Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11

Yes, absolutely. This is what I am referring to at DIA: DIA NWO On a walk we take in downtown Denver there is additional artwork like this, as I mentioned, under the bridge near housing complexes, near the huge train terminus. I honestly believe this and all the 'lofts' being built in this part of town are specifically designed to hold humans being transferred. It's a very, very scary thought to think about the government being complicit in 9/11. When intelligent, high ranking people weigh in, it's difficult to label them all "conspiracy loons". Thanks Keld. TBone

Halliburton was building them and lots was written. Here's a link from 2005.

Not funny. For all we know newsvine is feeding the red lists. Your pal, TBone

Not ONE reputable news source, you CT's need to get a new bag

Hi Andrew,

With all due respect, the prisons, FEMA laws, Rex84 and the masonic symbolism in the New World Airport are physical evidence, not theoretical evidence.

It is true that theories emerge around these things but remember the theory in 'hypothetical' which is the cornerstone of the scientific method.

Thanks,

TBone

And what, you consider government and corporate sponsored media reputable? Puh-lease.

No, not at all. What about you? Is "Inconvenient Truth" "word"? Your pal, TBone

And what, you consider government and corporate sponsored media reputable? Puh-lease.

a lot more than conspiracy theorist nuts with cameras and visions of world orders and aliens probing my anus, yes.

That is probably the worst video of ALL TIME!

Trust me, it is!

Hi Brian,

Production quality aside, can you, or anyone, please explain to me why you would have a mural of children in coffins at an international airport?

Thanks,

Tim

Andrew Benton wrote: "Not ONE reputable news source, you CT's need to get a new bag"

Daniel Ellsberg is the source in this instance. If you're going to pursue the tired logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, you should start with him.

TBone: No, I haven't even seen Inconvenient Truth. I would watch it though, just to see what all the fuss is about. As far as the children in coffins, wtf?!

Benson: I see we've gotten to the "blow things out of proportion" part of the argument. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I do keep an open mind. If a so-called "CT nut" can provide me with some sort of evidence to back their theory, I'll listen more closely. Until then, I consider these "nuts" a great source of questions that should be answered by the powers that be (government, corporations, school teachers, etc. basically anyone in an authoratative role directly involved in the situation).

WTF indeed. If someone can give me even a quasi- reasonable explanation for pictures of children in coffins in an international airport, I'd be much obliged. If the WTF is in the context of WTF am I talking about, then please watch the video of go to the urls in the posts above. It's uber wierdness man. TBone

TBone: No, I haven't even seen Inconvenient Truth. I would watch it though, just to see what all the fuss is about.

I've seen both Inconvenient Truth and Tom Brokaw's Discovery Channel special and I'd say Brokaw is better. Partly because listening to Tom is easier and the way the whole subject is covered is more like extended news than a lecture. However, they both come back to the same conclusion and with many different sources used.

The fact is that much in American media is slanted to support the corporate interests. If you spend the considerable time it takes to see who pays for the news and books and experts you will find that like the "doubts" relating to the dangers of smoking not too many years ago, the "doubts" about global warming are paid for by the biggest petrochemical companies and biggest polluters.

Paying for results tends to bias the outcome. Tom Brokaw takes this head on but with diplomacy and he has no reason to pitch bias. If he wanted to run for anything I'm sure most Americans would be thrilled to have him. But he won't, he tries to deliver facts and avoid bias.

Brokaw is a fine, smart, stand up guy in my eyes. He's also been around a while and knows the politics and news games. If all the evidence is convincing enough for him and the critics appear financially vested and biased based on Tom's research that should be good enough to cast serious doubt on contrary claims by politicians and power companies.

TBone: The WTF was in the context of "WTF?! who would paint a mural with children in coffins." As far as explaining why someone would allow or do that, I have no idea. Maybe it has something to do with the timing of the mural being painted (tempers were flaring after 9/11) or just the culture around the area — I have yet to travel there so I can't really say either way.

Pamela: Thanks for the opinion and review of both. I didn't know that Brokaw did a special. Now I'll have to look for it and give it a watch.

Yep.

If its anti-american/democracy/israel or anti-commonsense, I can immediately tell who seeded/wrote it.

So Keld's questioning of the "official" government story is anti-American? How so? I would think that NOT questioning the government's reports and actions is anti-American. All forms of authority need to be questioned. Not questioning them is a downward spiral to opression.

This is also not anti-Israel, nor is it in any way anti-democracy. And is it really "anti-commonsense?" Common sense SHOULD tell you to not believe in something unless you have absolute, undeniable proof that it is true. I'm not saying that I believe in either side of the "it was terrorism"/"it was the government" coin, I haven't seen enough conclusive proof to persuade me to one side or the other. I am, however, at least open to reports from both sides, which is necessary to come to an educated and logical decision as to what really happened. That said, the "it was the government" side of the story has been gaining a lot of support from some fairly high-ranking (and ex-high-ranking) officials, which is definitely giving that argument even more weight.

No, what I'm saying is that it's easy to tell Kelds posts because they usually have something negative to do with America, Jews, or Democracy.

Sure, it is merely coincidence that you post nothing but articles that paint them in a bad light.

@daweb:

Keld already stated, "I do exercise my right to be critical of the governments representing them" which I believe addresses your point.

If you want to continue laboring under the belief that criticism of a particular administration is equivalent to criticism of the entire country, go right ahead, but some of us choose to differentiate between the two in our discussions, thanks.

A continually corrup government that has made the USA the most powerful nation in the world. If that is the case then keep it up fellas.

TheWiseG A continually corrup government that has made the USA the most powerful nation in the world. If that is the case then keep it up fellas.

It has made several American corporations and their circle of friends powerful.

Look where you money and jobs are going Wise G. Look at a nation deep in debt with security and military forces spread to the breaking point. Look at personal freedom including property rights and privacy disappearing and tell me how you see that as the picture of a powerful nation.

That nonsense doesn't make America powerful, it makes the American people the victims."

Look at the US economy, massive. Look at the job market compared to the rest of the world, wonderful. I don't feel my personal freedom has been violated one bit. I would love for the government to listen to my phone calls and monitor my bank account if it would help stop another attack like 9/11. As long as they aren't telling me who I can talk to, what I can say, or where to spend my money I don't care at all. I have nothing to hide.

Ok, now you are just getting out of proportion. How about the unemployment rate? How about the homeless population? How about the "almighty US dollar" not being worth much more than the "lowly Canadian dollar"?

Are you telling us that you can say, without a doubt, that once a government in power has unlimited access to information on your money (spending habits), your phone calls, your internet habits that they aren't going to do anything they can to influence all of those things? Now we're talking crazy. That is simply too much information, too much power and too much opportunity for a government to pass up — especially one that deals with lobbyists the way that our systems do.

@TheWiseG:

I have a huge problem with that statement. HUGE. That statement makes the assumption that if you desire privacy, then you must have something to hide.

I have nothing to hide, either, but I still strongly desire my privacy. I don't think that allowing the government to listen in on my calls to the pizza delivery place in town is necessary for the protection of our country.

I would love for the government to listen to my phone calls and monitor my bank account if it would help stop another attack like 9/11.

I'm sure you've said things in the past that you wouldn't want certain people to here (children, spouse, parents, etc), so why would you be okay with a group of people at the NSA hearing it? That's like saying you don't want your children/spouse/parents/etc hearing it, but it's just fine for complete strangers to listen in.

[The US will have a] Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country

So did Daniel Ellsberg say it, or did he not? Pointing out that the website is not "legitimate" does nothing for your argument if that quote is correct. Quite the opposite, in fact. If Ellsberg did indeed make those statements, then Infowars' legitimacy shouldn't be a factor, they were just relaying what he said.

@Ugly Bastard

Infowars is not the author of this material, so questioning their credibilty isn't much of an argument. (Unless you are seriously suggesting that infowars.com simply fabricated this interview, please clarify if that is in fact your contention here)

Ignoring the fact that there were no arabs on the flights?

LOL, TBone, you crack me up.

Shell, I have to agree with you. These conspiracy theories seem to serve no real purpose.

daweb - thanks for the compliment but now, please tell me why there were Arabs in flight 77 since you're so sure. TBone

TBone, lets see it come from CNN or a more accredited source.

Shell are you suggesting that the coroner for the Washington DC is not credible? Please seed an article showing me why coroners are an untrustworthy source. Please keep in mind that the Souls on Board lists are taken very seriously by the airlines. Thanks, Tim

Funny Tbone, I somehow missed in that article where the Coronor of DC claimed that there were NO arabs on board Flight 77?

Shell

I'm sick of these theories. They always offer endless speculation and never back it up with credible sources.

The reason that these exist is because these people don't want to see the facts. If they saw the facts, then they would have less reason to criticize Bush. Heres the truth, Osama Bin Laden called upon cells of Al-Quaeda to crash planes into highly important US targets.

That's it.

So are you suggesting that Reagan's Treasury Secretary is a man who can't look at the facts and make a sane judgement? Is he a nut job too? Is there any possibility he knows more than the group wh've run the country into the ground?

Oh boy. What does his treasury sec. have to do with 9/11?

shell, how about you pay attention and look up in the comments. Pamela posted a link to the comments the treasury sec. made in regards to 9/11.

Why don't you read them and see that there's no link and the man making the comments had nothing to do with 9/11

So are you saying that the comment by Pamela — the comment I was referring to — that contained a link to this article (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm), doesn't actually have a link?

Are you refering to:

So are you suggesting that Reagan's Treasury Secretary is a man who can't look at the facts and make a sane judgement? Is he a nut job too? Is there any possibility he knows more than the group wh've run the country into the ground?

or not?

Because that one does not have a link.

And looking at that article, the man is really not qualified to question it at all.

No, I'm referring a little further up.

Right here we have Reagan's former Treasury secretary commenting on 911 as a possible inside job.

Once again the name of the website, prisonplanet, might suggest to some that this is a bunch of nut jobs but maybe the truth is that someone as conservative and intelligent as Reagan's Treasury Secretary was not invited to share those views in another forum. Maybe some of the media sources who enjoy the respect and status of unbiased do not deserve quite as much defference as we give them.

Why does someone have to be qualified to question another person or organization (or government for that matter)? If they bring up issues that others are experiencing or also questioning why does the questioner have to be qualified?

Even so, how would anyone determine who is qualified and who isn't? Seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that you have to qualify to ask questions or hold someone accountable to their actions. The government is suppose to be accountable to the people, therefore, all people should qualify to ask questions about their governments actions, even if the government doesn't want to hear them.

I'm just saying that the guy is not a reliable source who has been proven to be intelligable on the matter

I still don't see the quote, could you help a brother out?

Look up a few posts by me. It is the link No Arabs above.

Sorry, but I read that article and I seem to fail to see where they claim there were NO ARABS on that flight. As I mentioned before, can you help a brother out...?

No, I'm sorry, I can not. You can research this information yourself, go through the SSI death index yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Your pal, TBone

TBone, if you are going to make claims like this, provide an article with no evidence then when you are questioned, say "find it yourself," you might as well not even present the argument.

Tbone, you have made claims about statements in an article you posted. I read the article. No Where in the article is the statement. Not even close. I ask you for clarification and this is the best I get? "Go do your own research"?

Sorry, but if you can't back up your own claims, I have no reason so research them for you.

I don't care if you research them or not. I cited a reference already, you can choose to accept the reference or not, there's nothing I can do about that. TBone

I am happy to accept it. I will merely accept the reference and not accept your interpretations of it. That is what I think we were debating. I asked you to back it up and you could not.

I did back it up. With a doument from a phsyician who has been working on this for years from original source document of the official records and, specificall, not my 'opinion'. According to all records there were no Arabs on any of the flights. Do you agree or disagree with this? Thanks, TBone

And I keep asking you where this quote is.

Please follow this link.

"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is"

Now, there were no Arabs, at least on Flight 77. This flies in the face of the official report, does it not?

TBone

I have seen this argument before and I am sorry, the fact that when AA listed the passenger and crew killed they did not include the hijackers is NOT evidence that they did not exist.

An ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad.

that is

troubled a great deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence.

that has

considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened

is hardly what I would call hard evidence. This article is laughable, if this is the best you can find, I think you are wasting your time.

You have claimed that the Coronor of DC and then it was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. that made this statement, and yet when I read the articles, I find that it is conclusion of this one person from New Orleans based on what information they gathered from various sources that is making this claim instead.

I do not agree with, or believe you claim (yes YOUR claim) that there were no Arabs on Flight 77.

TBone, looks like your argument has been ripped to shreds. Too bad.

Not at all. Daweb simply pasted a few 'out of context' lines and ignored the data from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the passenger lists completely. Maybe not evidence but certainly something that should be explained. TBone

Did not ignore them at all, you merely either ignored my comments or chose not to read them (your right).

Daweb, from your research, were there Arabs on flight 77? Your pal, TBone

Perhaps this link will help you TBone, and you are not my pal, I do not even know you.

If I knew you, we could be pals, but don't assume, and do not condescend.

yes, I used wikepedia but please note that it also refers to things like the 9-11 commision as well.

The 9/11 commission? Please. What does the 9/11 commission report say about WTC7?. I always sign 'Your pal, Tbone' for a reason. It is a reference to Norman Maclean's "Logging and Pimping and Your pal Jim" of which I am a fan. [omitted by request], TBone

Hardly always, look above here. It seems a bit haphazard to me.

You are telling us that you would prefer to trust An ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad with an ax to grind over a bipartisan commitee that investigated in depth the attacks of 9-11. That clearly shows us where you are coming from. I will agree that the 9-11 comittee was not perfect, but I think they got this one right.