Question from an Ed Forum member.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I recieved a PM from Forum member Steve McDonagh. The pertinent part reads.

Hi Steve.

I have a very simple, no frills question for you.

Do you believe the *USG had **any prior knowledge, or involvement pertaining to the events of 911.

* To include sections of the CIA/FBI or other companies, organisations or individuals relating to the USG in any way.

** Any to mean any illegal capacity or other that they would not want the American people to find out about.

I know all of this has been covered in other threads, but Steve says he finds the multiplicity of opinions difficult to follow, so, perhaps sticking mainly to the foreknowledge part of his question, best evidence Gentlemen/Ladies please.

[Evan Burton]

I've answered Steve previously via PM.

[Jack White]

Questions:

Why didn't he post his own thread on this?

Why did Turner post it for him?

Why did Burton post a meaningless message?

Yes...MY OPINION is that the attacks of 911 were originated

at highest govt levels and carried out by foreign mercenaries

for plausible deniability. No, not 19 young arabs, but the

military of some foreign "asset" country. Most of this opinion

suggest Israel. There are abundant signs of Israeli connections,

but in my opinion mention of them causes inflamatory diversions;

there is plenty of evidence just sticking to evidence without

pursuing foreign connections.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Why did Turner post it for him?

Jack

Because he asked me a question in a PM which I thought might be of interest to the general membership. Jeez.

[Ron Ecker]

As I've stated in the "strange happenings" thread (with no rebuttal, imagine that), the most obvious evidence of USG foreknowledge is in the behavior of the Secretary of Defense and Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the attacks. I would include the behavior of Bush, but Bush is such an idiot that I cannot imagine that anyone would trust him with foreknowledge. But Rumsfeld and Myers are not idiots.

[Jack White]

Why did Turner post it for him?

Jack

Because he asked me a question in a PM which I thought might be of interest to the general membership. Jeez.

I was reprimanded by a moderator for posting a message from another person.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

Why did Turner post it for him?

Jack

Because he asked me a question in a PM which I thought might be of interest to the general membership. Jeez.

I was reprimanded by a moderator for posting a message from another person.

Jack

LMAO.... I was recently told, I'm under 10% moderation (per our space buff turned moderator, Evan) that count as a reprimand?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Gents, its really quite simple. Mr McDonagh sent a PM to me asking if I thought the USG had ANY (including foreknowledge) hand in 911, I sent him a reply, which I will happily reproduce here if necessary, and asked him if he minded me using his post to start a thread, he replied that he would be happy for me to do so, as he found reading through the existing, multiple threads confusing, and he would welcome leading researchers views on this aspect in a single thread.

[Evan Burton]

Likewise, Steve contacted me via PM, and we corresponded about our various opinions. That's what I meant by my post.

Steve McD, I am more than happy for you to post my PMs if you wish.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Evan Burton
Corrected spelling

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Likewise, Steve contacted me via PM, and we corresponded about our various opinions. That's what I meant by my post.

Steve McD, I am more than happy for you to post my PMs if you wish.

OK, hopefully thats explained the situation to everybody's satisfaction. now, does anyone care to take a stab at the meat?

[Evan Burton]

Steve,

I hope that you don't mind but I'll try and give what I understand to be your position. Please correct me where necessary.

I said that I thought there was no major wrongdoing. Examples of incompetence, examples of very poor decisions, examples of systemic errors, but no deliberate attempt to allow 9/11. I also said that I would consider the Pennsylvania crash as a possible legitimate shootdown which the USG does not wish to now admit, but I had not seen convincing evidence for it.

Steve appreciated my views, but thought that there were too many inconsistencies or coincidences on 9/11 for him to accept the official 9/11 report.

I urged him to pursue his doubts until he was satisfied with his investigations.

Steve, if I have mis-stated anything, please correct me on the thread. Thanks!

Edited July 23, 2008 by Evan Burton
changed a "their" to "there"

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Steve, as so few members seem willing to share their research with you, here is my take.

FOUR QUESTIONS.

1Were explosives detonated in the Towers to aid with their collapse.

2,Were the planes (a) remotely flown to their targets, and, or ( were they military planes equiped with explosive devises.

3Did a missile, rather than a passenger Jet impact with the Pentagon.

4,Was flight 93 shot down (for whatever reason) by USAF Jets.

My answer to the first three questions is no, now understand I am not a pilot, a demolition expert, structral engineer or Architect, therefore, like most people, I am dependant upon expert testimony to reach a conclusion, and in all three of the conspiracy examples the overwelming weight of expert opinion supports the official explanation, so until, or when that changes I am forced to except that evidence. It could of course be that many experts are afraid to speak out with what the suspect, for fear of ridicule, job loss or, even worse, but as they haven't spoken, for what ever reason, I can give it little weight.

Question four is much more difficult, the official explanation sounds so folksy, and good ol American can do, that it almost begs to be debunked. What is presented to us? The fur evil terrorists, one planner, one Pilot, two muscle, the brave Americans deciding they aint gonna take it no more, the heart-rending last calls to loved one's, from of all things cell phones, the rallying cry, which would be invoked by the Bush admin to great effect later," LETS ROLL" and the selfless Heroism of bring the Plane down before it could reach its target, Obviously a lie from begining to end, one which covers up the real reason for the shooting down, and provides us with some hero's at the same time. Or, was it?There is a long thread on this matter here that you might like to check out.

So, do I believe that there was no Government conspiracy to create, and shamelessly use the tragedy of 911? no, far from it, I just believe that we have spent too much energy chasing down the wrong conspiracy, it may even be that we have been decieved into doing just that thing, how does the saying go, "Hiden in plain sight". I beleive that any conspiracy lies within the denial of foreknowledge, this alone, given present evidence to the contrary, is self evidently a WHOPPER At the very least the Government, and its various Agencies wrer well aware that an attack was imminent, and that it would involve using American airplanes as weapons, so when Bush, Rice and the Agency heads claimed to be taken completely by surprise they are lying through their teeth, now, whether that is to cover a conspiracy of foreknowledge, or their own criminal negligence I can't say research into this aspect needs to continue, and should look deeper into the CIAs relationship with various arab underground movements, and ask the question when, if ever, did Osama Bin Laden stop being the CIAs can do Guy. Steve.

[Ron Ecker]

Am I the only one who reads complicity into the conspicuous behavior of Rumsfeld and Myers during the attacks? (I'll throw in for good measure the behavior of Wolfowitz, and of the officer in charge at the National Military Command Center, who "coincidentally" arranged to take that morning off). Perhaps someone who does not read complicity can offer rational explanations. (You can even write off the NMCC guy as just another 9/11 coincidence.) And please don't call these men "incompetent." A child, having normal human curiosity, would show more "competence" during such an event even without some official title, position, or duties.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Am I the only one who reads complicity into the conspicuous behavior of Rumsfeld and Myers during the attacks? (I'll throw in for good measure the behavior of Wolfowitz, and of the officer in charge at the National Military Command Center, who "coincidentally" arranged to take that morning off). Perhaps someone who does not read complicity can offer rational explanations. (You can even write off the NMCC guy as just another 9/11 coincidence.) And please don't call these men "incompetent." A child, having normal human curiosity, would show more "competence" during such an event even without some official title, position, or duties.

No Ron, I agree, their behaviour was indicative of foreknowledge. their just bad actors is all.

[Ron Ecker]

their just bad actors is all.

Bad actors? Myers won an Academy Award, being confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs two days after 9/11. And Rumsfeld became an overnight media star, having his own daily TV show (often with Myers as his sidekick) at the Pentagon, saying things like "there are weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq) and we know where they are."