Yes, this is exactly what I always remember. It's why thie date always is a day of sadness and rage for me.

Barbara Ehrenreich refers to the CIA brief on the forthcoming attack as an example of excessive positive thinking in her book titled Smile or Die. The actual title is longer though.

There's a great Frontline documentary called "The Man Who Knew." It's about an FBI agent who became an expert on bin Laden and al-Qaeda and tried to get the higher-ups to understand how serious a threat they posed. But because he wouldn't play the standard political games (and particularly he wouldn't kiss Louis Freeh's a$$) they ignored and marginalized him, to the point that his superiors deliberately withheld intelligence from him. Finally he left the FBI and took a job as the director of security at the WTC, and died trying to help people evacuate from one of the towers. What's particularly chilling was on September 10, 2001, he had dinner with a friend who told him, "Well at least you know they won't attack the Trade Center again, because they tried once and failed." His response was, "No, they ARE going to hit the Trade Center again. They failed once and now they're even more determined to bring the towers down." It's infuriating. I have it on DVD but I've never been able to bring myself to watch it again. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20, but this man could tell al-Qaeda was getting ready for a major attack and no one would listen to him.

@GilbertFreon it became a series in Hulu called the Looming Tower

I do not think that the real power lies with the presidency. Main reason for that thinking is two-fold. Generally, prior to presidents entering office, usually during their campaign, you will hear them speaking anti-war rhetoric, then, after coming to office, they end up doing the opposite, and it does not make any difference if they are democrat or republican, the outcome is ALWAYS more war for profit.
.
Secondly . . . . follow the money . . . where does it lead? To the Pentagon.
.
One might also listen to Voltaire . . .

"To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Now think Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange . . . .

Yes! That the Obama administration never prosecuted Bush and Cheney will forever be a stain on his Presidency for me. Had they been brought to justice the orange anus squatting in the White House would not be there.

Wait one fucking second. YES, the Pentagon WAS hit by an airplane. American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. EST.

You do a disservice to the memories and the families of the 53 passengers and the 6 crew to suggest otherwise. Witnesses saw the craft actually hit the building.

[popularmechanics.com]

No, Tower 7 was not hit by a plane. Burning debris from the twin towers struck the building and started numerous fires, which the firefighting system couldn't handle. First responders were already overwhelmed by the disasters of that day and having evacuated the building, realized they couldn't save it and the team was pulled out. There was no way to stop the building's collapse.

[popularmechanics.com]

The 9/11 attack was an Al Qaeda operation from start to finish. And since that day, the planners of the attack have indeed been brought to justice for the most part, one way or another.

One of the things I can't forget about 9/11 is learning, in the aftermath, how self-deluding human beings are. The facts stare them straight in the face, yet they insist that there's a "hidden truth". There's no hidden truth. I saw the second plane hit the Tower. I saw the Towers fall live. I will never and can never forget what I saw. And I'll never stop telling the truth that you conspiracy theorists are full of shit.

@David1955 @mcgeo52 @paul4747
[911facts.dk]
[snopes.com]

There is all kinds of evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, and the government is much to inefficient to pull off some grand hoax such as what is suggested, and it doesn't make sense that they would anyways.

It would be like cutting your arm off to get insurance money. We still haven't recovered economically from the loss of the world trade centers, literally no part of the conspiracy makes any sense.

Just because we don't have clear video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon doesn't automatically mean it wasn't a plane, it just means we don't have clear footage of it happening. What we do have is tons of eye witness from first responders, several pictures of the damage including fallen light posts and torn up ground ( a missile wouldn't do that ) and the bodies of those who were on the plane.

Besides, the claim that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon is shifting the burden of proof. Conspiracy theorists always denounce credible evidence whenever they can. Where is the evidence it was something else?

Do you think we landed on the moon? Just wondering how far your conspicuous theory mind goes

@David1955 There's a very clear photo in the linked article. I'm certain a web search would turn up more, even though most photos were official evidence and not widely released. And there's absolutely NO reason to doubt this account:
' Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"'

@Paul4747, to quote the article you posted re the Pentagon:
"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen.""

So, one wing hit the ground??? The pictures of the lawn in front of the hole prove this theory is complete bullshit.

Each of the wings either:
a) went into the building, or
b) were knocked off the fuselage and stayed outside the building, or
c) didn't exist.

Those are the only three choices other than "they evaporated", which didn't happen.

We can rule out "a" since neither wing was found on the lawn. We can also rule out "b" since neither wing was found in the building.

To put things in perspective , each wing had an engine attached to it that was larger than an ambulance and smaller than a fire truck. I use those two particular objects a references because they were clearly visible in pictures of the Pentagon lawn. Those engines had parts, made from alloys that would not simply evaporate, as large as that ambulance. Where are they???

@Paul4747, if you want accounts that I have no reason to doubt, watch this video:

I dare you to watch the first ten minutes of it.

@Paul4747, @Happy_Killbot, where is all of the evidence you claim exists? There is not a single video from over a dozen cameras that should have captured it. Where were the engines that were on the 757? Each of those was larger than the ambulance on the Pentagon lawn. Those things don't just evaporate.

BTW, it wasn't the entire government. It was a small group of highly placed people who stood to profit from "a Pearl Harbor for our generation."

@Marcie1974, I have talked with astronauts and have no reason to believe that we did not land on the moon. That did not require any violations of the laws of physics.

On the other hand, the magic bullet theory required to explain the Warren Commission's version of JFK's assassination is completely absurd. I was not at all surprised when a Congressional inquiry concluded that the Warren Commission reported was not what happened.

Believing that a tower designed to take the impact of a 747 was taken down by a 757 would be a major stretch. To believe that three towers, each designed to take the direct impact of a 747, could be taken down by two 757s is too much.

I remember watching the two towers collapse and my initial reaction was, "This looks too much like controlled demolition." Then I watched the way Tower 7 came down and it was undoubtedly a classic demo job.

Other than 9/11 there is no case ever of any steel framed skyscraper collapsing due to fire. Nor were there any cases of airplanes evaporating when they hit a building.

To answer your question, I examine the evidence and decide whether or not to believe the official story. Believe it or not, the people in charge will lie if it benefits them.

@Paul4747 to use the quote you posted:
' Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"'

1. "I held in my hand the tail section of the plane." No. The tail section of the plane is bigger than him. No way he held it in his hand.

2. "I found the black box." No again. He was "he first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash." At around 3:40 a.m. on September 14, a paramedic and a firefighter who were searching through the debris of the impact site found two dark boxes, about 1.5 feet (46 cm) by 2 feet (61 cm) long. They called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB employee confirmed that these were the flight recorders ("black boxes" ) from American Airlines Flight 77.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the load of fertilizer you are selling.

@mcgeo52 You are shifting the burden of proof. In America you are inocent until proven guilty, we don't have to provide any evidence that a provide any evidence that it wasn't a plane.

Where is your evidence?

@mcgeo52 why don't you believe this? Is it because you are unwilling to accept truth or because it doesn't fit with your proposed narative, so you just deny it?

Conspiracy theorists are interesting people, unwilling to accept reality so they create a shell of lies to protect themselves. Reality just wants to be loved, but you want to think it's something it's not.

@mcgeo52 If I found a 1-foot piece from a landing gear 12 feet long, and picked it up, I would very likely say "I'm holding the landing gear". You're quibbling over the wording of an emotional response from a man accused of being part of a government cover-up.

Anyone who knows anything about the flight data recorder knows that they are in fact bright orange, so they can be found after a crash. Whatever source you're quoting is fertilizer, and probably artificial fertilizer. I can provide sources for my quotes. Why don't you?

@Happy_Killbot, you made a claim with no proof. Asking you to prove your initial claim is NOT shifting the burden of proof. Prove your claim.

@mcgeo52 I did prove my claim, what are you talking about?

@Happy_Killbot, I believe what the facts prove. Why don’t you? Is the truth too uncomfortable for you?

@mcgeo52 Is cognitive dissonance your default state?

@Paul4747, the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were recovered on Friday, September 14.
[usatoday30.usatoday.com]

@Happy_Killbot, if you proved your claim I must have missed it. Where is the picture of the remains of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

@mcgeo52 paul4747s first link has a picture of a piece of debris. The other pieces are under the rubble from the pentagon collapsing.

@Happy_Killbot, if you brought that picture of one tiny piece of debris into court as proof, you would be lucky if the judge only laughed at you instead of finding you in contempt. Were is the proof?

@mcgeo52 you're shifting the burden of proof again.

The question is if that picture was brought into court would the claim that a plane didn't hit the pentagon hold up?

Inocent until proven guilty!

@mcgeo52 This source says nothing like what you posted about "dark gray boxes" being found.

So, you're challenging one account of the flight recorder being found with a different account of the flight recorder being found, to say that no flight recorder was found, because it wasn't a plane?

The wing and engines didn't sit intact out on the lawn, they hit at hundreds of miles per hour and shattered into their component parts.

As for your earlier replies (which I hadn't noticed until now), you postulate a conspiracy between Al Qaeda to hijack at least 3 airliners (2 that hit the Towers and 1 that was crashed into the field outside Shanksville PA), and the US Government to demolish the Towers with explosives that were somehow smuggled in and placed, without anyone noticing, and set up on the exact floors that the planes were then crashed into so it wouldn't look suspicious when the Towers started collapsing from a different level than the ones the planes hit? So the hijackers were expert enough to hit an exact floor of the WTC, give or take 10, and pick a different level on each tower?

The towers actually did survive being hit by the 757s. The crashes did not take them down. The fires that burned for almost an hour weakened the structural components, already damaged by the collision, finally causing the collapse. Had first reponders been able to concentrate on a single tower, who knows? They may have been able to save the building. But it was never anticipated that two airliners would be deliberately crashed by terrorists into both towers at once. We did not fathom the evil that our enemies were capable of. And I use that word deliberately.

I personally cannot fathom those who insist that "the truth" is other than the truth, and insist that the REAL enemies are in here with us; and no matter how much evidence is brought out, it's just wrong, because it doesn't go along with the idea of the REAL truth.

@Happy_Killbot, I am not shifting the burden of proof. You have yet to provide a single convincing piece of evidence to back your initial assertion. You are the one who claimed that hijackers did it. They are, as you point out, innocent until proven guilty. So far, the jury is voting to acquit.

@mcgeo52 We are past that point, we fought several wars over them hijacking planes, that trial is over. What we are talking about is if something else hit the pentagon, for which there is no evidence to support. We dragged their bodies out of the wreckage, we found the black box, we have photo evidence of the scene. How is any of that even possible if they didn't do it?

You are making an assertion that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, and it was something else. That claim has no evidence, you might as well as insist it was Santa Claus.

The perpetrators are not on trial here, its a few supposed top officials working behind the scenes, conspirators if you will, who are on trial. Therefore you need to provide evidence that they did it, and quite frankly you don't even have proof that any such people exist!

@Paul4747, I never said that the planes had to hit an exact floor on either tower. I am saying that all three towers were rigged for demolition. Yes, it was an inside job that required the cooperation of the owner of the towers, and the company responsible for the security of the towers.

Why would Larry Silverstein want his towers demolished?

1. They were in need of renovation but, because of all of the asbestos used in their construction, that would have been cost prohibitive.
2. They were fully insured, so he would get the money when they came down. They were actually doubly insured against a terrorist attack, and he was paid double.

Why would the security company cooperate?

1. Silverstein told them to.
2. The owners of the company were in on the deal for their own reasons. Securacom, as the company was then known, was backed by the Kuwait-American Corp. The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Securacom, and Walker and Marvin Bush and are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period. In case you don't recognize those two names, Marvin Bush is W's younger brother and Wirt (his nickname for Herbert) Walker was his cousin. Through their holdings in defense contractors, the Bush/Walker family profited immensely from the two wars we were lied into based on 9/11.

Call me a cynic, but when the money trail lines up that well with the physical evidence, I know what I am going to believe.

Speaking of the money trail, there was also the matter of the $2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 was unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget. The team in the Pentagon assigned to investigate the "shortfall" was in the office that took the direct hit on 9/11. Not to worry; there were offsite backup copies of everything. Care to guess where? You win the grand prize if said Tower 7.

In short, there was more than enough motive and opportunity for an inside job.

@Happy_Killbot, we are not past that point. That case was never proven in court. The fact we were lied into those wars is a matter of record. The "attack" was part of the lies until you prove otherwise.

As for who did it, read my response to @Paul4747.

@mcgeo52 Actually, there were several trials.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[independent.co.uk]
[huffpost.com]
[nytimes.com]

The 5 individuals who haven't had trial are in legal limbo because of the use of enhanced interrogation used to coerce evidence from them.
[nytimes.com]

Also I found this picture.

@mcgeo52 Watch this video, it should clear some things up.

@Happy_Killbot, where in any of what you posted does it prove that terrorists were responsible for 9/11? Hint: Nowhere.

The only thing that comes close is the statement by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessing to 9/11, organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the Bali nightclub bombings; and Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing. Talk about a self-aggrandizing twat. He ranks right up there with Trump on both that and creditability.

P.S. Cute picture. Did you get it for free with six packets of Kool-Aid mix?

@Happy_Killbot, cute video. Not proof of anything.

@Happy_Killbot, unlike you I have a life. If you actually find real proof, please let me know. Until then feel free to keep drinking the Kool-Aid, but this conversation is over.

@mcgeo52 The actual real proof has been there for 18 years. The same people who attacked the USS Cole, who made coordinated attacks on our embassies worlwide, who had plotted to hijack a dozen airliners and blow them up over the Pacific (luckiliy that failed), were the conspirators in the 9/11 attacks.

I doubt you've considered the cockpit voice recordings, the phone calls from passangers on the hijacked planes, the mass confusion of the government's response, all pointing to the complete shock of this event which nobody saw coming on that day- except for a very few antiterrorism experts, who had been warning about something like it for years.

To claim that this was a conspiracy also posits that it was an alliance between the US Government and Al Qaeda. You have to show a single scrap of evidence for that. Also, explain how not a single tenant of the building (thousands escaped) ever reported seeing the demolition materials being moved in. How no camera footage survived showing it being placed. How a government that can't cover up a President getting oral sex from an intern and is utterly incompetent at almost anything it does, according to its critics, is also so amazingly competent at this conspiracy. And how not one of the hundreds of people who would have to be involved has not come forward by now to reveal their role. It would make them millions in talk show fees and book deals, and yet they remain silent. That goes against human nature- just like the so-called JFK conspiracy. (By the way- that was Oswald acting alone.)

Go drink your kool-aid, maybe get a dog, read the 9/11 commission report, and come to terms with reality. Massive conspiracies don't exist for long without being revealed. The best clue that this wasn't one? You still have no evidence, just sinister allegations.

Yep, this conversation is over.

@Paul4747, are you aware that those phone calls were impossible give the technology available to the passengers?

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Interesting. Another interesting 9/11 story is how we (CIA) killed Alliende in 1973

[en.wikipedia.org]

And don't forget the 9th legion who made the mistake of crossing Hadrian's wall and were never heard of again.

@Moravian those dem pixies

And which president during the 90's cut defense spending?

Our unbelievable and constant meddling in the Middle East created 9/11. It doesn't justify what they did in my eyes, but my eyes don't count. We are very childish when it comes to accepting responsibility for for the problems we create when the stupid shit we do backfires on us.

Fake "history" and the billionaires remain free for murdering many of the victims

You know really horrible things happen in a lot of places. Just look what is happening in Gaza with your money for instance.

No I'm not . I'm guessing you are, so what do you want us to remember?

@Jolanta You are not from NY or Gaza. We think about people. Thats what we remember. A memorial is generally not a political discussion..its a fucking memorial. So you can honor that people love each other and grieve and comfort each other or you can join westboro baptist church I guess

@thinkwithme Have a lovely day, but for your information just in case you didn’t notice you are not from Gaza or New York either. Wanker.

I am from NYC. I hate the whole never forget because we have already forgotten. We have forgotten about the first responders who need help, we forgot it was the Saudis who did this and the Bush family who evacuated them on 9/12. We forgot that not no one had ever won a war or invasion of Afghanistan. We, as a collective whole in this country forget a lot.

@GreatNani At the rate thiongs are happening in this country, "never forget" will become a common phrase..

@Jolanta I think I know where Im from and that you do not know. I have to admit it upset me to see the wording to suggest its my money as though I personally fund the Gaza attacks. Blaming all Americans seems part of the ideology that allowed it to happen. Its very sad and I just ask respect for families friends neighbors for their loved ones and to help them

@IAJO163 yes, that is the truth!

@LimitedLight Seems like when I drive 3 hours west of the city, I'm in Pennsylvania ..

@GreatNani On the family that was evacuated, I remember when this article was published and this line stuck out to me.. "I understand now that when you are innocent, in the face of emotion, nothing, not even common sense, can help argue your case." [cbsnews.com] If he was estranged from his family, what would have allowed them to keep those people here? I think the arguement that they feared for their lives is pretty feasible. You can look at the list of hate crimes recorded by Southern Poverty Law that year ..[splcenter.org] They need to fund the first responders. I'm not sure where you're going with never winning a war with Afghanistan, unless you mean maybe blowing more people up isn't the answer. That's a good idea to consider

@thinkwithme my point was we evacuated the saudis because we knew they were responsible for the attack and then shifted our attention to a war with the wrong people. A war in a country that has never been conquered. Because saudia Arabia means money. And no one cares about the suffering people in Afghanistan. And of course no one learns from history. Afghanistan is unwinnable.

@GreatNani I didn't do that. I'm not sure you really want to use the word we. Are you stating that George Bush had confessions, witnesses, recordings, emails, videos, something to show the individuals who returned to Saudi Arabia were directly complicit, either in orchestrating or knowingly funding the attacks, and W sent them back anyway? How do you know? Unless, you think we should have rounded up all the Saudis and put them in internment camps..Bin Ladin had 49 siblings. Some people have one sibling and they don't what she's doing. I remember the going to war with Iraq over WMD that no one found. I remember thinking did W lie about it or did someone else lie to him about it or make a mistake in thinking they were there or were there WMD that disappeared somehow to where no one could find them. There's a lot of shit that we haven't forgotten, but that we really don't know. Judges very often have a difficult time when they do their job and a lot of times its impossible.

@thinkwithme I am using we in the collective sense. And no I am not advocating that we should have rounded up all saudis and put them in camps. Not sure where you think I said that. I believe I was quite clear that we have a vested interest in propping up Saudi Arabia at the expense of our own people and also deflecting the American publics attention for the Saudis and directing it to people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

@LimitedLight it is always about money. Truly. Follow the money and you can see everything.

@Imatheistically well the suiciders were not atheists but the planners may or may not have been. for them it was political. i know some muslims who are not terrorists. in fact none of the muslims i know are terrorists. i am encountering some pretty virulent bigots here and there, though. genocidally exterminated? so what makes you, an atheist like me, so great if you can say a thing like that? feh. not even worth arguing with someone who says that. i am not typing this for your benefit but for the benefit of others who may be reading this and not happen to favor genocide.

g

p.s. what makes you better than isul or al kaeda if you too are willing to indulge in genocide?

oh look, he deleted his response, which is fine except that now it looks as if what i said was purely judgmental. this is to what i was responding:

"Imatheistically 6 replied Sep 12, 2019 0
They sure as hell were not atheists! When they screamed, "Allah Akbar" as they crashed each plane, what religion was that a declaration of? Christianity? Islam is a god-damned death cukt whose terrorist adherents neef to be genocidally exterminated off this planet!"

so you see, i am not the one who brought up genocide.

g

Thank you for a reasoned response

@genessa thank you for clarifying what you were responding to.

@Redheadedgammy lol i had no idea he had deleted his post, but fortunately i had copied it up to show someone on facebook (as an example of a bad attitude) so i was able to reproduce it. otherwise, i would have had to explain without being able to show it.

g

@OwlInASack well, i don't know about edits... what if they're for a typo? you have to preserve typos forever? rofl! but i do see your point. i was lucky.

g

@OwlInASack i've been known to zap a few lol

g

@ToolGuy Your statement is inaccurate, excessively emotional and not logic. Inasmuch as the topic was not "guns", if you were a woman I would suspect a hormonal issue.

@Bushshaker Forget ToolGuy, he is one of those Canadians whose hubris allows him to stick their nose in American politics.

@Bushshaker It always amazes me that Aussies, Brits, and Canadians seem to think that their opinions on American politics (especially gun control),should hold any weight. Conversely, I personally have not read any post from an American concerning the politics of those countries.

@Bushshaker I agree with the erosion of freedom and the advance into an Orwellian dystopia, not do sure about the gun thing, but then I’m not American.

Certainly the UK sell them bucketloads of arms.

Found it!

[johnpavlovitz.com]

The American people only "pull together" under extreme circumstances, and only for short periods of time. It has always been that way.
I will never understand why people think we've never been more divided.
We've always been divided. We aren't any more divided now than we've been before.
There are way too many people in this country who have NO idea of our history.
The "good old days" NEVER existed. Never.

@KKGator I disagree somewhat. I feel like smaller communities, neighborhoods, what have you do look out for each other, especially in times of need. Definitely not on a national scale but communities do.

But I tend to be an optimist

@Marcie1974 You go right ahead and continue to be an optimist.
Somebody's gotta do it.

@KKGator You have a point but one thing bears noting. Republicans love to sing the praises of Ronald Reagan, but if Reagan were around today, he would take today's GOP leaders into a back room somewhere and ream their a$$es eight ways from Sunday. Reagan despised liberals and Democrats, but at least he was willing to work with them to make compromises and get things done. He would be appalled at the way today's Republicans just refuse to do anything. Anyway, just my $.02.

@KKGator "The "good old days" NEVER existed. Never." You got it, exactly. I agree.

@dahermit there’s always going to be good and bad about every era.

@Marcie1974 My pont is that in depends what social-economic level you are from determines if you can view ANY era as "the good old days".

@Marcie1974 the only reference I have is the English Village mentality.

In those small communities labelling, segregation, oneupmanship, behind the gloss veneer of quaint and innocent, is rife.

Smal communities can be toxic and harsh.