Support 911Blogger


Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11

http://digwithin.net/2012/03/17/muslims-did-not-attack-the-u-s-on-911/

Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11
Posted on March 17, 2012 by Kevin Ryan

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated a number of wars in Muslim countries. These wars, which would be more correctly called massacres, have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Muslims. In some cases, attempts have been made to present these aggressions in the guise of humanitarian efforts to promote democracy. But the limited public support for U.S. military action around the world goes back to the U.S. government claim that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This claim is untrue and it is past time for people to recognize that fact.

There are many ways to see that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Author David Ray Griffin has previously made arguments in this regard.[1] As time goes on, however, more facts lead people to realize that claims of Muslim responsibility for terrorism in the U.S. should be highly suspect. These facts include that the October 2001 anthrax attacks were blamed on Muslims only to be later traced to a U.S. military facility and to non-Muslim, U.S. scientists. Moreover, a number of FBI-planned acts of terrorism since 2001 have been falsely attributed to young Muslims who were victims of appalling acts of entrapment by the FBI.[2]

According to the official account of 9/11, nineteen young Arab Muslims were responsible for the entirety of the mass murder that day. The FBI accused these young men within 72 hours of the attacks and, although the list changed slightly at first, it has remained the same since shortly after the attacks. To support the accusations, U.S. authorities pointed to passports that were found under implausible circumstances, luggage containing unbelievably convenient documents, and other dubious evidence.

In October 2001, reporter Seymour Hersh wrote –

“Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, ‘Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.’”[3]

Years later, the 9/11 Commission Report (911CR) was written by a professional myth-maker, Phillip Zelikow, who was also a Bush Administration insider. Oddly enough, the outline for the report was written by Zelikow and his colleague Ernest May even before the investigation began. It is now widely accepted that the 9/11 Commission and the FBI did very poorly in terms of investigating most aspects of the attacks. In just one example, the FBI never even interviewed the people suspected of engaging in 9/11 insider trading.[4]

Despite the poor quality of the investigation, the 911CR used inflammatory language which focused on Muslims as “the enemy.” The Commission told us that “the enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless.” The Commission was being false and misleading when it made these statements, however, as the evidence shows that 9/11 was not a Muslim crime.

Muslims do not murder innocent people

The most obvious reason that the Commission was off-track is that Muslims do not murder innocent people. Some people find this statement outrageous. Of course Muslims murder innocent people, they say, that’s what al Qaeda does.

The problem is that, as a society, many of us have been trained to accept religion as a noncommittal affiliation or label. For example, many of the current U.S. leaders have engaged in mass murder around the world over the last ten years yet they still call themselves Christians. Anyone can see that they are not. Those who truly believe in God live by the laws of the religion they proclaim and Christians do not engage in wars of aggression or the torture and killing of other human beings.

The word “Muslim” is Arabic and literally means “one who submits (to God).” But Webster’s Dictionary defines a “Muslim” as an adherent to Islam. Being an adherent of Islam means to follow the teachings of the Holy Qu’ran. And according to the Qur’an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being who has committed no fault:

If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind. (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)

Defenders of the official myth might say that the 9/11 attacks can be seen as retaliation for the corruption in U.S. financial (WTC) and military (Pentagon) activities. Problems with that argument include the fact that it doesn’t absolve the 9/11 terrorists from having killed many innocent people, including children and dozens of Muslims.[5] It also doesn’t explain how many of the financial leaders in the WTC, and all of the top military leaders at the Pentagon, escaped with their lives.

Furthermore, polls in countries with large Muslim populations indicate that Muslims oppose the killing of civilians in warfare significantly more than non-Muslims do. People in Muslim countries “roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries–usually overwhelming majorities–take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all.”[6]

To avoid this direct problem, some say that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were nominally Muslims. In other words, they were people who called themselves Muslims but who just didn’t follow this one requirement of the Qu’ran. This article doesn’t delve into the carefully cultivated phenomenon called “radical Islam,” but the evidence we have indicates that the men accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were either not involved at all, or were not even close to being adherents of Islam.

The men accused of hijacking the planes were either not involved or were not Muslims

In the weeks after 9/11, many mainstream news sources reported that the accused hijackers were still alive. These claims were reported by major media sources like The Independent, the London Telegraph and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although BBC attempted to retract the claims later, the Telegraph reported that it had interviewed some of these men, who the newspaper said had the same names, same dates of birth, same places of birth, and same occupations as the accused.[7]

No other media sources have successfully explained the discrepancies around the reports of the alleged hijackers still being alive. One particularly weak attempt, cited as the primary source at Wikipedia, was an absurd hand-waving piece in Der Spiegel that used “U.S. Historian Daniel Pipes” as the authority.[8] Not mentioned is the fact that Pipes, a second-generation neocon and Project for the New American Century signatory, is arguably the world’s leading Islamophobe.[9]

Most importantly, the “hijackers alive” reports were not investigated by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, publicly expressed doubts about the identity of the hijackers. Yet to this day there has been no official response to these contradictions despite their high relevance to the overall investigation.

However, we can imagine that these cases were probably the result of stolen identities and some follow-up media statements suggested just that. With the likelihood of stolen identities, and without an official investigation to clarify, we are left with the conclusion that some of the accused men were not involved. It could be that there may have been other people involved who have never been identified, but without facts to go on we cannot say.

The men who appear to have been falsely accused include the brothers Wail and Waleed al Shehri, and Abdulaziz al Omari.[10] The language in the 911CR suggests that al Omari was the most devout of the accused men, in that he “often served as an imam at his mosque in Saudi Arabia.” But since his identity was stolen and he was therefore not involved, we must look to the other accused men for Muslim connections.

Others who appear to be victims of identity theft include Mohand al Shehri, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi, and Ahmed al Nami. Although the Commission’s report states that al Ghamdi “attended prayer services regularly,” he was also reported to have trained at the Lackland Air Force Base’s Defense Language Institute, which is a fact that does not support his being a religious fanatic with limitless hostility toward the United States. The report also says of al Hazmi that he was “unconcerned with religion.” In any case, these four must be excluded from the oxymoronic label of “Muslim terrorist” because it appears they were falsely accused.

Another of the accused men who the Commission says was “unconcerned with religion” was Satam al Suqami. This description appears to be correct because, according to The Boston Globe, al Saqami liked to sleep with prostitutes, which is a decidedly non-Muslim activity.[11] In Islam, prostitution and other forms of sexual deviancy are forbidden. Therefore, although al Suqami was not reported to be still alive, he was not a Muslim.

In the months and days leading up to 9/11, the alleged hijackers were reported to have drank alcohol heavily in bars, purchased pornographic materials, watched strippers, and paid for lap dances. Needless to say, people who follow the teachings of the Qu’ran (Muslims) do not do any of those things.

As Temple University professor of Islamic Studies, Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, said in relation to the alleged 9/11 hijackers – “Islam does not condone killing innocent people in the name of God. Nor can a devout Muslim drink booze or party at a strip club and expect to reach heaven.”[12]

Two of the men were being watched by the CIA for at least twenty months prior to 9/11. These were Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, and they did not follow the Qu’ran either. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, these two were often seen at Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego.

The most glaring examples of non-Muslim behavior, however, were exhibited by the alleged hijacker pilots of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. According to the 911CR, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi piloted these airliners and crashed them into the WTC towers. Public knowledge about them indicates that they might have been trained at U.S. military facilities, but it is clear that they did not even try to follow the Qu’ran. Frankly, Phillip Zelikow is more of a Muslim than they were.

For one thing, Atta and al Shehhi were known to dress in gaudy jewelry and clothes. Because of this, people thought they were mafia characters. As author Daniel Hopsicker wrote, they wore “Gold jewelry, expensive watches, and silk shirts” and were “Not exactly a description of Islamic fundamentalists.”[13] Additionally, their activities in Florida, in the years prior to 9/11, were closely aligned with those of gunrunners and drug smugglers, which also indicates that they were anything but Muslims.

Atta’s stripper girlfriend, Amanda Keller, said that Atta and al Shehhi “had massive supplies of cocaine” which they restocked whenever needed at one of the flight schools run by Dutch nationals in Florida. Keller said that during the time she dated him, she saw Atta do cocaine himself on multiple occasions.[14] And, of course, Muslims don’t do cocaine or other illicit drugs.

Witnesses saw Al Shehhi and Atta drunk at a Hollywood, Florida sports bar. On another occasion in Palm Beach, Atta and Alshehhi were seen spending $1,000 on champagne in only 45 minutes. During the latter escapade, Atta was with a tall busty brunette and Alshehhi was with a short blonde woman. Both women were known locally as high-priced escorts.[15]

A stripper in Las Vegas, Nevada recalled that Marwan al Shehhi was “cheap,” because he paid only $20 for a lap dance. In the summer of 2001, Al Shehhi was apparently also seen in a nude bar in Pompado Beach, Florida. Six exotic dancers who worked there testified to seeing him. At the same time, both al Shehhi and Hamza Alghamdi were witnessed purchasing pornographic video and sex toys from a Florida store. The Wall Street Journal reported that Alghamdi watched a porn video in his hotel room, and others witnessed alleged hijacker Majed Moqed visiting a porn shop on several occasions in the months before 9/11.[16]

This same categorically non-Muslim behavior was also true for Ziad jarrah, the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 93, which was destroyed in a field in Pennsylvania. Seven months before the attacks, it was noticed that Jarrah “frequented” a strip club in Jacksonville, Florida.[17]

The 911CR says that six of the alleged hijackers lived in Paterson, NJ for up to six months. This included Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khalid al Mihdhar, the man mis-identified as Abdulaziz al Omari, and others. Reports put Ziad Jarrah in Paterson as well. The mayor of Paterson, Marty Barnes, certainly noticed them and he made the point of how non-Muslim they were, saying –“Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” [18]

Given that Atta and friends were so far from being Muslims, it actually makes sense that the U.S. government would try, in the days after 9/11, to bolster the political story by adding actual Muslims to their quickly drawn-up list. The real al Omari, for example, was obviously not involved. But the discrepancy between his being an imam and a go-go club aficionado who never went to the mosques would quickly be lost in the post-9/11 clamor for revenge. And the public’s most banal and prejudiced tendencies could be better exploited with hints of Muslim connections, no matter how weak, just as they have been with the anthrax attacks and the ongoing FBI-planned terrorism.

In any case because the alleged hijacker pilots were clearly not Muslims, the deaths caused by the destruction of those planes cannot be attributed to Muslims. This includes the deaths of the airplane passengers and the people in the impact zones of the WTC.

The alleged hijackers were not responsible for most of the deaths on 9/11, if any

The 911CR says that Hani Hanjour, the accused hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, was the terrorist operation’s most experienced pilot. The official account tells us that he slammed the aircraft into the Pentagon at the first-floor level going over 500 mph. But all the evidence indicates that he was a very poor pilot at best. He repeatedly failed his training courses on single engine aircraft and according to representatives of his flight training schools he had no fundamental pilot skills.[19] Due to these facts, we know that Hanjour could not have flown the plane as alleged. So it doesn’t matter if he was a Muslim.

It is possible that all the planes were commandeered by way of existing remote control technology, which would explain a number of the unanswered questions.[20] Remote piloting could explain why the planes did not squawk the hijack code, why the auto-pilot stayed on during the hijacking process, and how these planes were flown with extreme precision at very high speeds regardless of the poor skills of the alleged pilots. It would also explain how those who planned the attacks could have remained confident of their success, despite having employed unreliable, cocaine-snorting, alcoholic perverts as “hijackers.”

Regardless of who actually flew the planes, we know that most of the deaths on 9/11 were the result of actions which could not have been accomplished by the accused men. Of course, the initial hijackings could be blamed on the alleged, non-Muslim hijackers and one might argue that some passengers and crew members were said to be killed during the hijackings. But so little is known about how the hijackings occurred that it is difficult to know what really happened. The 9/11 Commission could not even say how the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four planes, or why the hijack code was not squawked for any of them.

If we examine what was needed to facilitate the attacks, we see that most of the deaths on 9/11 were the result of many things that should not have happened. And none of it could have been accomplished without the involvement of U.S. authorities.

Pre-9/11 investigations that would have caught the accused men were shut down.
All the levels of hijacking prevention failed four separate times.
For several hours, our leaders did nothing to protect the nation.
The planes should have been intercepted but they were not.[21]
The planes were flown like guided missiles.
Three WTC skyscrapers were completely destroyed, and all of them fell through what should have been the path of most resistance.[22]
Evidence for explosives at the Pentagon was discovered and not explained.
The debris damage in Pennsylvania indicates that Flight 93 was shot down.

An extensive examination of the people who had access to the WTC towers shows that the accused men were not among those who could have placed explosives in those highly-secure buildings, nor were any Muslims in such a position.[23] Therefore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the accused non-Muslims, or any unspecified Muslims, caused the deaths of the nearly 2,600 people who were killed in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

It is reasonable to say, without an extensive inquiry, that Muslims could not have shut down the pre-9/11 investigations. Similarly, they could not have caused the repeated failure of a hijacking prevention system that had been successful for over 20 years. Muslims certainly could not have stopped U.S. leaders from doing their jobs on 9/11, nor could they have disabled the U.S. air defenses or shot down Flight 93.

Additionally, there is no doubt that Muslims were not to blame for delaying and obstructing the investigation into 9/11, during which time the U.S. and its allies had already initiated massacres in the Middle East. The official accounts that were finally generated, that ignored most of the important evidence and are transparently false, are not the work of Muslims either. The murder of millions of people has been falsely justified by way of those official accounts.

Muslims could not have done any of these things. Not even the drug-abusing drunk called Mohammed Atta, who dated strippers, dressed like a gangster and hung out with drug runners, could have done those things.

Moving beyond Islamophobia

We do have clues about who might have been involved though. For example, Florida Governor Jeb Bush showed up at Rudi Dekkers’ flight school in Venice, Florida where Atta and several of the other accused men had trained, within 24-hours after the attacks, to confiscate all the school’s records.[24] Curiously, Jeb and his brother, the President of the United States, had three relatives working for companies within the impact zones of the WTC towers (Craig Stapleton, Jim Pierce, and Prescott Bush Jr).[25]

Dekkers was a pervert just like the accused, non-Muslim men and he was brought up on charges for sexual harassment. Another of the many weird facts about Dekkers was that he claimed to be a New York City cop, and had a plaque on his wall with words to that effect.[26] This might remind us that Bernard Kerik, the “9/11 hero” who led the New York City Police department when it was credited with providing some of the dubious evidence against the accused, not only dressed like a gangster, he was known to have associated with mafia characters. Coincidentally, the same things were said about FBI agent and lead al Qaeda investigator, John O’Neill.

Kerik spent years working in Saudi Arabia, first for the Saudi royal family and then for one of the companies that later was located near the impact zone in the south tower. Interestingly, Kerik was the first person to tell us that explosives were not involved in the destruction of the WTC. Unfortunately, we can’t get follow-up comments from him because he’s now in prison.

There remain many avenues for further investigation into the accused hijackers and who they really were. Could there be a connection between the porn shops and strip clubs that the accused men liked to visit, and covert activities or organized crime? Could those connections lead from places like Las Vegas and Florida to New York City, and shed light on why so many mafia-linked companies were hired to clean-up the WTC site?

Could the links between Atta, Dekkers’ financier Wally Hilliard, and international drug-running have anything to do with creating a pretext for war in Afghanistan, the country that now leads the world in opium production? That certainly would make sense given that the southwest Florida area near Venice, where Dekkers, Atta and the alleged hijackers spent so much time, was home to a long history of CIA and drug trafficking operations.

Two long-time law enforcement officers interviewed by Daniel Hopsicker said they had “witnessed a 40-year long history of CIA-connected covert operations in their area.” They were describing Atta’s home port in early 2001, the Charlotte County Airport. They added that “they believed that the CIA was somehow involved, if not responsible for, the World Trade Center attacks.”[27]

Forty years is not quite right, however, as the history of covert drug operations in that area went back at least 60 years. The tiny Venice Airport, where most of the alleged hijackers trained, originated as the Venice Army Airfield and was the home of the operatives who worked for General Claire Chennault.[28] Civil Air Transport, the successor to Chennault’s Flying Tigers and the world’s largest heroin-trafficking operation at the time, transported the drugs that funded the early covert operations of the CIA, and those airmen worked closely with organized crime while doing so.[29]

For the 12 years prior to 9/11, drug trafficking and terrorist training in the Venice, Florida area was overlooked by the region’s congressional representative, former CIA operative Porter Goss, and its Senator, Bob Graham. It might not be surprising then, to notice that Goss and Graham led the first official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t find much.

Unfortunately, these leads are not being investigated due to continued support for the false claim that the alleged hijackers were adherents of Islam. Such support for the official conspiracy theory also promotes the ongoing Muslim genocide. We don’t know where all this falsehood will lead in the future, but people who seek the truth about 9/11 should move beyond blaming Muslims and get back to useful investigative work.

[1] David Ray Griffin, Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?, information Clearing House, September 8, 2008, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20722.htm

[2] Glenn Greenwald, The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot, Salon, Sep 29, 2011, http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/

[3] Seymour M. Hersh, What Went Wrong, The New Yorker, October 8, 2001, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/08/011008fa_FACT

[4] Kevin R. Ryan, Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11, Foreign Policy Journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/18/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/

[5] Huda, Muslim Victims of 9/11 Attack: Several dozen Muslims were among the innocent victims, About.com, http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/a/Muslim-Victims-Of-9-11-Attack.htm

[6] Program on International Policy Attitudes, Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam, April 24, 2007, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php

[7] David Harrison, Revealed: the men with stolen identities, The Telegraph, 23 Sep 2001, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html

[8] Der Spiegel, Panoply of the Absurd, September8, 2003, http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

[9] Hillary Smith, The Main Purveyors of Islamophobia: Daniel Pipes, The Council for the National Interest, 18 January 2012, http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/promoting-islamophobia/the-main-purveyors-of-islamophobia/item/1336-islamopho...

[10] 911Research.wtc7.com, Resurrected Hijackers: Suicide Hijackers Identified by the FBI Proclaim Their Innocence, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html

[11] Shelley Murphy and Douglas Belkin, Hijackers Said to Seek Prostitutes, The Boston Globe, October 10, 2001, http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/bostonglobe101001.html

[12] Jody A. Benjamin, Suspects’ actions don’t add up, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 16 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20010916150533/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-warriors916.story

[13] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida, Trine Day; 2004

[14] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland

[15] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Context of ‘Before September 11, 2001: 9/11 Hijackers Drink Alcohol and Watch Strip Shows, Especially towards Eve of Attacks, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony

[16] Ibid

[17] Jackelyn Barnard, Exclusive: 9/11 Hijacker Stayed at Jacksonville Hotel, First Coast News, Aug 25, 2004, http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=23296

[18] Evan Thomas, Cracking the Terror Code, Newsweek, October 15, 2001, http://www.wanttoknow.info/011015newsweek

[19] 911Research.wtc7.net, Clueless Super-Pilot, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html

[20] Aidan Monaghan, Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems, Journal of 9/11 Studies, October 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

[21] Paul Thompson, The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11, History Commons, http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense

[22] Frank Legge, Controlled Demolition at the WTC: a Historical Examination of the Case, Journal of 9/11 Studies, May, 2009, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf

[23] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers, found at 911Review.com, http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

[24] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland

[25] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers

[26] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland

[27] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland

[28] Daniel Hopsicker, The Utimate Hedge?: Venice Airport has a 60-Year History of Drug Trafficking, Mad Cow News, March 8, 2010, http://www.madcowprod.com/03082010.htm

[29] Kevin R. Ryan, Review of American War Machine, by Peter Dale Scott, 911Blogger.com, February 12, 2011, http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-12/review-american-war-machine-peter-dale-scott

Excellent piece.. but way too politically incorrect for the MSM

A broad based, pre-existing aura of Islamophobia (and "Arabophobia") has been promoted throughout the US for many decades.... and dare I say it, especially since the creation of Israel in the late 1940s. This nasty racist/xenophobic perversion within the national psyche was likely a factor that was employed to enable selling the official story of the 9/11 attacks to a public that was perfectly comfortable believing and acknowledging that the Muslim boogeyman was now the enemy that we had to go all out to confront and eliminate. At a stroke, a very convenient replacement for the defunct "Eastern Communist Bloc" had been firmly cemented in the national consciousness, and in the minds of many folk who don't have the time or inclination to learn about other cultures and customs outside of their immediate environment, combined with the efforts of the corporate media... Arabs and Muslims were all transformed into terrorists or potential terrorists.... the exact intent and desire of the prevailing "neoconservative" contingent within the 2001 Bush Administration.

Here is some of the evidence.. the tip of the iceberg of national shame:

The Jerry Klein Radio Experiment.

Have a read... or listen to the original radio show here

Quote:
"I can't believe any of you are sick enough to have agreed for one second with anything I said. For me to suggest to tattoo marks on people's bodies, have them wear armbands, put a crescent moon on their driver's license on their passport or birth certificate is disgusting. It's beyond disgusting ... because basically what you just did was show me how the German people allowed what happened to the Jews to happen ... We need to separate them, we need to tattoo their arms, we need to make them wear the yellow Star of David, we need to put them in concentration camps, we basically just need to kill them all because they are dangerous."

A Gallup poll (in 2005) had found that 39% of Americans were in favor of requiring Muslims, including those who were citizens, to bear special identification identifying them as such.

Islamophobia is "alive and well" in the US, and it is a major factor that has driven mid-east foreign policy too, especially since the turn of the millennium.

extracted:
Quote:
.... And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

The Nazi philosophy is alive and well.... just a different target demographic... usefully demonized by the US media.

*

Many conservative think tanks and foundations work hard at promoting hatred and fear of Muslims.

Pro Israeli groups are doing likewise.

The "acceptable" face of anti-semitism/racism is institutionalized+and+entrenched+in+Washington+DC power structure. Another publication here.

Liberal (!) Hollywood has really gotten in on the act, for decades. (How many Muslims or Arabs run the Hollywood film industry?).

or watch the documentary+version here.

Some some of the hatred, expressed+on+film...

Entrapment of Muslims via law enforcement agencies, especially the FBI has become a national pastime.

Here's some more reading:

Islamophobia:+The+Challenge+of+Pluralism+in+the+21st+Century

Islamophobia:+Making+Muslims+the+Enemy

Islamophobia

A+Suitable+Enemy:+Racism,+Migration+and+Islamophobia+in+Europe (we're not alone in the US)

Framing+Muslims:+Stereotyping+and+Representation+after+9/11

Covering+Islam:+How+the+Media+and+the+Experts+Determine+How+We+See+the+Rest+of+the+World

Guilty

How+Does+It+Feel+to+Be+a+Problem?:+Being+Young+and+Arab+in+America

Thinking+Through+Islamophobia:+Global+Perspectives

Fort anyone not convinced that Islamophobia doesnt exist in the US, and that 9/11: Cats bark and dogs meow.

Islamophobia has become a lucrative *industry*, it fuels multi-trillion dollar wars, defense contractors', weapons manufacturers', security and surveillance industry bottom lines and stock prices. 9/11 was the big enabler.

I agree. Excellent piece! Let's destroy the myth.

Demonizing Muslims is a primary objective of the "Powers That Be". They must create a bad guy, an enemy, an opposing force. Government propaganda, PSYOPS and infiltrations, and mainstream media continuously move towards this objective. They must continuously strain in order to perpetuate the myth.

The opposite side of the coin is the fact that Muslims were NOT responsible for 9/11/01. Kevin lays it out very well in an easy to understand format. This article destroys the official story, along with its melded inflection which demonizes Muslims.

Official story not destroyed for public, if you didn't notice.

You said:

This article destroys the official story.

Only in your own mind.

Again, this article is about as fringe as it gets without saying holograms and space beams.

Between Nafeez and I...

Jon Gold: Nafeez... I have a question for you... what are your feelings about individuals who try to say there is no evidence of "hijackers" or "Muslim involvement" with regards to the 9/11 attacks, and say that if you promote information regarding that, you are promoting the "Islamofascist Myth", and are being a racist? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say since that is a focus of your research, and you are a Muslim. Thanks.

Nafeez Ahmed: Jon, mostly these people largely lack a broader political or historical consciousness. obviously i think this is a ridiculous position to take. it comes from a total lack of familiarity with the politics of the muslim world, as well as with the development of us-uk unconventional warfare doctrines after ww2. in particular, the anomalies surrounding the alleged hijackers do not have easy answers - the problem is people like easy simple answers. they divide things up into simplistic binary choices, either 'this' or 'that', 'us' against 'them', etc. ironically, it's a very neocon like mentality that does us no favours...

Jon - When is this quote from? Has Dr. Ahmed read this essay?

Is he responding to the points and information in it?

Did you email him this essay and ask him for his comment?

Does Dr. Ahmed know you are using this quote from him on this thread?

It seems to me that many people use many means to reduce things to binary choices, when inadequate evidence suggests that multiple hypotheses remain possible.

The truth shall set us free, but only the complete truth sets us completely free.

Love is the only way forward, and love requires patience and tolerance.

[ My apologies to Dr. Ahmed for getting his title wrong (not enough sleep and in a hurry). I have read three of his books and plan on reading everything he writes, when I get the time. Needless to say, I have very high regard for his work, especially his courage in pointing out the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (1979)]

I asked Nafeez on Facebook about it...

A long time ago. I asked him because of this problem in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The question was asked on his wall, publicly in November 2009. It is doubtful that Nafeez would have a problem with me citing him, though if you want to make a thing out of it, you are free to ask him. He is Dr. Ahmed, not Mr. Ahmed. I have no knowledge if Nafeez read this essay. The point is, we shouldn't IGNORE information regarding the hijackers, especially when it is incriminating, just because it doesn't coincide with what someone THINKS happened that day. Nor should ANYONE label someone a racist, or someone that likes to promote the "Islamofascist Myth" just because they focus on information pertaining to the hijackers. 9/11 was a crime. Not a Muslim Crime, not a Jewish Crime, not a Catholic Crime, not a Christian crime, etc... and so on. No matter who was involved, it was a crime. You hold the individuals responsible, WHOMEVER they may be, accountable, and not entire nationalities, ideologies, or religions.

We've always agreed that the 9/11 false flag was a crime.

What seems to be in disagreement on this thread is the exact definition of what a person of faith is.....as well as what the actual facts are regarding who did what and when, with regard to what took place on the planes claimed to have been used in the 9/11 false flag (which also remains an unproven allegation, in the minds of many).

All this points to the undeniable need for a complete, thorough and transparent investigation of every aspect of the 9/11 false flag operation.

Which is why we are all still here, over ten years later, yes?

The truth shall set us free, and I can wait to see what the complete truth is.

Love is the only way forward, and love gives me the strength to wait and to love those who have not yet found the power of love, and all that comes with it (and to say "I don't know" when I don't know, and there is a lot I don't know).

I agree yet don't

Although I hate to admit it, I have to agree with Jon Gold, while later on in the thread I find I disagree with him.

I also feel keeping posts and comments as polite as possible, a prerequisite. I do think there has been some rather scummy behaviour in this and on another thread. (Same Subject)

I respect Kevin Ryan. I think he is a brave and honest man. We all may make mistakes and I don't accuse Kevin of any but remember he is still here, with us.

He may ignore "Ankle biting" as another intelligent researcher stated yet Kevin Ryan is looking toward what we all are.

The questions are simple, so should be the answers but they are not.

Dispassionate research and debate is essential.

Finally, as I began. Jon Gold, well done in writing 9/11 Truther in two weeks.

Wow you nailed it

"It seems to me that many people use many means to reduce things to binary choices, when inadequate evidence suggests that multiple hypotheses remain possible."

This is exactly the flaw with Kevin's analysis and many others who are unwilling to accept the broad range of people involved with the attack. See my response below linking to Snow Crash's article about False Dilemma Fallacy.

Binary false views:
- either all Muslims did it or No Muslims did it.
- either only the US government did it, or only radical Muslims did it
- all parts of the official story are lies or no parts of the official story are lies
- you are either LIHOP or MIHOP

All of these views are logically flawed and limit our choices and understanding of the broad depth to the actual event of 9/11. The truth shall set us free, and sometimes the truth means going wherever the truth leads and not getting stuck in binary false-dichotomy's.

Thanks

...for sharing this comment from Dr. Ahmed. It's rational and informed.

Mr. Ryan, do you think that there are any other, non-9/11 instances of the PTB using delusional religious people to accomplish strategic terrorism?

Thanks in advance.

Indirect connection between NEADS-commander Marr and Atta?

Thank you for this very interesting discussion, where I would like to add an information regarding the flight-school:

Were Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi learning flying in jets, which were provided by a company, where NEADS-chief, Col. Marr, was once working?

more Infos and sources.
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2011-10-02/interesting-background-information-former-neads-chief-col-marr

To me...

Many people say that Hani Hanjour had poor piloting skills, and couldn't have possibly flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon, and then make the argument that the plane was probably remote controlled. The people who make this argument seemingly forget this piece of information that may explain what happened. "According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11. The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight. Paul Thompson, author and 9/11 researcher, said Sakka’s account was credible. “I think there is a lot more about the history of the hijackers that needs to be found out and Sakka’s claim may resume the debate about just how much was known about them before 9/11,” he said." - [timesonline.co.uk, 11/25/2007]

Personally, I think someone that supposedly helped to train some of the hijackers, and has CIA ties is interesting.

If they were involved (which based on ALL of the available information, it certainly seems they were... certainly there is enough information not to make the argument consistently that there weren't any... there are better arguments to make), and if they considered themselves Muslim, that doesn't mean it was a Muslim crime. I consider myself Jewish, but I don't follow a damn thing with regards to the religion.

difference

good, that you are back.

I cannot make out a difference between you and Kevin Ryan in this case.
Can you explain me, if you can?

Kevin essentially argues...

That they weren't real Muslims because they murdered people, ate pork, drank, etc... and he also argues that it wasn't Muslims that "attacked" us because there probably weren't any hijackers at the controls of those planes, and instead, they were remote controlled, were reported to be alive, etc...

I suggest that they weren't very good Muslims for some of the same reasons Kevin did, but argued that you hold the individuals responsible for the crime, and not entire nationalities, ideologies, or religions. I also suggest that people who considered themselves Muslim may actually have been involved, whereas Kevin suggests that they weren't.

I have made the argument, however, that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks are murderous bastards before they are any religion, and I made that argument so that people would hold the individuals responsible for the crime accountable, and not any nationality, ideology, or religion.

When I made that argument, I was also referring to the "real" perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. I was not referring to the hijackers.

Treating 9/11 as a crime, without the religious, national, and ideological undertones, prevents more people from being blamed and slaughtered for a crime they didn’t commit. It’s as simple as that.

Also...

The "official conspiracy theory" tells us that there were no warnings, that no one in Government possibly conceived of what happened, that the 9/11 Commission and all investigations were stellar, that relations between the U.S. and the Mujahadeen/Al-Qaeda/OBL, etc... ended after the Afgnanistan/Russia War, that NORAD was looking "outward," and were confused by a fog of war, that the source of the funding for the attacks is of little practical significance, etc... etc... etc...

I don't recall "supporting" the "official conspiracy theory."

Important information

Lots of very good information and important points in this article. Nice work, Kevin!

Official 9/11 Tale Is An Unproven And Problematic Allegation

- No proof provided that hijackers actually turned off the 9/11 flight transponders.
- No reliable proof that hijackers (as opposed to autopilot systems) crashed the WTC planes into the towers.
- No reliable evidence for Atta, Al Shehi, Hanjour and Jarah specifically piloting each flight.
- No proof that the alleged Atta "We have some planes" transmission originated from AA 11.
- No proof that the alleged Jarah "We have a bomb on board" transmission originated from UA 93.
- The FDR data files are problematic (serial number/time stamp discrepancies) and unproven as authentic.
- All psychological arguments aside, aspects of the alleged flight passenger calls are problematic.

There is no reason to have confidence in the official 9/11 story.

Duplicity - the fuel of US politics and 9/11 public "awareness"

Well said indeed.

Your comment highlights an issue regarding 9/11 that most people either don't realize or prefer to steer away from: The duplicity as regards the standards of scientific rigor that is required, or expected from each side.

Right from the day of 9/11, the official story gained traction from:

* Single sourced news stories (breaking the cardinal rule of professional journalism)
* Wild speculation and infusion of commentary - with no proof - from pundits, armchair generals, and those who were to benefit handsomely from the upcoming "war on terrorism" - on the corporate media - repeated ad nauseam
* Explanations of the destruction of the WTC buildings based on nothing more than guesswork and "wishcasting", prior to any forensic studies
* So-called analyses in popular journals pretending to be scientific.. for example Popular Mechanics, National Geographic and others, based on faulty or unknown premises, inflated and cherry-picked data
* Tampering with the crimes scenes (without any law enforcement action.....)
* Issuing reports (NIST etc), billed as "scientific" but without the peer review process that is at the basis of all sound science.
* The fixing of the 9/11 Commission report by denying time, access, funds and facilities, and having an insider - a known myth-maker - run the show...

Most of the contents of the official story have NOT been required to undergo the standards of rigor and transparency that would be expected in a court case or a scientific study... and few in the mainstream have even raised an eyebrow. In fact, much of the content of the OCT has been changed to accommodate conflicting information (NORAD anyone?).. or even relies on miracles (violations of the laws of nature) ... and *still* people accept it.

On the other hand, namely those who challenge what is plainly a "cock and bull story" - packed with everything from wild coincidences to impossibilities issuing from official sources - are (correctly) required to provide flawless, peer reviewed, watertight analyses, studies, explanations and timelines. Despite the assault of malicious disinformation and cognitive infiltration that taints this subject, there are many instances in which independent 9/11 questioners, skeptics and studiers have provided some very solid proof that we were, at the very, very *least*, lied to by the government and the corporate media.

As Carl Sagan famously said: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". The extraordinary claim in the case of 9/11 is that "19 rookies with no paramilitary training, single-handedly rendered the multi-trillion dollar US defense security intelligence and law enforcement network as useless, in their own backyard... and to add insult to injury, upturned a number of the most fundamental laws of the physical universe".

I would hazard a guess that the double standard of 'rigor and proof requirements' as regards what the government said, and what questioners doubt, is a product of the public's comfort zone, combined with the ubiquity of Islamophobia.... and "acceptable side of anti-Semitism" (hatred of Arabs), in the common public discourse throughout middle America.

Re Kevin's claim: “Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11”

I agree w/ Kevin’s point that certain elements of the 9/11 attacks cannot be blamed on bin Laden and Al Qaeda; WTC destructions, air defense failures/AWOL chain of command, CIA obstruction of FBI investigations, and the 9/11 Cmssn cover up. However, this doesn’t mean radical Muslims weren’t involved in a plot to attack the US. Kevin notes that “Pre-9/11 investigations that would have caught the accused men were shut down.” Kevin is correct when he said that Muslims couldn’t have shut these investigations down, but he doesn’t acknowledge that documentation produced in the course of these investigations indicates the existence of a terrorist plot by Islamic radicals. In any case, even if radical Muslims were involved in 9/11, it doesn’t justify the 9/11 wars.

Kevin says, “Muslims do not murder innocent people.” Kevin argues that Islam does not advocate murdering innocents, and if someone murders innocents in the name of Islam, they are not a Muslim even if they believe they are. This is obviously a matter of opinion, not fact, one reason being that Islam, like most religions, has many different sets and interpretations. It also seems more like a semantic rhetorical device, as, with the exception of Islamophobic rightwingers and their exploiters who portray Islam as fundamentally ‘Islamofascism’, most people acknowledge that radical Muslims advocating and engaging in violent terrorism are a minority. Radical Muslim preachers do cite Koran verses to justify violent jihad against the West; Kevin even quoted one in his essay: “If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind.” (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)

Western intel agencies have found it useful to cultivate radical Islam in order to use adherents in proxy wars and as patsies, and to justify the post-9/11 resource wars and domestic national security state. However, I find it difficult to believe that all radical preachers are CIA assets, and Kevin hasn’t produced data on what percentage of them are – data may not be available, in any case. Kevin does say, “This article doesn’t delve into the carefully cultivated phenomenon called ‘radical Islam’, …’”; this is an acknowledgment that there is such a thing as “radical Islam”. Violence in support of ideology does appeal to some Muslims, as well as non-Muslims; honest adherents believe they’re acting righteously. It is also significant is that US invasion/occupation - and corporate exploitation - of Islamic nation’s territory/resources, as well as US support for oppressive US-friendly regimes, has inflamed anti-US sentiment and helped convert people to radical Islam. This is very convenient for fomenting and prolonging the alleged ‘war on terror’, which has enriched the MIC and increased public support for US military interventions and a domestic national security state.

Hypocrisy in religion isn’t unique to Islam, which Kevin acknowledged: “For example, many of the current U.S. leaders have engaged in mass murder around the world over the last ten years yet they still call themselves Christians.” Religions commonly have many different interpretations and sects, and according to some interpretations, this kind of BS is godly. In any case, even if someone violates their religion by their own standards, I don’t see that it’s useful or accurate to say they’re not of that religion, when they claim to identify with it.

At least some of the alleged hijackers certainly were hypocrites; alcohol, porn, prostitutes. Some of this was acknowledged by the 9/11 Cmssn, though it’s downplayed. They may have believed God would forgive these acts because the greatness of the 9/11 mission outweighed it. The non-religious operatives may have favored the 9/11 mission more for its political/military dimensions, but still considered it worth dying for. Also, it’s not clear what each of the 19 alleged hijackers knew about the plot; some may not have known they’d be killed. I don’t know, but a credible investigation could get to the bottom of everything.

Making conclusive or even strongly suggestive judgments based on a public record of incomplete and conflicting evidence helps to marginalize the 9/11 truth movement by making it appear unreasonable. One thing that is clear is that the official story doesn’t add up, and the official investigations were marred by conflicts of interest, agenda and a failure to acknowledge certain evidence, whistleblowers and lines of questioning.

Perfectly stated

When Kevin Ryan publicly cries out "Muslim's did not attack the US on 9/11," his is simply making a false statement. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't make them not of the religion they believe in. The fact that Ryan is dismissing talking about radical Islam also shows that he is not taking into account real life organic radicalism which does indeed exist. And that same radicalism was absolutely at play on 9/11. Listing items which the Muslims involved with 9/11 couldn't have physically done on 9/11 and only the US could have done, doesn't take away from the fact that REAL LIVE radical Muslims were involved. It's just true. And following the Saudi leads to this real live Muslim hijackers WILL help us lead to getting the people in the US who helped these hijackers carry out their mission. And guess what, right now, in the US, EVERYONE is talking about Saudi connections to the REAL LIVE radical Muslims and it's a GREAT in for us to open minds.

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-29/kevin-ryan-presentation-nation-islam-911-what-really-happened-and-why#comment-255969
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-29/kevin-ryan-presentation-nation-islam-911-what-really-happened-and-why#comment-255649
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOHGR4RxZVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-521223.html

Unfortunately making bold FALSE statements like 'Muslim's did not attack the US on 9/11' MOST CERTAINLY damages the credibility of 9/11 Truth and ruins ones ability to come across as credible and reasonable. If you make statements like this which are shortsighted and false, prepare to be ripped apart by a simple minded person with a basic sense of skepticism. It won't be hard to do and in doing so, you will shut down any open-mindedness you were creating.

Trying to claim that since some of the hijackers displayed non-traditional Muslim behavior doesn't make the hijackers not Muslim AND it doesn't make you a racist for acknowledging this FACT. According to Kevin Ryan's logic, then George Bush Jr. is not christian. And all of the things Bush did with radical christians backing him up, are somehow, not done by a Christian because Bush did cocaine, parties, takes actions which murdered 100,000's etc. He's still Christian and the hijackers were still Muslim. Even if you think they were patsies, well then the reason they could be used as patsies is because they were religious extremists.

Accepting that there is real live organic radical Islam in this world, doesn't mean that aspects of the US government were involved with the attack. Both of these elements were at play on 9/11/2001. However denying the reality of a fact and a readily confirmed fact for that matter, just makes 9/11 truth and anyone who lives in this denial as ignorant and definitely NOT worth listening to.

And if you think you are standing up for an oppressed race by making this false claim think again..Read what a real Muslim and highly accredited researcher had to say to Jon Gold on this topic... (Thanks for sharing this Jon)

Jon Gold: Nafeez... I have a question for you... what are your feelings about individuals who try to say there is no evidence of "hijackers" or "Muslim involvement" with regards to the 9/11 attacks, and say that if you promote information regarding that, you are promoting the "Islamofascist Myth", and are being a racist? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say since that is a focus of your research, and you are a Muslim. Thanks.


Nafeez Ahmed: Jon, mostly these people largely lack a broader political or historical consciousness. obviously i think this is a ridiculous position to take. it comes from a total lack of familiarity with the politics of the muslim world, as well as with the development of us-uk unconventional warfare doctrines after ww2. in particular, the anomalies surrounding the alleged hijackers do not have easy answers - the problem is people like easy simple answers. they divide things up into simplistic binary choices, either 'this' or 'that', 'us' against 'them', etc. ironically, it's a very neocon like mentality that does us no favours...

Who deserves to be called a true Christian/Muslim, or not?

Having re-read the original piece by Ryan, I feel that people have (wilfully or unwittingly) misinterpreted.

Ryan is highlighting hypocrisy.

The critics seem to read the "Muslims didn't do it' phrase, see red and critique from there on in.

But Ryan goes on beyond that phrase to demonstrate (at length) why these perpetrators were, indeed, NOT Muslim in the true sense of the word.

Equally, George Bush is NOT a Christian in the true sense of the word. Neither was Tony Blair.

Christians follow a tenet of (i) Do Not Kill (ii) Do Not Lie.

Which part of (i) and (ii) did Bush and his 'Prayer Breakfast' cohorts not understand, as they oversaw the rapid roll-out of a mendacious and bloody war?

You wonder they didn't choke on Jesus' words - or at least have the grace to blush.

I'd like to answer a phrase by kdub: "Your leader Kevin Ryan..."

Speaking for myself, I want to make it crystal clear that I stubbornly make up my own mind and don't 'follow' leaders. With that statement you are making assumptions about people, backed up by no evidence.

Christians

"Christians follow a tenet of (i) Do Not Kill (ii) Do Not Lie."

If you sin, you are automatically excommunicated? Wow. Well, that makes 0 Christians worldwide then. That's really strict!

I love how you are automatically not a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew, even though you quote the Bible, the Qur'an or the Tanakh as you conduct your demented crimes in the name of your imaginary friend.

Yeah, that works well for those Muslims who have to deal with Blackwater:

"The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

http://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder

As soon as Prince goes down that route, he automatically ceases to be a Christian. How convenient!

Waving holy books while committing crimes

Snowcrash: "I love how you are automatically not a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew, even though you quote the Bible, the Qur'an or the Tanakh as you conduct your demented crimes in the name of your imaginary friend."

Anyone who waves a holy book while committing demented crimes deserves to be disowned by adherents of peaceful faiths.

The Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa claimed to be deeply religious Christians and waved the holy bible from their many Dutch Reforemd Church pulpits.

Within the pages of that book, they found their justification in setting up bantustans and detention/torture centres.

The fundamentalist Afrikaners, who interpreted their religion in a self-serving, delusional way, were later disabused of their demented notions by peaceful Christians, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

Dude, Where's My God?

Since there is no god, there are no true Muslims, Christians, or Jews, right?

Is this a rational discussion or a religious one?

Disowning delusional self-perceived and proclaimed Muslims means there were no Muslims involved?

What the hell is the point of that?

The point of admitting there were religious extremists involved is to look at the US relationship with religious extremists.

Do you want more practical information or smug religious views?

Interview 483 – Pepe Escobar on R2P and MEK

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-483-pepe-escobar-on-r2p-and-mek/

Today we talk to veteran investigative journalist about the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine by which NATO has begun waging its “humanitarian” wars around the world. We discuss where this idea came from, how it has been used, and the way it is shaping international geopolitics. We also talk about the MEK, a bizarre terror cult that is increasingly popular inside the beltway in Washington.

Dude, Where's The Evidence?

Give me some hard, incontrovertible, rock solid evidence that real Muslims (not dirty, de-religionized criminals of whatever superstition) were involved, and I might get on board your idea.

And I'm not talking passports, bandannas or scrawled notes.

So what?

Were there hijackers on the planes? Were the phone calls real? If so, we've made progress. If not, who cares if you or Kevin think they were Muslim or not?

Kevin's audience walked away with the impression there were no hijackers at all, or that they might have been alive.

Kevin can have his audience walking away with one perception (no hijackers at all, let alone Muslim), while defending his thesis on the basis of the No True Scotsman fallacy here, emphasizing the "Muslim" part in his title.

Which is it? Enough of the vague, slippery, having-it-both-ways sophistry.

Let's Begin With Some Context

Simple Truths, do you think that there are any other, non-9/11 instances of the PTB using delusional religious people to accomplish strategic terrorism?

Re: Alive hijackers/stolen identities

Contrary to early press reports and oft-repeated claims, the identities of the men found alive after 9/11 don’t match the identities of the men the FBI has alleged were the 9/11 hijackers.

In his NOI talk, Kevin didn’t name any of these people, he simply referred to reports in the Telegraph, and a report which the BBC retracted. Kevin said at NOI, and in this essay, that the BBC “attempted” to retract their report, but does not explain what he means by this. It implies he believes the BBC may not have been successful in retracting it, but Kevin provides no evidence to support this idea.

In this essay, Kevin does name some of those whose identities allegedly match the hijackers:

“The men who appear to have been falsely accused include the brothers Wail and Waleed al Shehri, and Abdulaziz al Omari.[10]” The source for this is a post at 911Research.WTC7.net, which links to a number of press reports, incl. the BBC, Telegraph and Independent. Kevin mentions Wail Alshehri, but his doesn’t appear in the 9/11 Research list. Waleed al Shehri was mentioned in the BBC report as a possible case of false accusation, but not in the Telegraph or Independent reports. It has been suggested the FBI had accused an alive Wail al Shehri, but Wail’s name is not in any of the three sources mentioned by Kevin.

“Others who appear to be victims of identity theft include Mohand al Shehri, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi, and Ahmed al Nami.” No source is cited to back up this claim, though, w/ the exception of Mohand al Shehri, these other three were three of the four listed in the Telegraph report.

In none of these cases does Kevin detail or analyze evidence to support the assertion that the men interviewed or named in the press reports are actually the same men as those the FBI alleges were on board the hijacked aircraft. The closest he comes to doing so is his general statement, “the Telegraph reported that it had interviewed some of these men, who the newspaper said had the same names, same dates of birth, same places of birth, and same occupations as the accused.[7]

From Kevin’s general statement, one might assume the Telegraph provided this level of detail for each of the four men it reported interviewing, but this isn’t the case; it simply implied the info matched: “The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers' "personal details" - including name, place, date of birth and occupation - matched their own.”

In at least one case – Al-Hamzi – the Telegraph noted a significant difference; the FBI reported this alleged hijacker as being 21, while the alive Hamzi is 26. Also, the alive Hamzi said he’s never been to the US, but the FBI obtained INS/Customs records showing entry into the US by the accused Hamzi, and they listed him as having resided in NJ. The Telegraph provides no info demonstrating that any of the accused Hamzi’s bio info corresponds w/ the alive Hamzi.

The Telegraph article is dated 9/23; the FBI officially released photos 9/27 (History Commons), (FBI 9/27 Press release) (FBI PENTTBOM page) though media had released photos earlier. If anyone has any info documenting that the FBI published photos earlier than 9/27, please post it. In some cases media, such as CNN in the case of al-Omari and al-Ghamdi, released photos of living people above names corresponding to those the FBI said were hijackers; however, these were not the photos the FBI released on 9/27. CNN also used a photo of a living Saudi pilot Waleed al-Sheri (who has a different middle initial from the accused), but they listed his name as Wail al-Shehri, while showing the same photo the FBI later released for Waleed, above Waleed’s name.

Two different people came forward after 9/11 claiming to be the accused al-Omari. The Telegraph claims the one they interviewed was the one named by the FBI, but they don’t provide any info indicating its the same person, other than quoting al-Omari saying the FBI had released his DOB. The FBI’s 9/14 press release listed 2 DOB’s for Omari, but later releases/documents only use the 1979 date, which doesn’t correspond w/ the alive Omari’s DOB, apparently 1972. In the initial stages of their investigation, they may have gotten some info confused. Comparing their photos, the living Omari appears to be significantly older than the accused. An FBI record states they investigated the case of the still-living Denver Omari whose passport was stolen, and that it isn’t the same person. Note this is only a reference to that conclusion; the actual investigative file records haven’t been released, afaik.

Regarding al-Ghamdi, the Telegraph says, “The FBI had published his personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had "stolen" his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr Al-Ghamdi.” It is unclear to me why the Telegraph thinks the FBI had already published photos as of 9/23; this may be another of sloppy reporting in their article. Again, if anyone has evidence the FBI officially released photos prior to 9/27, post it. The Telegraph simply asserts the man accused by the FBI is the one they interviewed, and that the FBI’s using a photo of someone else; they provide no info to indicate the alive man is the person accused. The situation is the same w/ al-Nami; assertions, but no info.

Kevin says, “Most importantly, the ‘hijackers alive’ reports were not investigated by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.” This FBI doc summarizes the process they followed in identifying the alleged hijackers; obtaining flight manifests, Customs/INS records and interviews w/ family members in which photos of the accused were shown. DNA samples were not obtained from any accused hijacker relatives, but in the case of UAL 93 and AAL 77, DNA testing accounted for all other listed passengers, leaving numbers of persons unidentified that corresponded w/ the numbers of accused hijackers on the manifests. In the case of the WTC, 1208 people presumed dead could not be ID’d thru DNA testing. If the FBI was confident they correctly ID’d the men who boarded the planes, then they wouldn’t be concerned about early erroneous press reports, especially not when these reports were superseded by subsequent reporting. Again, the early press reports don’t support claims that the alive men are the same as those the FBI alleges were hijackers. However, one reason some in the FBI and Commission may have prefered to leave these claims unchallenged is because they’ve helped to distract from substantive evidence undermining the official 9/11 narrative.

9/11 Myths has documented many details in each case of an allegedly stolen ID/alive hijacker which demonstrate that the alive men are not the same men as those the FBI is referring to; scroll down to the bottom to see the detailed report for each name: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive. It’s disappointing that an agenda-driven site like 911Myths had done a better job of exposing this ‘alive hijackers’ myth than the 9/11 truth movement. When ‘debunkers’ can use facts to discredit and undermine demands for truth and justice, they do. Truth activists should beware of handing them ammunition by repeating unsupported/discredited claims.

Patsies, operatives and fake identitites

"Mistaken identity" explanations offered at 911 Myths is consistent with the evidence that international intell agencies make use of fake, stolen and borrowed passports in order to give convenient cover to patsies and operatives.

Perhaps much of what you say

Perhaps much of what you say is true but nevertheless Kevin has made his point very, very clear.

It is incorrect for the 9/11 attacks to be identified with Muslim agendas ... or really even radical Muslim agenda to any significant extent whatsover. Much of his argument is that radical Muslims are not really Muslims just as the vast majority of US Christians and even secularists, atheists, etc. would not define some radical Christian who would murder anybody as a Christian.

Perhaps these men were not religious at all ... but simply paid agents/actors. This seems likely true for many of them.

For all we know, their mission may have been to simply kidnap and release hostages (but no destructive attacks) after certain (righteous?) demands were met. It is clear that just because the 9/11 Commission/Us govt states something in this regard does not make it true in the slightest stretch ... even if it is the only available info.

If some of these other men were radically religious 'patsies', then their motivation and influences to (attempt to?) commit these crimes was likely not provided by any mainstream Muslim teachings ... but likely any hate-triggers-murder agenda was likely provided by US intel, as has been done in the past (Nicaragua?). Would these men be called Christians if someone told them the name of the religion was Christianity but taught them to eat newborn babies to have the blood of Christ (as described as a necessity in the bible), would anyone rightfully consider those men Christians just because they thought they were?

Likely, powerful mostly-white men who publicly (and perhaps privately lol) call themselves Christians, were the primary (& secondary, etc.) planners and doers of the 9/11 op. It has not been reasonably proved to me that any real Muslim had anything to do with 9/11. But Kevin's all-or-none mentality on this is a slight stretch ... but only slight.

"It has not been reasonably

"It has not been reasonably proved to me that any real Muslim had anything to do with 9/11. But Kevin's all-or-none mentality on this is a slight stretch ... but only slight."

First, check this out EVERYONE who thinks there were no radical Muslims involved or if you are under the false impression there were no real hijackers

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?project=911_project&searchtext=hijackers&events=on&entities=off&articles=o...

I think that Kevin's all-or-none mentality on this is more than a slight stretch. Not only slight, but a full on false dilemma fallacy.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-26/false-dilemma-fallacy

Now doesn't that clear things up folks? See, it is a possibility that 9/11 involved elements within the US gov, ANNND radical muslims.

Now read this and see why we can all broaden our views of the event and then more effectively get the truth and develop our credibility to the public. Stay sharp!

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2010-10-09/why-i-support-official-story

Perhaps

gallenk said...."Perhaps these men were not religious at all ... but simply paid agents/actors. This seems likely true for many of them."

Yes, perhaps they were actors. In which case they deserve an acadamy award for their scenes on the planes. Or were they the "actors" making phone calls with voice morphing? This fits in well with the "vicsims" at the WTC, don't you think? Around 200 "vicsims" decided to jump to their deaths rather than burn to death because of the convincing performance of these "actors" on the plane(or phones)

"Perhaps", "I believe", and "maybe" are all excellent pieces of evidence. I agree. Evidence of why so many people are disgusted with 9/11 "truth".

Perhaps some people would rather assist with a cover up than admit Religious fanaticism is a problem in our world.

From OP:
"Graham led the first official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t find much". - K Ryan

No? Here are just two things they found...

"Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant"
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-521223.html

"Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11"
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

But of course these don't count because one would have to face the reality of religious fanaticism in our world and how the powerful have used them for many many many many many years. Reality-who needs it when we can have beliefs?

Perhaps

Bob Graham didn't find much Kevin Ryan found palatable.

Perhaps everything which hints at the existence of hijackers must be artfully explained away.

Perhaps the religious purity of the 9/11 hijackers is a diversionary argument to excuse the way Kevin has mislead thousands in his speech for the NOI, who now believe there weren't any hijackers whatsoever, let alone religiously brainwashed zealots who were allowed to run amok both on US soil and in US airspace.

Because that would mean several other theories promoted unapologetically for years after they have been soundly debunked, by some of Kevin's friends, would be offensively wrong.

So let's modify the no hijacker argument slightly (Moving the Goal Posts Fallacy) to fortify against the obvious evidentiary problems it has by shifting the topic towards religious purity (No True Scotsman Fallacy) and top it off with some Race Baiting and Hospitalization of Atheism ("Islamophobia").

After all, polls have shown most Americans place atheists below homosexuals and Muslims on their 'trustworthiness'-scale, because if you criticize religion, there must be something wrong with you. If you acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism, there must be something wrong with you. And if you acknowledge the existence of 9/11 hijackers who were actually Islamic, the Cardinal Sin in David Ray Griffin's CD/Northwoods Truther Amusement Park, you are to be Excommunicated as a Traitorous Disinformation Agent with a Hidden Agenda.

Kevin, Amanda Keller admits she made it all up. There are no phone records between her and Atta. At all. Any comment? Or more abject silence as you push your fact-free apologetic cognitive dissonance on 911blogger's front page? How much of the thousands of entries in the History Commons database are you willing to dismiss as mere government sponsored myth making? Why are you so deceptively selective?

Bringing people together

On the bight side, it looks like K Ryan may have allies on the jref board to help poo poo the high level U.S. Government cover up concerning the 9-11 attacks. Isn't it nice that they can agree on some things?

"Graham led the first official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t find much". - K Ryan

"Bob is one of those, first to blackboard kind of guys, and he has snowed you. The truth... Bob is selling his book (fiction), he does not care if there is an investigation, he needs to sell his book (fiction)." - Jreffer known as Beachnutcase
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=225091&page=9

Loose Nuke

You have the patience of a snake and the wisdom of the owl.

Thanks for constructively pointing out important facts regarding Kevin Ryan's subjective opinions.

It is a shame that so many "truthers" are willing to blindly follow people regardless of the fatcs on hand.

Not to say Kevin has not done any good work, but this and some other stuff brings the batting average way down for Kevin, in my opinion.

Could not agree more

Will the downvoters speak to loose nukes thoughtful critique and points? So far all I have seen is unprovable conjecture that 'they were all paid patsies.' Even if you think they were just patsies, well how do you make a patsy, take advantage of a real life radical religious extremist that's how. There were Muslim's involved with the crime of 9/11. Just because you accept this fact doesn't mean you deny that the US was involved. On the contrary, it strengthens your argument!

Thanks for the feedback...

... bloggulator, TomT, bio, Shoestring, SimpleTruths, and gallenk.

It seems that everyone here agrees that at least 90% of the deaths on 9/11 cannot be attributed to Muslims. The remaining 10% had to do with airline passengers and crash zone victims. Since the operation was led by "team leaders" Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi, who were definitely not adherents of Islam (adhere means stick to, not just self-identify -- even if we could find evidence for that), most of us know that those victims were not killed by Muslims either.

Frankly, one has to really need Muslims to be blamed to continue supporting that claim. For those desperate folks, who take 2,000 words to say "better" means "more closely matching the official story," there will always be the diversions of 9/11 myths.

For people who are interested in 9/11 research, you might look into Robert C. Bonner, who became Commissioner of Customs just the day before 9/11. Bonner's first action in that job was as the lead character in the process that identified the accused hijackers on the morning of 9/11. From 1993 to 2001, and after he resigned his Customs post in 2005, he was a partner in the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where Ted Olson worked. Bonner's partner Olson represented GW Bush in the stolen 2000 election case, and then provided some critical testimony about his 3rd (of 4) wives, who died on Flight 77, and the hijacking of that plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Bonner

So..

Do 9/11 hijackers exist, and are the phone calls real?

Did the horror relayed by the plane passengers to airline operators and family members actually happen?

Or was it 'voice morphed'? Given your clarity on this issue so far, this is an easy question :)

Read all about Ted Olson here.

Kevin ought to clarify, his silence on these issues=deafening!

Downvote all you like, aren't you all curious if Kevin Ryan still believes the following debunked myths? If he is to be your leader, shouldn't he be willing to talk?


Do 9/11 hijackers exist, and are the phone calls real?

Did the horror relayed by the plane passengers to airline operators and family members actually happen?

Or was it 'voice morphed'?

Please answer Kevin.

Off topic, pointlessly inflammatory comments will be unpublished

and cause the writer to end up in the moderation queue.

This is a public warning to SnowCrash for a comment made BELOW, which has been unpublished.

Consider this a yellow card, if you persist you will be put in moderation.

Please respond to the content and viewpoint(s) expressed in the essay above and do not rehash other debates here.

Thanks.

[edited for clarity, my apologies for any confusion]

LeftWright

[Removed]

Confused by comment hierarchy.

Edit: LW: would you make it clear which comment you were referring to when you made your warning? As it stands, it looks as if you were referring to the comment you replied to, which is not the case, I presume.

You presume correctly, SC

As I stated, the comment was posted below this in the thread and I have since emailed it to you.

Please let's not get pedantic here, I have better uses of my time, as I assume you do, as well.

I see no problem with the comment I replied to, considering the gaps in credible information, there are numerous valid questions with regard to the planes, what actually happened on the planes, in fact even which planes were used to do exactly what remains somewhat of an open question (which should not be read as " if planes were even used"... don't anyone try to put me on that silly slippery slope of slop, puhlease!)

Not hard to see why some of us get really burned out down here in the rhetorical trenches of truth, eh?

Keep it civil, try to be constructive and let the facts and logic fly ....

Cheers!

Perhaps you should recuse yourself

from moderating a thread which you seem to have such a passionately held ideological stake in.

Please email me and tell me

what that "passionately held ideological stake" is.....that conversation is definitely off topic here.

Or perhaps you prefer that all the moderators recuse themselves all the time, so that some folks can continue to complain about the lack of moderation....is your confirmation bias showing again ....? or perhaps no moderation is the model YOU prefer and practice yourself.....hmmm....things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[ please check all confirmation biases at the door, thanks, the management]

Cheers, BRO !

Just a suggestion

Anyone reading this thread can see you're deeply involved in the debate. At the same time you're deleting posts of those you're debating. Meanwhile, others who you're debating are waiting hours for you to approve their posts because they're on moderation for some reason (Jon Gold). I'm simply making a suggestion to help you avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. There's no need to be rude.

I don't think the questions are off topic at all.

I think what Kevin is trying to do, even though he doesn't say it directly, is to argue that there were no hijackers.

First, he cites David Ray Griffin's article which asks, "Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?" And so far as I know, the claim that they were fake has been debunked.

Then we see statements that suggest there either were no hijackers, or the hijackers weren't really the ones piloting the planes.

"many mainstream news sources reported that the accused hijackers were still alive"

"It is possible that all the planes were commandeered by way of existing remote control technology"

"The 911CR says that Hani Hanjour, the accused hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, was the terrorist operation’s most experienced pilot." […] "But all the evidence indicates that he was a very poor pilot at best. He repeatedly failed his training courses on single engine aircraft and according to representatives of his flight training schools he had no fundamental pilot skills."

There is nothing wrong with Snowcrash's questions.

Borrowing a term from one of my least favorite characters

often confused with the truth movement (and for those who were in Chandler, AZ, please forgive me)...

"We need to expand the explanandum" with regard to many elements of the 9/11 false flag.

Specific to this thread are many questions which need answers, some are:

Were the planes "hijacked"? How does one define "hijack"?

If the planes were "hijacked", then how was this accomplished? How did the planes find their ultimate targets?

Is it possible that the "hijackers" were, themselves, "hijacked"?

None of us were on the planes, so none of us knows, or can know, exactly what happened on the planes.

All we can do is speculate and create working hypotheses based on what we each consider to be the most credible information available and the logical implications of said information and the known, fixed variables. Thus, we are all left to evaluate each fact on its own merits and work out our own understanding of the events which logically has to account for all the discreet elements we consider credible and valid.

The truth shall set us free, and my truth is I don't know what happened on September 11, 2001, but I very much do want to find out as much as I can about how that heinous crime was committed and who actually perpetrated it.

Love is the only way forward, and love gives me the humility to say "I don't know" and the strength to keep pursing the truth no matter what the obstacle(s).

People shouldn't....

"speculate and create working hypotheses" and promote them publicly while completely and totally ignoring CONTRADICTORY information.

"A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted." - Dr. David Ray Griffin

The Facts Speak For Themselves

Facts vs speculation

The phone calls are not speculative.

If you wish to dispute this, Erik Larson's devastating critique of David Ray Griffin awaits your informed rebuttal.

So, you're saying you know absolutely everything

there is to know about the phone calls?

(i.e. there is nothing about the phone calls that is unknown and can be speculated on?).

You have all the actual analog recordings of the phone calls (i.e. recordings of what was said by each person recorded at the location where they said it, recorded in analog and with a verifiable chain of custody?).

You have all the records of all the phone calls, and I mean ALL the records.

Somehow, I don't think you really want to play this game, do you?

Epistemology 101, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, boys and girls......

Hopefully, we're done with this nonsense, eh SC?

Salut !

Records

LeftWright said...."You have all the records of all the phone calls, and I mean ALL the records"

I bet he doesn't!
He also (I'm willing to bet)doesn't have a copy of Obamas' birth certificate. Or yours for that matter. What does that tell us?

And if you were to provide a copy, how would he know it wasn't fraudulent? Food for thought no?

Time to drop the BS!

We are ten years past.

David Griffin's paranoias have spread far and wide now. Fake phone call theories have to go. No plane theories have to go.

Until there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE of a fake phone call, just drop it, it is Bullshit, why keep it?

My homecountry of Chile had a Kissinger and CIA approved coup on 9/11 in 1973. Maybe Kevin wants to say that Chileans werent involved there too, I don't know. The US's strongest tool is propaganda, and Kevin is falling for it or promoting it happily lately. Kevin's research was covered by what media outlet recently?

9/11 Truth is over unless:

We capitalize on where the media is giving attention and exploit upon that..

Right as the media was starting to pick up on the Saudi story, here comes Kevin Ryan with "Muslims were not involved" at the NOI and here. It's bullshit, why keep it, compared to MSNBC, NY TImes, Guardian and others bringing attention to the Sauds?

Is it that hard to see the strategy?

John

The fact that you even reference the term "analog" as if it's (A) applicable and (B) special somehow, shows beyond any reasonable doubt you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I thought you were in IT? The burden of proof requires you do a mathematical audio analysis of the Betty Ong and CeeCee Lyles calls and empirically demonstrate traces of voice morphing. Have you even read the literature on the subject?

Yes, the telephone calls present a HUGE and embarrassing problem for no hijacker theories.

A few points in a vain attempt to close down this silliness...

1) I asked for original analog recordings because (a) they can't be faked and (b) I'm quite sure none exist in this age of digital everything (and yes, SC, I very much know what I'm talking about as I have worked around the recording industry for over 30 years and have a brother who is an expert in digital AND analog recording). Asking for analog was my way making it "mission impossible", as I find the entire subject to be tiresome and pointless. And yes, SC, analog is "special", reality is analog, not digital.

2) I have never espoused that any or all of the phone calls WERE fake, only that some or all COULD be. Having no access to the original recordings or voice samples of the individuals involved, I have no way of doing any kind of test. I have always considered the possibility of fake phone calls to be a rather insignificant point without sufficient supporting evidence (yes, an embarrassment for someone who should be a rigorous academic) and thus not worth the huge amount of time and energy spent on it, but some people just love to keep going back to it, like a favorite old chair.

3) As for "no hijacker theories" I don't have one, nor do any of my working hypotheses involve scenarios without someone in the role of a "hijacker". Now, exactly who these folks were, what they did and what they thought they were doing on the planes remains an open question, as I have yet to see absolute evidence to close the issue.

4) Now I hear the PR argument all the time about some things (i.e. "this makes us sound foolish" yadda yadda yadda). Well, the truth doesn't care how it sounds, nor does logic or physics. Thus, just because something may be hard to sell to the public doesn't mean we should shy away from it, at least not from the researcher's perspective. When I present things to the public (and I don't consider this site to fit that category) I only present what I consider to be the best evidence proving 9/11 to be a false flag operation with multiple ongoing cover-ups. Besides, you can always find someone who thinks any question about the events of 9/11 is foolish and that is just pandering to the lowest common denominator. not something I spend any time doing, at all.

Far too many of the open questions regarding the 9/11 false flag CAN ONLY be answered through a thorough, complete and transparent investigation, thus debating them here (or anywhere) is a truly pointless exercise, imo.

Thus, it seems to me that , instead of endlessly rehashing arguments over trivial points, folks' energy would be better spent actually educating the public. Just the other day I ran into a guy who has written songs about 9/11 and the Twin Towers, but had not even heard of WTC 7, I kid you not! Yesterday, I ran into a very young vet who served a tour in Iraq and had not heard of depleted Uranium. I also told him and his friend about 9/11.

Finally, with all the words people keep stuffing in my mouth, I better get a bigger mouth.....(if you actually know me, then you know it is already quite big enough, thanks).

There is still much work to do, brothers and sisters, let's not waste our time creating/finding trivial issues to argue about.

The truth shall set us free, but we have a very long way to go yet.

Love is the only way forward; and love requires patience, tolerance, perseverance and humility.

Analog

John, so have I. While I gravitate towards IT, I've been in the studio with many producers. Almost everyone I know is involved in music and music production for one way or another. For fifteen years.

And I said what I said because I knew you would say this: "they can't be faked".

Which is just... untrue. There's no need for a long story here. I've explained the pitfalls of falsification-speculation many, many times on this site and elsewhere. Which means... the telephone calls were real, there were hijackers and they killed some passengers & crew and pilots even before crashing the planes. I also have experience with digital forensics, so I know what's possible and what isn't. It's possible to attempt forgery, and it's possible to detect it, in both digital and analog realms.

The falsification pillar wrt voice morphing has fallen: almost no calls were cellphone calls, and those that were, were technically feasible.

The speculation pillar has fallen too: there is no direct evidence for voice morphing whatsoever, it wasn't technically feasible to do so on 9/11 (in realtime, interactively) and it would leave telltale forensic traces, for which you can test. Let David Ray Griffin test the Betty Ong and CeeCee Lyles calls by a recognized voice morphing expert and publish.

And what's more, all of the calls go through digital circuits before landing on your "fakery-proof" analog tape, so what's your point anyway? Do you fail to see the futility of the argument? Why would you persist in it? Yes, I want people to 'snap out of it'... it's been ten years, a sentiment I introduced and I can feel it catching on, we ought to be progressing. Kevin posits a double argument: no Muslim hijackers and no hijackers. I see many errors in his treatise both logical and epistemological. I think it's harmful. One certainly can't accuse Kevin Ryan of ignorance, this can only be described as 'spin'. And 'spin' in a Truth Movement is unacceptable. I asked Kevin if he thought there hijackers on the plane and he still won't answer. Where does that leave his essay but in the agglomeration of original hardcore no hijacker theories as we've come to know them? There is no genuine desire to have a debate about religiosity of the hijackers: there is a desire to deny their existence, their identity, their motivations and in so doing fabricate grounds for rejection of the reality of Islamic terrorism altogether, a phenomenon widely written about (including about how we in the West exploit it for our own purposes) and the denial of which I find astonishingly, almost pathologically unworldly.

sigh...you're not reading what I'm writing

and your confirmation bias is coloring your objectivity.

And, your straw man arguments have taken this dialogue so far afield, that it is pointless to try and bring it back here, now.

Re-read what I wrote and email me for clarification, where needed.

I have no real interest in this subject as, until there is a thorough, complete and transparent investigation, the evidence is way too incomplete to draw any definitive conclusions from, thus giving us pointless debates like this one.

That's why I asked about ALL the records regarding the calls and ALL the recordings of ALL the calls. To the best of my knowledge they are not publicly available.

Please be civil and stay on topic.

Be well and enjoy your day.

I am civil and on-topic

And you're just not defending your technical claims as you should. You made several.

All records not being available does not in any way give license to promote far-fetched, baseless, harmful and epistemologically totally implausible theories for which there is no direct evidence. I could claim the phone calls were made from UFOs zooming across the troposphere because all the records are not available. That doesn't make sense either. Is there any evidence, any evidence at all for voice morphing which doesn't rely on ignorance of telecommunications technology, skeptical philosophy, logic and epistemology?

"Voice morphing" is an Ad Hoc Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

To defend the indefensible: that there were no hijackers aboard those planes, or that there were no passengers aboard those planes, or that the planes in question might have been modified military 767's, or remote controlled to prevent 'Jeopardizing Controlled Demolition Through Imperfect Aircraft Control' as Aidan Monaghan puts it. Of course, everything in the official story is a 'Mere Allegation' except the government data and the many FOIA requests Monaghan is basing his theory on. Kevin Ryan quotes Monaghan in his essay and argues for remote control. Ryan is free to study the DFDR and prove his claims beyond mere speculation, or explain how AA 11 disrupted UA 175's flight path, UA 175 which was at that time still in coordination with ATC.

We are dealing with some shocking reality denial mechanisms geared to enhance the survival of a cherished MIHOP meme. 'Could have' does not equal 'did', and in this case, it doesn't, and certainly can't be supported on the basis of mere incredulity, intuitive physics and the surprisingly common religious hypocrisy of the 9/11 hijackers. None of this is my fault and none of it merits moderation warnings. I don't know how much time I have left on this site, but I will speak what I believe is true, regardless of who I'm speaking to. I'm sorry if that offends you, but we've all been too squeamish and have allowed damaging mis- and disinformation to proliferate. If you cut us off, you lose that which is called 'fault tolerance' in system theory: things which enhance the health of an organism by corrective feedback, rather than faithful appeasement or fearful assent.

Surround yourself with yes-men and they will yes you all the way off that cliff.

SIGH...I have no idea who you are talking to, now,

as I am not defending or promoting voice morphing here.

Your confirmation bias is showing again, SC.

I have better uses for my time then to try and teach you reading comprehension, or is my writing really that bad?

The only real point I want to convey here is that none of us knows exactly what happened on or with the four planes alleged to have been used, and anyone who does claim to know is either being dishonest, ignorant or arrogant, imo.

Be well, enjoy the day, remain rigorous and always try to seek clarity [instead of muddying the waters with extraneous/erroneous arguments (i.e straw men)].

Salut !

Okay

Seeking clarity, you mean to say you take an agnostic position on the phone calls?

An agnostic position on your part wouldn't change much about my argumentation towards you. The reason the phone calls are so important is because they establish what happen aboard those planes, and many of that is at odds with Kevin Ryan's essay. All the more for UA 93's cockpit voice recorder, which contains more Allah-U-Akhbar's than can be heard in a week at the mosque. And then there's the transmission where we hear Leroy Homer and Jason Dahl being fatally injured.

So no, I don't accept a position of agnosticism as valid, just as I wouldn't accept a position of agnosticism in other avenues of 9/11 research which have long been settled.

You said things like:

"None of us were on the planes, so none of us knows, or can know, exactly what happened on the planes."

"Were the planes "hijacked"? How does one define "hijack"?"

"If the planes were "hijacked", then how was this accomplished? How did the planes find their ultimate targets?"

"You have all the records of all the phone calls, and I mean ALL the records."

"Somehow, I don't think you really want to play this game, do you?"

"Epistemology 101, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, boys and girls......"

"Hopefully, we're done with this nonsense, eh SC?"

"1) I asked for original analog recordings because (a) they can't be faked"

"2) I have never espoused that any or all of the phone calls WERE fake, only that some or all COULD be."

"Now, exactly who these folks were, what they did and what they thought they were doing on the planes remains an open question, as I have yet to see absolute evidence to close the issue."

....

The reason you suspect I'm constructing straw men arguments is why? Maybe you think I would treat a position of supercilious agnosticism or creative but baseless speculation differently than declarative statements? I don't. I'm not claiming agnosticism about the Pentagon. I'm not claiming agnosticism about whether or not the 767 which hit WTC 2 was perhaps a modified military aircraft. I'm not claiming agnosticism about whether the hijackers were Muslims or whether they are alive. I know these claims are wholly without merit which is why I'm calling them out. There is a tendency to move back and forth between committal and non-committal on the part of the claimants because this allows for repudiation at a later date at the claimant's convenience.

I have been convinced for a while now that the phone calls were real and that the notion that they were fake, is, in fact, preposterously false. I don't discriminate and treat agnostic positions (maybe they were fake, who knows) equally.

Again, I apologize if this position causes you grief but as I've been saying these past weeks, maybe longer, it's been ten years and it's time we moved on. I notice that the National Archives were releasing UA 93 plane tickets... Yet another piece of evidence to be declared 'fake'? One key epistemology/historiography lesson is that if you find yourself having to suspect 'fakery' in an ever widening context, you ought to cross through your current hypothesis and start from scratch. Stubborn refusal to do so, clinging to middle-of-the-road positions (agnosticism) only prolongs embarrassment. I'm not the one to appeal to consequences, I base my opinion on evidence assessments first, not necessarily on how crazy something might sound.

http://www.911blogger.com/new

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-03-18/muslims-did-not-attack-us-911#comment-256156

So based on what you have written here it's as though we all must live in a reality where the only things we can actually know and trust in the world are things we have physically held and possessed. Let me ask you this, are there any more than these two choices on the matter?:

Are the phone calls which we have heard throughout the years fake?
Are the phone calls which we have heard throughout the years real?

"ALL the records regarding the calls and ALL the recordings of ALL the calls." Really? This is the ONLY way you will accept that the calls are actually real?

This is were infinite skepticism can lead you to a world where nothing around you is or ever will be 'conclusive.' We don't know EVERYTHING, but we can know SOME things right?

Even if you say the calls COULD be fake, it is damaging, comes off as offensive to the families and to the public, and is another example of infinite skepticism leading you into a world where nothing is conclusive. Where do you draw the line? It COULD be faked sounds to everyone else like YOU THINK IT WAS FAKED. Why even say it? To impress people with our infinite sense of skepticism toward EVERYTHING related 9/11? 'I don't have an analog vhs copy of Richard Gage speaking to the NOI event so I can't know whether he actually did or not? oh wait and the analog tape could have been faked to, wait and who recorded the video?' I appreciate your healthy skepticism but we see how this type of logic can loop us into nothingness right?

Then you go on (your point #4) to act as though being concerned about our public appearance will somehow limit us from seeing the whole truth. This doesn't make sense. You want to stop talking about these issues you consider "trivial points" and yet it is an 'agnostic' like yourself in regard to a topic like the fake phone call theory which is exactly why these issues still need to be addressed. Ryan's paper's re-presentation of this old theory is of course also why this subject is quite valid to discuss here.

Yea

>>>There is still much work to do, brothers and sisters, let's not waste our time creating/finding trivial issues to argue about.

Pretty sure that's all this essay is.

John

I did not attempt to put words in your mouth. I am sorry if I gave you that feeling.

If we don't criticize our own positions to the point of the best possible position towards absolute clarity then where are we bound to end up? Indeed, if people had listened to you about Gravel or the 911cc, where would that $30,000 be right now?

SC, others and myself think that at this point of the ballgame trying to promote doubts as facts is the wrong course.

Of course doubts is most of what the supporters of Kevin Ryan (on this topic) are working with. There are facts to use.

And as far as the PR argument, there is still a large amount of frustration that people like Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage, both of whom I have respected for a long time, would mix a hard PR message like 9/11 truth with a harder PR message of Farrakhan. The statement of "no muslims" on 9/11 is pointless and is bound to only lead people who have power to do anything but roll their eyes at us. It is a silly arguement and article to write in my opinion.

The article can easily lead to the no-hijacker-PR-campaign-theory-propaganda which is fueled by doubt, but void of facts.

I understand the point Kevin is trying to make I think; slow down the anti-muslim fever. But guess what, the people reading this type of stuff are not the ones who have anti-muslim fever. Those folks don't go to the NOI, 9/11 Blogger or Dig Within. Kevin is just giving fuel to the fire for hating on 9/11 truthers.

Furthermore, I just think Kevin Ryan is plain wrong.

Wikipedia states that a Jihad primarily can relate to three struggles. (Kevin are you listening, the semantics are now over):

1. A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
2. The struggle to build a good Muslim society
3. Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

So, because Kevin is writing that Muslims were not involved on 9/11 because of news reports regarding the possibilty these guys did drugs and enjoyed sex in their preparations for 9/11, we can now just as easily say they were doing drugs and enjoying sex because they were in a Jihad.

Their struggle (Jihad) to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible was obviously running into trouble for 9/11's plane hijackers.

Nonetheless, it doesnt matter. Because.....

Muslim, Christian, Democrat, Saudi, CIA, Atheist: Any of these that were involved in the events of 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up are NOTHING BUT CRIMINALS. I am sure we can agree on that.

What does matter however, is when people mix up doubts as facts.

*edited for spelling errors

I appreciate the tone of your comment Jon

And the thoughtfulness of it.

It seems that "no hijackers" could be one interpretation from Kevin's essay, as could other ones.

I also agree that it's a concern to many people to cite an essay that says the phone calls must have been fake, without any caveat. One solution is to cite the essay and include a link to a fake phone call debunking essay as well. Papers in journals will often cite something which is disputed and add, "but see also, xxx, 2010". They don't have to take a position, just put all the info out there for the reader so the reader knows they are not ignoring the concerns in the research community with that point.

And a lot of people do feel passionately about this issue, so we all can go off the deep end when we feel we are wading into that topic again. It's hard for people who otherwise can make good comments and ask meaningful questions that move the research forward to not respond emotionally. I certainly have responded emotionally on here.

It's understandable that people naturally want Kevin, or any writer to puts out a provocative essay which includes the suggestion of fake phone calls, to draw a line somewhere on this issue.

But this whole area is complex because of the massive gaps in the information, the limited and contradictory data we have to work with, little or none of it first-hand, but dependent on media reporting and court records, etc. So it's also understandable that some people want to keep an open mind.

Of course, that often infuriates those of us who have taken a firm position.

The solution, in most cases, is to write a non-emotional response in the form of an essay that one publishes, rather then spending hours commenting back and forth to see who is the most socially clever and thus can get the highest votes while demeaning someone else as deftly as possible. That work doesn't advance the cause as well as a strong essay can.

Lots of options are available that don't include "I can socially take you apart because I disagree with your position on this topic."

I already have...

Written a piece called, "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime." I wrote it in October 2010. Of course, it argues that hijackers were probably involved, and that's not popular for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

What don't understand is....

Jon Gold: "There is reason to believe that the individuals we are told were the hijackers, were not strict Muslims at all."

Kevin Ryan: "The evidence we have indicates that the men accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were either not involved at all, or were not even close to being adherents of Islam."

What I don't understand is that the fundamental premise of your article and Kevin's is basically the same, and yet you jumped in early on this thread because you "think what Kevin is trying to do, even though he doesn't say it directly, is to argue that there were no hijackers." Well, Kevin didn't say it -- on that you are correct. But the rest of your criticism is speculation about his motives and use of language. That's a pretty ballsy thing to do without any evidence to support your speculation, and certainly not the behavior of a serious researcher. Kevin was very careful not to make that claim. He was quite succinct in pointing out that evidence and anomalies about the alleged hijackers lead to more than one valid hypothesis, none of which correspond to the story put forth by the 911 Commission that it was a Muslim act of war. So were you equally succinct in your article. And even Nafeez acknowledges that "the anomalies surrounding the alleged hijackers do not have easy answers," though I'm curious to know what he thinks some of the possible explanations of the anomalies might be.

I'm troubled that you didn't first acknowledge your commonality with Kevin's underlying premise to his thesis. Instead, you interjected a personal query to Nafeez about a dichotomy in general discussion about the alleged hijackers that really doesn't exist in Kevin's piece. It only exists in your mind and your speculation about his "true" beliefs. It's also interesting to note that Nafeez's response was not for or against any side on the positions you presented, but instead he dismissed the framework and the way you were presenting a dichotomy and how it's generally perceived.

When threads start with unsubstantiated speculation about someone's motives, we end up with the cesspool we see here. Troubling, indeed.

I must agree

With this:

The solution, in most cases, is to write a non-emotional response in the form of an essay that one publishes, rather then spending hours commenting back and forth to see who is the most socially clever and thus can get the highest votes while demeaning someone else as deftly as possible. That work doesn't advance the cause as well as a strong essay can.

I have failed in that regard. Erik Larson is doing better.

Show "Kevin Ryan." by Nor Cal Truth

excellent work Kevin, as always.

Ignore those with an obvious agenda. It is as plain as the nose on your face. I am not here to exonerate anyone. Let the chips fall where they may.

Who do you think has an

Who do you think has an agenda other than finding the truth? What agenda do you think they have?

If you claim 'Muslim's did not attack the US' what you are saying is false. Doesn't that directly contradict the truth? There is no agenda to that critique.

I don't know any Muslims.

I have no particular motivation to exonerate them. I just don't think they did it. If you show me proof that they did, then I will change my mind.

Patsies don't count.

Examples I linked to above

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-03-18/muslims-did-not-attack-us-911#comment-256065

I just don't think they did it.

You don't think who did it?

Do you still think NO Muslims were involved ? Remember even if they were only involved with certain aspects of it, it still means the statement "Muslim's did not attack the U.S. on 9/11" false.

Do you think that every single radical terrorist linked to and discussed in ALL of those links are patsies? If so, what do you define as a patsy and what is your proof of those linked to and discussed being so?

Also, what are you getting at with regards to Ted Olson

Do you still think the phone calls are fake after reading this...

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-08/error-phone-calls-were-fake

Everyone who still thinks so better have a good careful read of that. The issue has been debunked. The calls were real and it insults the families who lost loved ones to insinuate otherwise.

i agree w/ those who say that

the search for truth calls for us to admit when we're wrong.

Kevin has visited this thread since I posted my two comments, but, so far, he hasn't commented on the logical and factual errors I documented in his essay, even though these errors underlie statements such as, "The men accused of hijacking the planes were either not involved or were not Muslims."

Kevin, what's your source for this [EDIT: if you have one besides wiki, which doesn't support this statement, anyway]: "... Robert C. Bonner, who became Commissioner of Customs just the day before 9/11. Bonner's first action in that job was as the lead character in the process that identified the accused hijackers on the morning of 9/11."

According to this NYTimes article datelined Oct 9, 2001, "Robert C. Bonner, who was sworn in as customs commissioner just two weeks ago, ..." 'Two weeks' before Oct 9 would be on or around Sept 26.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/10/us/nation-challenged-borders-customs-switches-priority-drugs-terrorism.html

And according to CUNY's Law Enforcement News, "Confirmation was also held up for another member of the Bush administration’s law enforcement team, albeit one at the Treasury Department. Robert C. Bonner, who was nominated as Customs Service commissioner sailed easily through his confirmation hearing in late May. However, Senate approval was stalled by political maneuvering until Senator Jesse Helms reportedly yielded his position after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2001/12.31/p&p.html

Kevin: "one has to really need Muslims to be blamed ..."

From Kevin's comment above:
Since the operation was led by "team leaders" Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi, who were definitely not adherents of Islam (adhere means stick to, not just self-identify -- even if we could find evidence for that), most of us know that those victims were not killed by Muslims either.

Frankly, one has to really need Muslims to be blamed to continue supporting that claim. For those desperate folks, who take 2,000 words to say "better" means "more closely matching the official story," there will always be the diversions of 9/11 myths.

It's been a few days, and there's been no further response by Kevin to legit criticism of points in his essay. I assume the reference in his one comment to "those desperate folks, who take 2,000 words to say 'better' means 'more closely matching the official story,' there will always be the diversions of 9/11 myths." is referring at least to me, since I linked to the 9/11 Myths website in my critique. Besides being insulting by calling his critics "desperate" and implying there's an agenda other than the whole truth and justice for all, it amounts to a non-sequitur and a hand-wave of my critiques, if it was, in fact, directed at them.

It also misrepresents my position; I have no "need" for "Muslims to be blamed," and I don't care how closely the truth matches the official story. I am interested in the establishment of truth and justice; it won't happen by making assertions that aren't based on verifiable facts. Without credible evidence that certain elements of the official story are false, speculation, opinion and assertion that any particular element is false don't amount to more than speculation, opinion and assertion, and rational, objective people will not be persuaded by these.

As I showed in my first comment above, Kevin's point that the alleged hijackers weren't Muslims because they didn't adhere to his interpretation of Islam is simply his opinion, and it's not one that will be taken seriously by most people. And, as I also showed in my second comment, the media reports were confusing living Saudis w/ names similar to accused hijackers, w/ the accused hijackers themselves. In Omari's case, it looks like the FBI had initially gotten the living Omari's birth date mixed w/ their info, but from the beginning they had also reported the DOB of the accused 7-yr younger Omari.

Some larger points relevant to this discussion:

Even the Bush administration publicly stated on a number of occasions that Islam itself was not to blame, though they and their backers exploited the fear and anger of ignorant, racist and jingoistic Americans in their rush to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. And, as Kevin noted, some polls show opposition among self-described Muslims to the use of violence. So, while the question of how religious beliefs may contribute to or be used to justify violence, it doesn't have much to do w/ the factual question of whether or not the accused hijackers boarded and took over the flights, stabbing and macing passengers and crew in the process, as indicated by the flight manifests, UAL 93 boarding passes, and certain phone calls. It seems we can't know for sure that those named are actually the ones who did what the phone calls reported, but it also can't be ruled out. I do find it difficult to believe that whoever arranged for the collapse of air defense on 9/11, and who mined the WTC towers (there's good evidence for CD w/o nanothermite, even in the official reports), would entrust that hijackers who couldn't fly would be able to successfully hit the desired targets. This aspect of 9/11 will likely remain a mystery w/o fuller disclosure.

The alleged hijackers are central to the official story, though, and they're also a weak element of it: There's considerable evidence that certain officials at CIA, NSA and FBI, and perhaps State, INS and Customs, were aware that Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar were terrorist operatives before they traveled to the US, and that they were being monitored and protected from discovery and arrest by FBI agents. What these operatives believed they were doing and what motivated them is not entirely clear, but it is clear US officials have a lot to answer for (possibly including charges of treason and mass murder), and that they have not been properly investigated or held to account by the official investigations, which undermines the cred of these investigations. Kevin made reference to this in his essay and NOI talk, though it undermines his thesis (unless you believe his 'they're not Muslims cuz they're not Muslims by my definition' claim)

In addition, there's the foreknowledge that wasn't acted on. In addition to what the CIA, NSA and FBI knew and have suppressed, there was the intelligence developed by the US that caused Tenet to refer to a 'Summer of threat' and that led to the Aug 6 PDB. And, at least 11 different countries had passed on warnings of an impending terrorist plot against the US. Some of these warnings said Al Qaeda operatives were in the US, others indicated there was a plot involving US cities and airplanes. Nothing was done to harden security or warn Americans, and after 9/11 the Bush administration claimed there were no warnings at all. Again, this indicates the existence of an Al Qaeda plot, but even more importantly, none of those most responsible for the security of the country and the Constitution were held to account, and they could have prevented the attack. Many have accepted this was simply incompetence, or possibly criminal negligence. However, when considered in the larger context provided by other evidence that the official investigations ignored or hand-waved, the more likely explanation is treason and the aiding/abetting of mass murder, among other crimes.
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
http://justicefor911.org/

Finally, I looked some more into Kevin's claims re: Robert C. Bonner. It appears he may have arrived at his belief after a careless reading of Bonner's testimony to the 9/11 Cmssn http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_bonner.htm. According to SourcWatch, he was confirmed by the Senate 9/20/01, and sworn in by O'Neill 9/24/01 http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Bonner (I couldn't find the original source for this info, but it's clear he had no legal authority on 9/11, though, as he says in his Cmssn testimony, "Throughout the day of September 11, I was kept advised of action taken by U.S. Customs." Bonner introduced himself to Customs employees 9/26/01 http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/speeches_statements/archives/2001/sep262001.xml, and,

Charles Winwood, an interesting character himself, was Acting Commissioner at Customs since about Feb 2001, according to Narco News http://www.narconews.com/Issue32/article922.html. This 3/7/01 CBP transcript is the first reference I found to Winwood on the CBP website http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/speeches_statements/archives/2001/mar072001.xml. However, according to Bonner's Cmssn testimony, "John Varrone, Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Investigations, had assumed the role of Acting Commissioner."

Bonner also told the Cmssn, "On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passengers manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community." Bonner may have been aware of this as it happened, but Kevin has provided no evidence to support his charge that "Bonner's first action in that job was as the lead character in the process that identified the accused hijackers on the morning of 9/11," and my own investigoogling hasn't turned up any, either. That Kevin would make such claims w/o evidence is disturbing, but not entirely surprising, considering the logical and factual errors in his Muslims Didn't Attack essay. I haven't fact-checked his earlier work, but I would do so carefully before relying on any claims he's made. It's fine if someone wants to investigate this stuff - they might turn up significant info - but they really should carefully consider what it may and may not mean before making public assertions based on it.

Friendly communication needed

Dear All,

I would encourage everyone to be polite and respectful. I'm sure we have all seen articles that receive several comments that evolve into harsh debates.

When articles are published and you have disagreements with aspects of the article, I would suggest that feedback include as best as possible the strengths the writer has demonstrated and also the areas of improvement that can be beneficial for future research. With this form of friendly communication, people will be more likely to respond and consider your viewpoints.

Thanks.

You respect people

by telling them the truth and responding to follow up questions regarding the truth. If people publish an article and then won't respond when specific errors pointed out within the article and are unwilling to correct these errors, it is not beneficial to anyone. Critique is important and extremely necessary when it comes to finding the truth about 9/11. I encourage everyone to triple check the facts presented and take a good look at the thoughtful critiques in this thread. It is also important to see who is willing to talk about facts and discussion, and who wants to just say what they think and not back up their 'opinions.'

carbon's advice is excellent

if all of us practiced it, the discussions here would be more productive, w/ less hostility and noise.

I also agree w/ kdub's points; the truth and lies of 9/11 will be established by facts and reason.

Religious fanatic Apologists

Perhaps Kevin Ryan thinks speaking in front of the Nation of Islam makes you an expert on radical Islamic political theology. His own essay shows his ignorance.

Being an apologist for Radical religious fanatics - just the latest credibility destroying move for "9-11 truth".

This article doesn’t delve

I don't appreciate people personally attacking people who have a history of good research and who continue to do that. Whether you agree or not is not a basis to try to bring someone down on assumptions and claims. Stick to the facts of the article.

As the essay states:

"This article doesn’t delve into the carefully cultivated phenomenon called 'radical Islam' . . . ."

radical Islam

"This article doesn’t delve into the carefully cultivated phenomenon called 'radical Islam'

Gee...I wonder why? Any ideas on that?

"I don't appreciate people personally attacking people who have a history of good research and who continue to do that."

Is the video an attack or is it information you'd rather not people see?
What you call "good research" I call garbage. I wont be going along with your "groupthink heroworship" preference.

BTW , I don't appreciate being called an "anti researcher", nor do I appreciate accusations of being "connected" with "video fakery", but I'm a big boy and can take it. Also your bias and hero worship is now on the record. Thanks. (actually it was already with Jones)

You'll disagree, but . . .

I think most would agree that Kevin has produced a lot of good analyses. My guess is that you have not read most of his work. Similarly for Steven Jones and others.

Most who label people with things like "hero worship" for appreciating scientific work done well are not really aware of what that work really is. I can see where it might seem like bias if aspects of some researchers offend you.

I don't agree with everything every researcher does who I support.

That's another thing the 9/11 work taught me -- we are all human beings and thus imperfect, and, one of us usually doesn't know everything. We each have our blind spots and our biases and our weaknesses.

In this work, very few people have the skills and awareness and resources to do the research, so I tend to understand how important their work is, when they do it. People who don't understand the science or who are not interested in the physical evidence research, often just want to kick people out as soon as there is one thing they disagree on.

When Jim first started he was met with an avalanche of psyops hologram/missile/pod claims, a nonstop river of verbal sewage. That worked to cause many people to give up and leave, but the most determined people stayed on and clawed their way through that mess of nonsense.

Vestiges of the faulty claims still remain, and the challenge for those of us on here is to expose those in a way that isn't toward socially denigrating people, as the early psyops in the past did so overtly.

Personally, it was extremely disappointing to me to see the no plane claims at the Toronto Hearings with no rebuttal included. I think that really took the wind out of my inspiration on some level. Today I saw an image for the trailer for the pressfortruth film of that event showing the Pentagon hole. Really sad. And when I went to look at the pressfortruth link it was highlighting an interview with Paul Joseph Watson and appearances on Alex Jones . . . and is all about "Dan Dicks" and Globalist Takeover! etc. That's one event that I really had high hopes for and was sure that the strong research would for once not be mixed with speculative claims and "no passengers" conclusions. So it was a big letdown for me personally.

But that doesn't change the fact that many people are doing strong research and continue to in other areas.

You are correct

You are correct I disagree. And I'm tired of being told how you scientists and your work are just to much for us simpletons to understand. I also don't think helping the government with high level cover ups are "good work" I also don't care if "most" are on another page. You think 9-11 truth has done great things. What you call "scientific work" I call a sham. Keep convincing yourself nanothermite will win the day. Now 9-11 "truth" can slander Millette with dishonesty which I have already seen. I also don't think the 9-11 truth movement is very truthful. I am extremely unimpressed with "9-11 truth leaders", and don't appreciate these 'leaders" refusing to acknowledge the role religion played in 9-11, and spread disinformation.

Hero worship

You're not worshiping Millette, I hope? Neither Jim Millette nor Kevin Ryan are worthy of hero worship and neither are above criticism.

If Millette was involved with environmental fraud, which directly affects 9/11 first responders, he is fair game. If he's not, whoever is spreading lies about him is.

I really don't care whether or not he publishes things which 'take care' of people I have an 'axe to grind' with. You call out those researchers you think are wrong. I usually agree with you. But hero worship, conformism, groupthink and deference to authority aren't limited to truthers.

I believe there was a strong element of religiosity involved and I feel Kevin Ryan's essay fails to capture the depth and breadth of the documented record on the 9/11 hijackers. As such, his stature as a CD researcher and whistleblower is now a lever for promotion of historical research outside of his bailiwick and clearly woefully incomplete and erroneous.

I have no interest in this line of thinking

There's no reason to write off some of the most damning evidence and information we have, much of it connected to the Muslim hijackers. Paul Thompson and Kevin Fenton have documented many things which seem to contradict a lot of what Kevin has written here. I have followed much of Kevin Ryans work in the past, but unfortunately, this essay is of zero use to me, so I'll pass on this one.

ZBH -

If you were planning the largest, most audacious false flag operation in history...wouldn't you also create the most complete cover story possible, over as long a time period as possible?

Food for thought, eh?

I also find Paul Thompson and Kevin Fenton's work invaluable.

One has to completely de-construct every aspect of the event(s) to have any chance of understanding what might have actually happened and, more importantly, who the actual perpetrators were, as well as their ultimate motive(s). PT and KF have and continue to do very important work in this regard. As has KR, imo.

Is it not possible to hold conflicting ideas in one's head at the same time, and try to make sense out of them?

I actually enjoy swimming through cognitive dissonance, much more interesting than floating downstream and letting the strongest current take you where it will.

To each his or her own, eh?

Cheers!

Not all food is palatable

"I actually enjoy swimming through cognitive dissonance, much more interesting than floating downstream and letting the strongest current take you where it will." ...like I do?

I stopped following leaders a while ago. I at least owe thanks to the 9/11 truth movement for teaching me how to do that; it's often supplied the easiest leaders to walk away from. Now Kevin Ryan is trying to convince me that no Muslims were involved in 9/11, but that's such a spurious argument that to me, a rebuttal is a complete waste of time. I'd rather let this just die on the vine, although I'm sure a solid group of followers will be happy to spread this around. It's not useful to me.

I'd much rather just walk away.

Say it again!

Because I hope people read and digest your words.

I stopped following leaders a while ago. I at least owe thanks to the 9/11 truth movement for teaching me how to do that; it's often supplied the easiest leaders to walk away from. Now Kevin Ryan is trying to convince me that no Muslims were involved in 9/11, but that's such a spurious argument that to me, a rebuttal is a complete waste of time. I'd rather let this just die on the vine, although I'm sure a solid group of followers will be happy to spread this around. It's not useful to me.

Kevin, you are not helping to attract real media with such spectacular, fringe and incorrect statements that you seem determined to keep making.

Shame on you, again.

I'm tired of you preaching to a bunch of cheerleaders in the choir. So, what, we have another decade to look forward to of being ignored by the media and arguing in comments on Blogger?

Great. Good strategy Kevin. Pshh.

leaders

>>I stopped following leaders a while ago. I at least owe thanks to the 9/11 truth movement for teaching me how to do that

Yes. It's been nice to realize some side benefits from this work. I'm now far more skeptical of anyone with a title or an audience then I used to be.

GENERAL RULES: POSTING AND COMMENTING

It's unfortunate when these threads devolve into a mess. Let's all try to remember the shared goal of bringing about a new investigation into the events of Sept. 11th.

Please keep these rules in mind and do the best you can to follow them. This will make the place better for everyone. And moderation will not be needed as much.
http://911blogger.com/rules

Posts and comments made on 911blogger.com are stored forever. Material generally remains published unless it is determined to be in violation of the rules.

Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation.

Calling another user a liar, disinformation agent or any of the other related terms will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.

Do not make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste people's time.

Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread.

Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry. Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults.

http://911blogger.com/rules

My response...

I’ve been trying to understand why Kevin Ryan wrote this article. It is not a clarification of some of the things he said at the NOI presentation, but instead, it is a regurgitation of false information, opinions and unsubstantiated theories.

Initially I thought Kevin was trying to make an innocent case for saying “Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11” in regards to his interpretation of what a Muslim is. After reading through the article, I realised this is not the case. There is more to it than that.

Aside from the various possibilities and opinions Kevin draws from, his first reference for evidence is an article by David Ray Griffin. In the article DRG cites AK Dewdney as an authority in making a case for fake phone calls. Coincidentally, the phone calls from the planes are some of the most important evidence we have to give us an idea about what happened onboard those planes that morning. The phone calls reveal that there were hijackers on the planes who killed people and entered the cockpit.

Kevin Ryan said: “Muslims don’t murder innocent people.”

Obviously Kevin’s statement is ridiculous. Just one example of a Muslim killing an innocent person proves Kevin’s statement to be false. I’ll leave it up to the readers to find just one example.

Never the less, Kevin then proceeds to use a quote from the Quran to prove his statement:

If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind. (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)

The quote Kevin uses is actually counter to his argument. According to the quote from the Quran, there are at least two reasons a Muslim can kill innocent people. They can kill people if it is retaliation for someone else. They can also kill people to cause corruption in the earth.

It is apparent from the article that Kevin Ryan has a very limited knowledge of the Muslim world and would benefit from doing a bit of research before making such preposterous claims. I would suggest he familiarize himself with the different identities and ideologies. For example, it would help to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. It would also help to have an understanding of Wahhabi and Salafi ideologies.

Too bad Kevin chose not to address the problem of radical Islam in his article. A convenient dismissal, since an understanding of radical Islam would further invalidate his thesis.

Another deceptive aspect of Kevin’s argument, is that, as he states:

“In the weeks after 9/11, many mainstream news sources reported that the accused hijackers were still alive”

This is another false statement. There were reports of discrepancies among a few of the hijackers identities. But Kevin doesn’t make this distinction, he makes it sound like all of the hijackers were still alive with the misleading way he words his statement.

Furthermore, Loose Nuke informed Kevin of additional information concerning the reports of hijacker discrepancies before this article was written. By all indications, Kevin ignored the information provided to him and continued to use such misinformation again in this article.

There is another statement from Kevin that I found particularly interesting. He states:

“Problems with that argument include the fact that it doesn’t absolve the 9/11 terrorists from having killed many innocent people”

This should be very disturbing to an unbiased person looking for the truth. Kevin is trying to clear the hijackers of any wrong doing. The only way that would be possible is if there were no hijackers at all. This is the cleverly crafted underlying theme throughout Kevin Ryan’s article.

On the other hand, Kevin has no qualms about putting all the blame for 9/11 on Americans. He even implicates people like Bob Graham and John O’Neill of all people.

I got news for you Kevin…

Americans did not attack the U.S. on 9/11.

Americans don’t kill innocent people. They defend the constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

All in all Kevin Ryan’s article is riddled with personal opinions, half-truths and downright lies. It serves no useful purpose in regards to finding the truth about 9/11. What it does do is divide. It divides the rational thinking people from the conspiracy theorists.

Using the same argument?

"Americans did not attack the U.S. on 9/11.
Americans don’t kill innocent people. They defend the constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

Just one example of an American killing an innocent person proves this statement to be false. I’ll leave it up to the readers to find just one example.

I find it incredible you just used the same argument after dismissing it so handily. I have a lot of respect for KR, but his using tactics like what I've seen recently are just uncalled for. I am not referring to this article, but to the use of old links to someone's outdated beliefs to discredit and to justify his own belief system of 9/11 contexts. I was extremely disappointed of his conjuring up of your old belief about "no-planes". I was certainly convinced over the past few years of reading your material shure that you corrected your outlook on this issue. I couldn't understand why he said that. Somehow Mr. Ryan, I don't believe the personal teachings from whatever philosophy you adhere to (buhddism is it? I'm apologize if I am wrong) teaches such practices. You really should openly apologize regarding that matter IMHO.

But implying that KR's is really just exemplifying "no-hijacker theory" is equally disingenuous. The issue is a red-herring since it takes from the real question and that is who exactly were the hi-jackers? We know (including KR) that hijackers were on the planes. We know none of hijackers (and people) that were on the planes are alive today. It seems evident that the hijackers used stolen identities, but what effort was made to really identify them? We know DNA samples were used to identify victims, but not terrorists, so the "alleged" identities have been allowed to stick to the remaining DNA samples. I think we can safely say we don't know who exactly all the hijackers were and maybe their real identities would shed more light.

KR is right in some sense that Muslims did not commit 9/11 but more-so in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I think many of us (me included) tend think in terms of "No true Truther" as well. This really adds nothing to physical facts. The hijackers easily may have been disenfranchised believers like many people get in all religions and this may have been their salvation. Who knows what kind of lies and mis-truths were put inside the hijackers heads. Like many involved in this crime, I doubt they were privy to the entire plot or its agenda.

I think now we must move beyond what religion they associated themselves with. As I've learned through my years, religion holds little regard to facts and truth. It's often said more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason, maybe so. But I tend to think religion is used to justify killing, but more often than not, the real underlying reason is about power and control. Using religious beliefs only acts as a binding agent for the masses who generally could care less about larger political issues.

Thanks for listening everyone. Be kind to one another in our discourse.

Together in Truth

dtg

Jarrah's DNA

"We know DNA samples were used to identify victims, but not terrorists, so the "alleged" identities have been allowed to stick to the remaining DNA samples. I think we can safely say we don't know who exactly all the hijackers were and maybe their real identities would shed more light."

FYI: Ziad Jarrah's DNA was identified. The rest of the families flat out refused to provide DNA samples. That, and only that, is the reason most of them were never positively matched. They were identified by other means though. They haven't been seen around much either since 9/11. 'Real identities'? Are we still on that trip? Why don't you go visit the hijacker families? Yosri Fouda tried. He got quite the emotional reactions.

Good analysis.

Good analysis.

Excellent article Kevin

As always ...

Thank you for all you continue to do - your work ultimately saves lives the world over.