What about 9/11 conspiracy theories?

It is the view of JFK Facts that the September 11 attacks were indeed the result of conspiracy — a conspiracy organized by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden and carried out by the 19 hijackers.

There is no reasonable doubt that these men were the intellectual authors of the crime.

As for the notion the U.S. government was involved, I defer to Noam Chomsky, no apologist for high-level U.S. government misbehavior.

Watch:

40 comments

  1. anonymous says:

    Oh, OK … and what’s Chomsky’s take on the JFK assassination, his planned withdrawal from Vietmam, etc.

    • TLR says:

      Exactly. I used to like Chomsky, but he has an ideological mindset that every President is cut from the same cloth, they are “organization men” who will never do anything different than what the institutions of power permit them to do. So even if there are conspiracies, they don’t matter anyway.

    • House says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo Go to the last minute if you don’t have the patience for the whole thing. Chomsky is like a remora, attaching himself to the sharks and feeding off of them, but the last thing he’d do is to take a position which truly endangers them, or his own exalted position on the left. In my eyes I don’t see how anyone could claim that JFK was the result of the deep forces operating in this country, and then be dismissive of the notion of 9/11 being the result of the same forces. At least on that score Chomsky is consistent, but I’ll take the consistency of Peter Dale Scott over his any day…

  2. JSA says:

    To me it’s completely obvious that 9/11 was planned and executed by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, desperately trying to hit the USA because they lacked conventional military strength to do so. Terrorism is not new. Napoleon faced it in Spain, the Romans had to deal with it, etc. What gets me is that in one sense, the terrorists won. They got us to spend trillions on bloated security, some of which we needed, but a lot of it just government waste. It was tragic that we lost thousands of lives on that day. It should never be forgotten. However we don’t spend that kind of money on highway safety, and we lose more Americans every year to highway fatalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year), especially if you measure for the entire decade (compared to terrorism). The one area that is scary is biological attack. Nuclear would still be difficult to pull off (for a collection of rogues) but biological attack is scary and we should be vigilant. I just don’t think we need to spend Homeland Security levels of expenditure. We need that money for other priorities, in my humble opinion. It’s overkill, and even if you add in the changes in terrorist activity in the past 75 years, I think Harry Truman would roll in his grave if he saw how big our Homeland Security state has become.

  3. D. Olmens says:

    Oh dear. Well, that was… embarrassing. Great video.

    “Now there happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics, but it doesn’t work like that.”

    Ouch. Nicely put.

    “There is no reasonable doubt that these men were the intellectual authors of the crime.”

    None whatsoever. The “911 was an inside job” theory is completely preposterous.

  4. D. Cringely says:

    As for the notion the U.S. government was involvment , I defer to this old high school Physics teacher named David Chandler until Chomsky tones down the insults. David Chandler discovered that NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911?feature=watch

    The NIST WTC7 reports border on criminal…

    The 9/11 Commission had much in common with the Warren Commission – neither pass a smell test. JFK/911: A Conspiracy Theory (by the Corbett Report ) are described as everything you ever wanted to know about the official conspiracy theories in under 5 minutes – with humor:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
    http://www.corbettreport.com/jfk-a-conspiracy-theory/

    Chomsky brings up Thermite – you have to love this engineer who puts National Geographic to shame with some back yard thermite experiments:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5d5iIoCiI8g

    http://911speakout.org/

    Simonshack’s September Clues videos put 50 years of Zapruder analysis to shame.

  5. F says:

    As inquisitive and insightful as you are, the fact that you cannot see the connection between these two events is humbling. The same people/group/cult that orchestrated the dubious beginnings of ww1 and the formation of Middle East policy, are the very same that killed Jfk, and planned 911.

    • D. Olmens says:

      Out of curiosity, who are the “same people/group/cult”? If this group is responsible for 911, the start of WWI, assassinating JFK and presumably some other stuff too, these are I would imagine, some very serious and capable people. It strikes me as odd that I’ve never realised there was a connection between the start of WWI and the JFK assassination. Can you be a little specific about this group, the people involved and the other activities? This is quite a large claim, so I’d like to see substantial supporting evidence.

  6. Dan Hayden says:

    This is preposterous. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed only “confessed” to participation in 9/11 after being water-boarded over 100 times and having his children tortured in front of him. Osama bin Lade had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. Seeing such a load of crap posted here destroys ANY validity this site may have concerning the events of 9/11.

    The ONLY proper analysis of the events of 9/11 was conducted by Dr. Judy Wood.

    LINK: http://www.drjudywood.com/

    • D. Olmens says:

      “…having his children tortured in front of him.”

      Didn’t happen.

      “Seeing such a load of crap posted here destroys ANY validity this site may have concerning the events of 9/11.”

      That’s fine, because the primary focus of this site is not 911, as the title indicates.

      “The ONLY proper analysis of the events of 9/11 was conducted by Dr. Judy Wood.”

      Of course. A single individual is the only person capable of investigating an event of this magnitude.

      I had a look at her website. “Free energy technology”? Really?

      Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

      • Alex S says:

        It’s true that there is no evidence that KSM’s children were tortured in front of him.

        On the other hand, when thinking about our intelligence system, it’s worth noting that John Brennan enthusiastically endorsed such techniques on national television.

        And of course the dozens of waterboardings, days of isolation, hours of stress positions, and other various physical and mental/emotional tortures perpetrated against KSM make any sort of “confession” about as useful as, well… As a Judy Wood book.

    • anonymous says:

      Dr. Judy Wood theories that the WTC towers were destroyed by “directed energy weapons.” are not credible. Dr. Judy Wood theory is not published by anywhere other than her own website. A paper by Cass Sunstein (an administrator in the Office of Information in Obama’s White House) , describes how “cognitive infiltration” can be used to discredit conspiracy theories. These are old tricks – Targets of Operation CHAOS included the women’s liberation movement.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_Theories.22_and_government_infiltration

      • D. Olmens says:

        So, Dr Wood is in fact acting on behalf of someone or some group (the government?) and is deliberately spreading disinformation that will serve to discredit legitimate theories about 911? Am I understanding you correctly? I’m having trouble deciding what’s less credible: the actual ideas of Dr Woods, or, the idea that she is involved in some kind of “cognitive infiltration” campaign.

        I read the link you included and I’m not sure that kind of activity is actually what Sunstein was suggesting when he wrote about “cognitive infiltration”. The purpose in approaching conspiracy theories in this manner is, according to the Wiki page, “…raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” I don’t see any mention of promoting additional and competing conspiracy theories. In fact, the whole intent as I understand it from that page is to prevent the emergence and spread of theories based on wrong information which lead to violence. The reference you provided doesn’t mention anything about pushing alternative theories.

    • Eric Saunders says:

      Wood has no credibility. You are wittingly or unwittingly promoting disinformation. This is the 9/11 equivalent of “the driver shot JFK.”

      • D. Olmens says:

        It’s not “disinformation”. It’s just a really bad theory. The theory that the driver shot JFK was a preposterous theory. Dr Woods and her energy weapons are another preposterous theory.

        If you genuinely believe the work of Dr Woods is truly disinformation: who or what is the source of this disinformation and what is the purpose in spreading this? And why does Dr Wood’s website look like it was designed in 1997? Is that some kind of deliberate ploy?

    • Jonathan says:

      Dan Hayden,

      The known facts support what you say about the water boarding of KSM.

      As for OBL, it’s impossible to know the facts. His need for dialysis calls into question all stories about his hanging out in caves for months or years.

      As for the hijackers, some of the stories conflict; some are hard to believe. Hani Hanjour couldn’t pilot a small private plane; yet we’re told he did some acrobatic flying with a 757. The fact Mohammad Atta’s passport was found on top of the rubble of WTC ! is certainly reminiscent of Oswald (Tippet) and James Earl Ray (MLK).

      I agree, however, Judy Wood is not the best person to refute the 9-11 Commission. In fact, she’s a nonsensical loon.

  7. Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

    Chomsky has, unfortunately, become the “left?” synthetic history-substitute. You can tell by how far right we have gone. Once the left read history. Now they defer to Mr. Yellow Mental Police-Tape. As a youngster I was a Chomsky mainliner. My recovery was reading Cold War history. There is no more misleading writer on the crucial early years of the National Security State. And the result is to push us further right by getting the left to go after narrow-band history. Whether or not this is deliberate, I would have no way of knowing. But the examples of 100% misleading statements re JFK’s foreign policy are myriad. See for example what Chomsky does to the two books by Stern , the historian at the JFK library. One of his persimmon picking exercises even earned a rebuke from Stern. Rare that you would find a publisher of an academic book rebuking an author who could potentially expedite sales exponentially.

    Then we have the historical fact of Encounter Magazine. That history has been as lost as a Los Angeles doorframe.

    Nathaniel Heidenheimer
    Wilson School Kindergarden
    Class of ’68

  8. anonymous says:

    As for the notion of cover up, I defer to David Chandler, an old high school physics teacher. Chandler exposed an attempt by NIST to cover up evidence that WTC Building 7 underwent freefall.
    Just like the Zapruder film, the freefall videos are a smoking gun:
    http://911speakout.org/

    Jonathan Cole (a professional engineer) demonstrates why patents are issued for devices using Thermite in controlled demolitions. The Great Thermate Debate video puts the National Geographic to shame:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5d5iIoCiI8g

    Except for maybe the CHAOS operations, Noam Chomsky limits himself overseas high-level U.S. government misbehavior , as opposed to CIA activities in the US. Even then he doesn’t get into false flag operations like Operation Gladio or the USS Liberty incident…

    • D. Olmens says:

      “As for the notion of cover up, I defer to David Chandler, an old high school physics teacher.”

      A high school physics teacher? Investigating 911?

      “Except for maybe the CHAOS operations, Noam Chomsky limits himself overseas high-level U.S. government misbehavior , as opposed to CIA activities in the US. Even then he doesn’t get into false flag operations like Operation Gladio or the USS Liberty incident…”

      There’s only so many hours in a day.

      “False flag” has become such a silly term. It had a meaning once, but in the hands of conspiracy theorists those words – “false flag” – have been so utterly debased and abused that the only thing it indicates now that is whatever theory the usage accompanies is unlikely to embrace any kind of rational thought process. Everything is a “false flag”. I blame Alex Jones. To his credit though, he’s doing great business selling iodine supplements, nuclear and radiation survival kits ($79.95!), backpacks, flashlight pens and t-shirts. The conspiracy industrial complex. Because there is a war on for your wallet.

      Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

      • anonymous says:

        ““I defer to David Chandler, an old high school physics teacher.”

        “A high school physics teacher? Investigating 911? ”

        Yes, a high school physics teacher forced the esteemed agency NIST to acknowledged freefall, and rewrite their collapse report-but they still denied its clear significance. After getting caught, these guys look like they are back in high school:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

        If you don’t respect a high school physics teacher, how about a Brigadier General? Weapons and Explosives expert USAF Brig. General Ben Partin was the main expert who inspected the site and analyzed hundreds of photos of the disaster:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCYIn8QzRjI

        Don’t believe everything you read in the New York Times – Noam can still tell you that. If you haven’t read it, Noam’s Manufacturing Consent is now quaint – and you don’t have to read it:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

        • D. Olmens says:

          Sorry, I just don’t buy it. This just another conspiracy theory propagated by people who are unwilling to step back and take a balanced and rational look at the event. You can tell me about as many “experts” as you like, all of whom agree with you oddly enough, but the theories just do not make sense. I don’t need the NY Times to tell me that 911 conspiracy theories are preposterous. They don’t work, they don’t make sense, they are just plain wrong.

          As far as Chomsky is concerned I’ve read probably around a dozen of his books over the years and I read Manufacturing Consent way back when it was released, so I’m quite familiar with his ideas and writings. Chomsky’s work has it’s pros and cons, but on the topic of 911 theories he is absolutely correct.

          Since we’re swapping some links back and forth, here’s a book you might find interesting which will provide some historical context to these kind of theories: http://amzn.com/0062135554

          • House says:

            More than any other thing – and there are a lot of other things (like no military response against the highjacked planes for nearly two hours)- the collapse of those three WTC buildings tells me that there was more going on there than planes crashing into two of them and resulting fires. Modern steel-framed highrise buildings simply don’t fall apart and down to the ground like that, there is nothing else remotely like that to point at in their history. And you don’t have to a wall full of appropriate degrees to comprehend or understand that. The only thing that could do that is adding pre-planted explosives or incendiaries to the mix – and, what do you know, there seems to be ample evidence that this was the case. Once you have that, it’s like the fourth shot in Dealey Plaza, you instantly have a conspiracy, and not just one run by bin Laden.

          • D. Olmens says:

            “Modern steel-framed highrise buildings simply don’t fall apart and down to the ground like that, there is nothing else remotely like that to point at in their history.”

            This is not a logical way of thinking. It’s also a massive oversimplification. How many other extremely similar events are there in history that you can use as a valid basis for making comparisons about what happens when a commercial airliner flies into a building?

            “And you don’t have to a wall full of appropriate degrees to comprehend or understand that.”

            This statement is irrational. You’re counter-intuitively claiming that because you don’t know anything about the topic that your claims are correct. What you’re in effect saying is that the less you know about something, the more likely you are to be able to understand it. How does that make any kind of sense?

            “The only thing that could do that is adding pre-planted explosives or incendiaries to the mix – and, what do you know, there seems to be ample evidence that this was the case.”

            Note the use of the words: “only thing” and “what do you know”.

            In the previous sentence you admit that you have no expertise in the area, then you go on to claim that in your view the only possible explanation is the one that supports your theories. This is not a persuasive argument. How would you know what the “only thing” is, and why that is more likely than any other explanations?

            These claims are just plain wrong. The mental process you used to arrive at these conclusions is flawed. It’s riddled with contradictions and logical flaws.

          • anonymous says:

            origins of the 1963 myths: “Allen Dulles and the origins of the lone gunman theory…Who paid for the first JFK conspiracy theory?…The hidden history of the first JFK conspiracy theory” A big part of the first JFK conspiracy theory cost the CIA $51,000 a month, paid to the DRE.

            Who paid for the first 911 official conspiracy theory, or 911 myth? Pundits and The Harley Guy make a good first start by describing not only the pandemonium but also the cause of the collapse being heat weakening the steel-framed structures:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk

            The official collapse explanations alternated between two explanations 1)pancaking of floors and 2) a pile driver of lighter upper floors destroying the remaining heavier lower floors. These explanations could not pass a basic smell test. The basic idea is simple: The impact of the upper floors carries a given momentum.

            To stop the impactor, this momentum must be transferred onto the mass of the lower floors:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth#Newton.27s_approximation_for_the_impact_depth

            The collapse of the old WTC7 is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing as a result of fire. NIST observed that the building fell at free fall acceleration through a distance of approximately 8 stories or 105 feet. Newton’s smell test detects an odor because the lower structure will slow the collapse of the upper floors:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

            As executive director of the 911 Commission, Philip D. Zelikow propagated 911 Myths – One of his areas of expertise is public mythology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow#Expertise
            In December 1998 Zelikow wrote in Catastrophic Terrorism: “Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after.” He also wrote The Kennedy Tapes, and Why People Don’t Trust Government…

            ” the theories just do not make sense…They don’t work, they don’t make sense…”

            Chandler provides a refresher tutorial:
            http://911speakout.org/?page_id=222
            https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics

            “You can tell me about as many “experts” as you like”

            I do not consider high school teacher David chandler an expert – I didn’t question his credentials either…

            Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn’t matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone “thinks”. Nothing can fool the laws of physics:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9YRUso7Nf3s

          • House says:

            “How many other extremely similar events are there in history that you can use as a valid basis for making comparisons about what happens when a commercial airliner flies into a building?”

            Extremely similar? None, of course. But a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945, and that didn’t come close to fatally compromising that building. Steel-framed highrises have had fires, and much more severe than the WTC buildings, and none have experienced total collapse. Some fairly tall steel-framed buildings have been destroyed in major earthquakes, but to my knowledge they don’t totally disintegrate; they partially collapse or perhaps tip over, but major parts of the building’s structure remain intact.

            At the point of collapse of the south tower I wouldn’t say there was anything that happened that I would claim makes clear that more than plane impact and fire had created the problem. But instead of the top of the building continuing to tip over and fall off, perhaps taking more of the building with it but leaving most of the (largely) undamaged structure standing, which is what one might expect, the whole structure comes apart, right down to ground level, and in about 10 seconds.

            Let’s flip this over and look at your belief, which seems to be that the conventional story line about planes and fires bringing the buildings down is true. When did you arrive at that conclusion? What was that based on? To my knowledge there have been two official investigations of the tower collapses, the initial FEMA/ASCE investigation during the six months of so after the event which concluded impact damage plus fires brought it down, and I think that’s the source of the pancake theory of collapse. The NIST did their more lengthy investigation, and in 2005 their results included initiation of collapse arising out of sagging floors pulling the outer columns inward, to the point of failure, and not failing floor trusses initiating the collapse. But they don’t address the collapse after that point of initiation, so we are left with very little which explains why the buildings collapsed as they did. They also concluded that the buildings would not have fallen just on the crash damage; it took the fires to bring them down.

            I don’t find either of these very compelling, because the floor structures don’t seem that critical to me in holding the building up, simply based on their construction. If one took away the core and the floors, the tight mesh of columns making up the outer walls of the building would stand without question, and the same for the core columns without the exterior and floors. It appears that it was the strength of these two separate structural systems which allowed for the large open floors and their light construction. So how does that flimsiest part of the buildings bring the whole thing down? How do these spidery floor trusses sag (from heat and gravity) and that actually bends in large structural columns. NIST claims fire-induced heat compromised their strength, but let’s recall they are vertical members, with fire on only one side, and part of what was a massive heat sink, the entire exterior structure, that would bleed heat away from the areas experiencing that heating.

            I think the only way this makes any sense at all is if this design was horribly and fatally flawed, somehow vulnerable to this specific type of damage (even though the buildings were said to be designed to withstand the impact of a plane), yet I have not seen any official conclusion remotely to that effect, nor any serious expert accusation of that.

            In any case, what expert opinion made you believe the conventional line is beyond question, and were you agnostic on the cause of collapses before you became aware of that opinion? Or was your mind made up on the day, and you have since refused to seriously consider anything else?

  9. Bill Pierce says:

    Chomsky should have said, “I don’t know enough about it to comment.” Regarding his interpretation of the Bush administration’s response, his logic was not remotely convincing. Time for the old “anarchist” to enjoy his retirement.

  10. Eric Saunders says:

    So do you defer to Chomsky on the Kennedy assassination also?

    You should read Peter Dale Scott’s book The Road to 9/11. Scott knows much more than Chomsky about elite criminality. Chomsky’s critique of 9/11 suspicions is shallow and facile. If all that you knew was that the US used al Qaeda all over the Balkans and Central Asia in the 1990′s and 2000, it should be enough to make you agnostic about 9/11. If you think that you don’t want to associate yourself with another controversial subject because you think it might detract from your JFK efforts, just shut up about it. No need to post insulting nonsense like this Chomsky bit.

  11. Jonathan says:

    Professor Chomsky is a skilled deceiver.

    He says there is a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers that Building 7 fell at free-fall speed. Two thousand(+) is hardly miniscule, given the specialization of engineers and, I assume, architects. I was trained as an undergrad in electrical engineering. I know math and physics pretty well from an engineering standpoint but would defer to any well-informed and unbiased civil engineer’s opinion as to Building 7. I believe Architects and Engineers for Truth has some such civil engineers.

    Chomsky also deceives about profession associations. Engineering associations, like IEEE, the pre-eminent electrical engineering association, are highly scholarly and apolitical. Intensely so, because so much research money is federal. The ABA and AMA, I assume, are much more to Chomsky’s liking. The leadership of the lawyer and physician groups are highly political and highly Establishment-oriented.

    • D. Olmens says:

      “He says there is a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers that Building 7 fell at free-fall speed. Two thousand(+) is hardly miniscule, given the specialization of engineers and, I assume, architects.”

      According to the Dept of Labor, in 2008 there were 262,000 Civil Engineers in the US. Also for the year 2008, the US Census Bureau reported a figure of 233,000 architects. Those are overall figures provided after 2001 and include all the various specialisations. But, clearly 2,000 (approx., using your figure) dissenting voices is a tiny fraction from amongst that pool of professional expertise. I don’t see any deceit here. On the contrary, Chomsky’s assertion of a “minuscule number” looks solid. In fact this seems pretty normal. In any professional field it would be unusual for absolutely everyone to agree on absolutely everything. There will inevitably be some variance of opinion and interpretation. The fact that this particular variance in opinion is confined to such a small group suggests that the vast majority of professionals in these fields do not take these claims seriously.

      “Chomsky also deceives about profession associations. Engineering associations, like IEEE, the pre-eminent electrical engineering association, are highly scholarly and apolitical. Intensely so, because so much research money is federal. The ABA and AMA, I assume, are much more to Chomsky’s liking. The leadership of the lawyer and physician groups are highly political and highly Establishment-oriented.”

      I think you’re taking what Chomsky said a bit out of context there. He’s talking about these claims being evaluated through a process of peer review, the mechanism for which, as Chomsky describes, is the publication of new findings in recognised publications and subsequent examination and debate. It’s not a question of a group being political or not, it’s whether the claims in question are being seriously evaluated in the relevant fields.

      I struggle rather a lot with the idea that Chomsky is “establishment”. The only way that I can conceive in which Chomsky could be considered “establishment” is if you were to view him from the distant fringes of conspiracy thought. From that vantage point he would seem way too mild, tempered and overly academic. In other words he’s just not extreme enough for today’s conspiracy theorists. This is true, he isn’t extreme when compared to Alex Jones, David Icke, et al. Years ago Chomsky was considered extreme. Chomsky hasn’t really changed. It’s the fringe voices of conspiracy thought and writing that in recent years have been rapidly disappearing over the horizon into unchartered lands of unabashed irrationality.

  12. Paulf says:

    I think trying to tie the JFK assassination to 9/11 serves to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with the official stories, and I think there is a ton of evidence for a JFK conspiracy that is missing in the 9/11 story. What’s more, 9/11 was clearly a conspiracy, the question is whether it extended beyond bin Laden’s group. I don’t know.

    That said, the NY Post had an article this weekend about newly released documents that were released through diligence by two Congressmen that demonstrate many ties between the hijackers and officials of the Saudi government. It can be found on the Post website.

    • Jonathan says:

      The tie-in is that (a) there were major game-changing events, (b) shocking to the nation, (c) as to which there were ineffectual commissions, (d) as to which facts have been suppressed (e.g., video tapes of the Pentagon strike), and (e) as to which the MSM has repeated the government story.

      Make no mistake. The JFK assassination provided the template for post-war American domestic propaganda.

      • House says:

        I think you might have meant pre-war domestic propaganda – these events led directly to the two longest-running wars in US history, Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos and Afghanistan/Iraq. And both with an overlay of petroleum and heroin production and profits…

  13. mazoola says:

    There’s a world of difference between “Oswald shot JFK” and “Oswald acted alone.” Similarly, “there was government involvement in 9/11″ is NOT the same thing as “9/11 was an inside job.”

    I believe the investigations of Daniel Hopsicker, among others, indicate pretty strongly a number of the hijackers were well-known within the intelligence community and, most likely, were involved in CIA-permitted [-approved? -linked?] drug-running. They may even have been brought together to prepare for a CIA-associated black op. However, they were seemingly doubled by Al Qaeda [or otherwise somehow induced to participate in 9/11] — quite possibly in an effort to humiliate publicly US intelligence. Accordingly — and because of what else in which they seemingly were involved — a concerted effort has been made by these same intelligence agencies to dissemble, obfuscate, and suppress attempts to investigate such links.

    NOW are the similarities between the two events more apparent?

    • Photon says:

      These comments are very revealing about how much nonsense conspiracy theorists are willing to believe.

      • Paulf says:

        Again, I ask, why is the fact that one conspiracy may be wrong evidence that another alleged conspiracy is wrong?

        Your dismissal of the Lincoln conspiracy because it was led by one forceful personality demonstrates that you are pushing an anti-conspiracy narrative with no concern about truth, and are reflexively trying to dismiss any and all questions by attacking the questioners.

      • mazoola says:

        At the point you provide *any* factual information or a well-reasoned rebuttal to a post or comment, I’ll respond in kind. Otherwise, please spare us your ad hominem/onus probandi content-free comments.

    • D. Olmens says:

      “I believe the investigations of Daniel Hopsicker, among others, indicate pretty strongly a number of the hijackers were well-known within the intelligence community and, most likely, were involved in CIA-permitted [-approved? -linked?] drug-running.”

      What is the evidence for this? Aside from claims by Mr Hopsicker?

      “They may even have been brought together to prepare for a CIA-associated black op.”

      “..may have”… This is speculation. Is there any evidence? No.

      “However, they were seemingly doubled by Al Qaeda [or otherwise somehow induced to participate in 9/11] — quite possibly in an effort to humiliate publicly US intelligence.”

      That doesn’t make sense.

      “NOW are the similarities between the two events more apparent?”

      No, not at all. On the contrary, the two events are not in any way similar. These claims are extremely far-fetched. Furthermore, there is just no evidence to support them. The only place you read about this kind of stuff is in conspiracy literature. Therein lies the problem.

      I urge readers to exercise extreme caution when evaluating these kind of claims. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

  14. Anyone who’s buying the OBL /KSM legend should take time to read this – regarding the invention of the 9/11-”mastermind” KSM:

    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

    That Noam Chomsky defends the 19 boxcutters-tale is no wonder, he always was a proponent of the lone gunman theory…

  15. Esquire says:

    I’m 100% sure 9/11 was an inside job.

    1. Collapse of Bldg 7 in free fall, symmetrical, through the path of greatest resistance, sudden initiation = controlled demolition. In order to get type of collapse, all 24 vertical columns would have had to have failed completely at substantially the same time. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows that a random input does not produce a symmetrical output.

    2. No evidence of plane having crashed at the Pentagon. According to the cover story, the plane struck 5 light poles before striking the pentagon. In actuality, those light poles would have ripped the wings off of the plane. NWA flight 85 struck a light pole upon taking off, and the light pole sheared half the wing off – and that’s at 150kts. According to the cover story, the 757 was travelling at 500kts. The Govt could easily rebut this by simply producing a surveillance video clearly showing the AAL 757 hitting the pentagon – they have not.

    If you believe 9/11 was carried out by islamic extremist, you might as well belive Oswald was the lone assassin.

    3. No evidence of significant plane w

  16. Esquire says:

    1. I, for one, don’t need to defer to Noam Chomsky or anyone else to analyze and draw conclusions for me. I am able to examine the evidence myself, and draw my conclusions. Having advance degrees in engineering as well as a law degree, I believe I am able to analyze facts, even technical facts, and draw my own conclusions therefrom.

    2. In analyzing the facts surrounding the JFK assassination and 9/11, I focus generally on a couple of things: a) Are the facts consistent with the official story? and b) How does the Govt respond or act in light of inconsistencies; does the Govt look like they are trying to arrive at the truth or are they trying to cover up or avoid the inconsistencies.

    3. Based on the above, my conclusions are: a) that there is a high probability that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy involving members of the CIA and other parties; and b) there is a high probability that 9/11 was orchestrated from members in HIGH positions in our Govt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more