the Asbestos.

I have been watching a documentary series called "The men who built America" and it is about John Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and the other men who got rich here. It is very interesting and shows the men who only cared mostly about competing with each other for power and wealth and getting what they wanted at any cost.

They did play a huge roll in building America, and creating jobs, but do you think they cared that they caused a depression or that people suffered and died in their factories in unsafe working conditions? They didn't.

It was first about profit and power and money. It is the same with the oil business, war business, or anything else. They will do what ever is necessary to get what they want. If they cared about human lives there would be no war in this world.

Nayirah's testimony was widely publicized.[45] Hill & Knowlton, which had filmed the hearing, sent out a video news release to Medialink, a firm which served about 700 television stations in the United States.[46]

That night, portions of the testimony aired on ABC's Nightline and NBC Nightly News reaching an estimated audience between 35 and 53 million Americans.[44][46] Seven senators cited Nayirah's testimony in their speeches backing the use of force.[Note 1] President George Bush repeated the story at least ten times in the following weeks.[49] Her account of the atrocities helped to stir American opinion in favor of participation in the Gulf War.[50]

The girl was never in Kuwait it was a total fabrication and used to rile up the US public.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

how vile.

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq


LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic : "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7 .

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"
http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq

So, by "inside job" what exactly does this mean?

That Bush and Cheney were behind it, or that they just went along with it?

I think they went along with it and that some Elite power broker or group was actually behind it.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was restricting you in speculating from my post.



I've read the above many times, but the whole series of hypotheses is short on physical evidence. To build a conspiracy based on various business associations is a little fragile at best. The figures the Bush family have supposed to have made was never verified-they are merely speculation in themselves.




That is an urban myth and it has been demonstrated to be false.



I'm sure it is. I live in a country that has been ridding buildings of asbestos for quite some time. It has been outlawed for years, but it is not insurmountable to dispose of the substance under WHS legislation. It is still not enough to warrant such an elaborate and ridiculous plan to destroy the buildings.

--->It is still not enough to warrant such an elaborate and ridiculous plan to destroy the buildings.<----

That of course is your opinion. And I agree with that opinion. But it speaks to the total disregard for human life that these Elite power broker monsters have. In their opinion, it did warrant the destruction and the loss of lives.

If they cared about human life, there would be no wars, and they would not be snatching all of the wealth up for their selves while they pay people $2.00 a day to work in their factories and mines.

As far as the money the Bush family made from the Iraq war, that is all a matter of RECORD. I'm sure the exact figures are not even near the true amount.

As far as the money the Bush family made from the Iraq war, that is all a matter of RECORD. I'm sure the exact figures are not even near the true amount.

What is a matter of record is that various companies that members of the Bush family had either once sat on the board, or still do made money out of reconstruction contracts, etc. That is a more accurate appraisal. The actual figures are merely speculation as it hasn't been demonstrated that any amount actually found its way to the family directly. I know many sites have blown this out of proportion, or jumped to conclusions, but the facts as we know them aren't really all that incriminating.

What is a matter of record is that various companies that members of the Bush family had either once sat on the board, or still do made money out of reconstruction contracts, etc. That is a more accurate appraisal. The actual figures are merely speculation as it hasn't been demonstrated that any amount actually found its way to the family directly. I know many sites have blown this out of proportion, or jumped to conclusions, but the facts as we know them aren't really all that incriminating.