So what is the conspiracy? - The Tillman Story (2010) Discussion

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

The documentary is unlikely to bring down the military, it's intention is to document to the public what is known about Pat Tillman's death, and perhaps push for additional truths. The cover up is the known conspiracy here. Whether he was purposely killed is unknown. From all I have read, seen and heard, it looks like Pat was killed by a sharpshooter.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Charlie_Strom 14 years ago

Basically, it was very early into the campaign, and Tillman was very vocal about the dislike of the Administration, and was planning to write a book. His mother had an article in the SF Chronicle soon after his death, and thats when Anne Coulter went after the Tillman (she was heavily criticized). Of course, McChrystal and Company lied and or covered-up circumstances, because the whole Iraq WMD was a lie...it was early, and the Tilman hero thing had to be sold to the American public to continue public support for a war that was already beginning head South on them after Abu-Gharib and Fallujah.

The cover-up revealed that members of Tillman's unit burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire, and their was evidence that he was probably "fragged" - shot at close range.

Army attorneys congratulated each other in emails for impeding criminal investigation as they concluded Tillman's death was the result of friendly fire, and that only administrative, or non-criminal, punishment was indicated.

It was a disgrace to a National Hero. Wont be the first time,for the military and it sure wont be the last.

reply

[–] pawalsh 14 years ago

Hey why is he a national hero? are you saying he's like George Washington or Abe Lincoln because he played football then joined the Army...He did what all Americans should of done after we were attacked...support our country...I'm glad the true story came out of what happen to Mr. Tillman...but to use his death to either support or disgrace the goverment or the Army is the last thing anybody should be doing...thats why I'm very leery of these so called documentary films there always political one way or another. Mr Tillmans family is upset, there gonna grieve then accept his death. We have people killed everyday by drunk drivers...drivers that had their drivers license taken away countless times but always get the 2nd, 3rd and 4th times to drive again risking people and there's never this much press about it...to me thats worst then my unit accidently shooting me in a firefight with the enemy.
Mr Tillman joined to serve his country and died doing so he wasnt drafted or forced to go and I think he would be upset having a bunch of strangers or even his family members using his life to push their cause. It's a war not a conspiracy class 101.

reply

[–] dmhyche 14 years ago

Why is he a hero? Because young men do not join the military for the hell of it. Look at the demographics, they are all from lower income families and usually do it because they cannot afford the luxury to go off to college, or in some cases, even work a minimum wage job. He's a hero because he CHOSE to go and gave up millions of dollars. No other person I can think of that had enough gave it all up. Ideally, people should volunteer to fight for our country, as you say, but the Jeffersonian days like that are LONG gone. War is a BUSINESS now that preys on the poor kids from the day they enter high school. The fact that 9/11 and the war on terror is a farce and is no different than the Gulf of Tonkin makes the Tillman story all the more of a tragedy.

reply

[–] Bulletcatcher 14 years ago

The fact that 9/11 and the war on terror is a farce and is no different than the Gulf of Tonkin makes the Tillman story all the more of a tragedy.

WTF? "Fact"? Do you have hard proof you can take to a courtroom and defend?

No?

Didn't think so.

Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis!

reply

[–] Charlie_Strom 14 years ago

WTF? "Fact"? Do you have hard proof you can take to a courtroom and defend?

No?

Didn't think so.

If they arent going to try the case, or admit Able Danger or any of the other smoking guns, of course, JACKASS.

do you really want to go there, son?

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?

THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspec ts,0,1825231.story

THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?

GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?

Try to understand the longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Laden (who was also a CIA asset during the Afghanistan War)

Water's too deep here, son. Why not read a little bit about the real world.

reply

[–] JaffaCakes 13 years ago

You forget one other thing.

They assasinated Osama Bin Laden so he wouldn't corroborate some of the stuff if he could have stood in a court of law.

I read all your points. Very interesting. Almost like connecting all the dots over this long saga.

I would have read it with humor, but I have doubts now.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gayfordeniro 12 years ago

As said already, the conspiracy was to exploit this death to beat the war drum. Then when it emerged to be friendly fire, it seems people washed their hands clean. I think the movie could've done more to investigate however, particularly by getting the officer that took the fall to point his finger.

I just want to say that posters like 'Charlie Strom' are no better than the government exploiters - he's using this case to prop up his own argument for wide-conspiracy. His claims are rubbish by the way - there are/were many famous people that were taken seriously when voicing their doubts about the legitimacy of the war, for example the people Tillman was reading, Chomsky etc. It would make more sense to kill these people surely. Why go to the effort to purposely kill Tillman, where if he came out against the war he would probably be smeared as 'extreme left' like others anyway. There are many other outrageous premises, such as the US Army has a secret 'friendly fire sniper division' as well.

And the conspiracy for US to attack its WTC, i'm not going to say much, but more of his arguments go like this: there's doubt about some fact (usually due to an official's quote/statement, press coverage - which are always reliable)+ there was intent to go to war = conspiracy. You don't have to consider the idea for very long to see it's outrageous; you need a smart and incredibly well-organised group, including CIA, governemnt officials at multiple levels, multiple governments, multiple nations giving efficient and water-tight information and all beleiving the means are worth the ends. There'd be whistleblowers with the dubious moral grounds - there was with the Tillman case for example. And if this operation occured, why couldn't the same individuals put together even a tiny bit of water tight evidence proving Iraq was in on it?

Charlie Strom et al, go away.

reply

[–] Calabashe 12 years ago

The film was based on Mary Tillman's book, "Boots on the Ground Before Dusk". She led the 'family's' investigations and took them as far as she could. To come up with any solid conclusion would have been speculation and accusation without solid proof.

Pat Sr. has said publicly he believes there are 3 possible scenarios but he never went into detail on camera. I'm guessing the 3 are:

1. An accidental friendly fire incident.
2. A personal case of jealousy and revenge.
3. A political assassination.

As a personal friend of Pat's, I never completely let go the third but that's strictly opinion. I'm most disturbed by a missing drone recording of the event.

Noam Chomsky was one of many authors Pat read. You rarely saw him without a book at hand. It is true politically Pat did generally lean Left. IMHO, He and Kevin enlisting proves the patriotism is not the sole property of the Right.

Ret General Kensinger (the fall guy) did participate in the film and told what he knew.

I don't know anything about the other cases you cite so I'll not comment but THX for your thoughts.

reply

[–] gayfordeniro 12 years ago

A personal friend of Pat's?

Does it anger you to see individuals speculate about these events to meet their agenda, and then push that onto others?

Questions do need answering in this case, but that's as far as we should go (and the documentary has gone).

reply

[–] Calabashe 12 years ago

Does it anger you to see individuals speculate about these events to meet their agenda, and then push that onto others?

Yes it did. It angered the family too. I can safely say that without betraying any trust. There was a time when Mary spoke publicly and privately of 'real Pat' not the media 'super hero' of or the fantasy version Jon Krakaur created in his near fairytale, never mind the recruitment tool the administration/military wanted US to believe.

Pat was a very honest dude. Party because of his poker face - LOL - He really didn't have one. If he told something less than truth - you could tell immediately so he never did, 'cept of course the none-of-your-business questions. Point being Pat was a man who just didn't deserve to be buried in lies.

That was one of the reasons the family agreed to the film and was allowed great say in it's content. It was an honest story of a man more humble than one might suspect regardless of the 'primal animal' let out on the gridiron. It was of the Pat I knew. The family wanted to take back 'real Pat'. I think they did it.

reply

[–] Starvenus 9 years ago



reply

[–] timartnut 14 years ago

lol you got PWND .....

Misspelling words on purpose does not make you cool.

reply

[–] Charlie_Strom 14 years ago

I always wondered what the f#%k are people deluding themselves into protecting? American honor? Patriotism?

A lot of those in denial about 9/11 face the crucial question...if our government has killed others abroad, why wouldnt they sacrifice American lives, here?

Many thought Tillman would be ashamed that his career was politically manipulated. I think he'd be ashamed at the lack of courage by many Americans to not challenge the administration that led them down the tortuous path of war. On this Sept 11th, many should look back and ask themselves Will we allow a Patriot Act again? Allow a Congress to be bullied into a war without proof of WMD, etc.

reply

[–] Bulletcatcher 14 years ago

So, take your stack of internet printouts and go to court.

Good luck with that.

You have zero (0) hard evidence of anything even hinting at US government complicity in the attacks by Al Qaeda. Nothing.

You allude to nothing but circumstantial things. That won't hold water in a court of law.

Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis!

reply

[–] Charlie_Strom 13 years ago

.

"You have zero (0) hard evidence of anything even hinting at US government complicity in the attacks by Al Qaeda. Nothing. "

I think "bulletcatcher" is a very appropriate name.

LOL at the "pride" of the comment. Were going to kill people and have soldiers die for absolutely NOTHING but the wealth of those above us, and i for one, am very, very proud of that.

pathetic. No wonder were in two wars.

reply

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

To prove a case you need:
- means
- motive
- opportunity

All these are easily provable.

Circumstantial evidence is admissable in court of law by the way.
Get your facts straight.

reply

[–] migity 14 years ago

That was so gratifying to witness. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Perhaps now he/she will do some research of their own and wake up as I did 5 years ago.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Resistance Is Victory

reply

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

erm....
you must have missed the last 10 years....
All the supposed hijackers were Saudis....
We invaded Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 911 with the justification of Saddam harboring WMDs.
No WMDs, No 911 involvement.
Does that clarify it for you?

Can take to courtroom and prosecute not defend!
Capice?
Didn't think so...

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zvelf-1 13 years ago

Nobody has to use Tillman's death to disgrace the goverment or the Army. They did that to themselves.

reply

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

Oh Iraqis attacked us? Really? I missed that part. Where you get your news exactly?

That's what the Nazis did too - burn the Reichstag - blame it on the commies and invade Russia...

reply

[–] mulhollandpsycho 12 years ago

It was the U.S. Army and officials as high as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who started the 'hero' line for Pat Tillman. They created the idea that he was killed by enemy fire. That alone qualifies a soldier for 'hero' status. However, Tillman was killed by other U.S. soldiers, a fact that the armed services officials were determined to keep from the Tillman family.

It is not the fact that Pat Tillman was killed while serving in a war that earned him a documentary. It is the conspiracy of government officials to lie to a family and America that has made this situation worthy of a documentary.

reply

[–] dmhyche 14 years ago

I'm not debating 9/11. I've given up with it. If you want to know for yourself, I would research it and make your own mind up. There's some truth and some *beep* and it's muddled like that on purpose to make any ideas lose credibility.

Maybe the very bottom guys go to prison, etc., but still, it's mostly low income families. There's no reason you wouldn't go to the military if you were well off. The kids from wealthy backgrounds usually wind up being the generals and high up. Bush was a bum playboy that did NOTHING but get in trouble and he became our president.

______________________________________________________________
Free your mind from the matrix,

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?Itemid=50

reply

[–] tetrahex 13 years ago

problem they want answers, but what answer is there beyond the simple one, some guys got trigger happy and friendly fired him.

while a war is on going they just aren't going to drop everything for one guy.

as for folks pushing 9/11 conspiracies, you've lost the plot.

reply

[–] Charlie_Strom 13 years ago

..."as for folks pushing 9/11 conspiracies, you've lost the plot."

Think that Tillman was asking the wrong questions, and was contacting some people regarding why they were in Afghanistan, and he got "friendlied". Then they made him out to be a hero in this - the family wasnt having it. It backfired very badly on conservatives, and the film was going to set the record straight. "some guys got trigger happy is the typical dumb ass *beep* happens" mentality that runs opinions. Some people hold the Government to a much higher standard, especially when its their family killed.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein

reply

[–] bendover-ho 13 years ago

The movie makes no claim of any underlying conspiracy, because there is unsufficient evidence so support it.
What it demonstrates very clearly is that the government told a direct lie in order to serve its purpose and even after that was pointed out by the Tillmans, the system failed to investigate this thoroughly and all the people responsible were permitted to walk away with a smile on their faces. That just makes me sick.

And if you dont see a problem in all this then Yippee-ki-yay, *beep* enjoy your U S of *beep* A.

reply

[–] pawalsh 13 years ago

I bet if you took an honest poll most of the pro conspiracy guys would admitt to smoking pot daily and the anti conspiracy guys don't ha! ha!....Gov Jesse Ventura ring a bell. How does one research 911 conspiarcies anyways? the internet, tv, books!!! and what opened your eyes to the truth 5 years ago? the folded up one dollar bill showing the smoking twin towers? the bible code? what was it?...maybe just maybe a well organized, trained, dedecated terrorist cell just happen to take advantage of our open free society and used it against us, oh we'll you'll beleive what you want and I'll beleive what I want. And please don't down the men and women of the military there not the bottom of society barrel, some of us just wanted to make the US (and the world for all you hating America hippies) a better place, your speaking out of your A@*.....did you ever serve? or just sit on the sideline watching and thinking you know it all.
No disrespect meant just a question it's not a statement. And don't forget to look into why was moammar gadhafi son her in the US when the new war started...anybody got any thing, I know W is gone,is his people still to blame?
Peace and God bless

reply

[–] obelix99 13 years ago

9/11 is absolutely an inside job. Those that think it's a stupid conspiracy haven't gotten off their fat asses to do any research. Because if you did 1 hour worth of research, you'd have at least 100 questions. But most Americans don't want to take an hour to do research because it would cut into their precious Dancing withe the Stars or American Idol.

Over 1400 architects and engineers wants 9/11 to be re-investigated because there's no way in hell that two planes hit two building causing 3 to collapse into its footprint at free fall speed. Those things happens in movies, but they certainly don't in real life.

It's time America wake the hell up.

reply

[–] pawalsh 13 years ago

Ok you believe everything you read and all Americans are fat assed and watch to much dancing with the stars. You really need more of a case then this for me to believe it. 1 u don't like America because you say were all mindless fat assess 2 Over 1400 architects and engineers wants 9/11 to be re-investigated because there's no way in hell that two planes hit two building causing 3 to collapse into its footprint at free fall speed.
Only 2 fell at first, tower 7 fell after 1 & 2 towers landed on them if I remember right and don't forget the buildings were built with the outside used as the metal support not like a conventional building with a metal skeleton frame, so the burning fuel would cause the concrete floors to pancake and fall on themselves.
My biggest problem I have with people saying it was an inside job is why would Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda take credit and claim to doing it? the entire worlds media would have to be in on this claim of what your saying to blame al quada and not investigate the US goverment which I can't see happening. You don't like the US and all the worlds newspapers, intel agencys ect do like us enough that they would fabercate this as an attack with us and over look it if we did for some strange reason to kill 3000 people on US soil. Let me guess it was for the oil right, the oil were buying now off the same arab and south american people we were buying it off of before 9/11/01,. What's changed since 9/11/2001 that bennifed us for us to attack ourselves?

reply

[–] vbenesh 13 years ago

Charlie_Strom, I would like you to provide factual evidence for every point you tried making before I can even begin to believe 2% of it. You just presented thousands of words worth of conspiracies (and probably blatant lies) without presenting any truly factual evidence and/or references to back any of it up. Congratulations, you failed and wasted plenty of time in the process.

reply

[–] downder55 13 years ago

vbenesh, how about you quit being lazy, and research for yourself. Take time to weigh and balance both sides of the conspiracy instead of awaiting on someone else to present the information to you. I do find it very peculiar when people refuse to incorporate bits of factual evidence, but rather dismiss it as conspiracy (even though conspiracies are made every day by all people). A conspiracy theory is essentially a criminal investigation, where as some are strong and some are weak. But because conspiracies can be investigated by all walks of life, the "criminal investigation" can be convoluted with personal opinions, and inefficient research. Still, the 9/11 conspiracy is an extremely strong conspiracy which can incline anyone to accept that the U.S was most definitely aware of a terrorist attack to occur. I talked to a professor of mine, and he stated that the happening of the attack was just because of sloppy action by the federal govt. But if that were to be the case, was the Tillman lie merely because of sloppy misinformation. Was the October Surprise event merely because of sloppy choices by the conservative related officials...etc. "Sloppy action" is essentially a cop out of a more underlying truth that has potential evidence. As a history major, one cannot accept a "sloppy" perspective of an event. There is a concise happening for any historical event, but its convoluted through bias and individual analysis'...therefore as rational thinkers, we must strive to cooperate and uncover this consise happening.

I saw the documentary tonight (ironically on pat's death), and its a terrible, terrible shame. I'm not surprised our federal govt. used his death as a propaganda tool, but it was heartbreaking listening to the family's story. Mike Ruppert and his investigative team in 'From the Wilderness' did an excellent job covering this.

reply

[–] obelix99 13 years ago

God Pawalsh...what are you? The 9/11 Commission? Where did you come up with all your *beep*

1. Tower 7 as you put it, did not fall because the other two towers 'fall on them'. Get your facts straight. The 9/11 report didn't even mention Bldg 7 in their report. But the official story would tell it that the building caught on fire due to the debris from tower 1 and 2. The fire cause the building to collapse. This is the *beep* No fires have ever brought down a building EVER. Not before 9/11. Not after 9/11. Yet on 9/11 3 fell because of fire. Coincidence? The fact that they fell at free fall speed doesn't raise a question mark in your brain? Even if the building pancaked, there's no scenario where a pancaked building could collapse at free fall speed. None. Did you even take physics in school? How about the pools of molten metal found underneath all 3 towers? They were there for at least a month burning at over 2500 degrees. Still no questions?

2. Your story about Bin Laden had me giggling. It's obvious...painfully odious that you believe everything you are told by our government. Now let me educate you and maybe you can do some thinking. Days after 9/11, Bin Laden said he had nothing to do with it. But then in November, they found a tape in an Afghanistan cave that would show Bin Laden sitting next to his buddies taking claim for it. Really? What movie is this from? I commit the crime of the century, tape it, then leave the tape in a cave to be found by American soldiers? What movie is this from? ON top of that, if you look at the tape, you can clearly see that Bin Laden.....DOESN'T look like Bin Laden? It's so funny that you think this is real. In fact, Bin Laden has always worked for the CIA under the name Tim Osman. We trained him in Afghanistan, we armed him, we supported him. When things go bad, we can just blame him. Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11 but he makes one hell of a boogieman. If he was responsible for 9/11, it would have listed 9/11 on the FBI report. It doesn't. That should tell you something. They have no hard evidence to connect him to 9/11.

DO some more research pal. I've done mine. Your attempt at trying to explain 9/11 only makes you look stupid and make me laugh. Thanks for trying but you can chalk this up as a big......F A I L!!!

reply

[–] pawalsh 13 years ago

ha! ha! ok obelix99 way to keep the delusion alive man, I guess sending the Navy SEAL's in this weekend was to silent the source of truth? I stand by my post. I'm sorry a different of opinion makes you see someone as stupid and a failure, if I can only be as narrow minded as you man lol
God Bless you brother

reply

[–] IThinkImMe 13 years ago

Pay no attention to Bulletcatcher, he's a brainwashed disinfo agent. Look at his posts on other topics here on imdb and you'll see that he is in fact, a complete idiot. I for one hope he lives up to his name and catches a bullet, between the eyes

Do you think they're cognisant of how bad they got it? Lets hope not, poor b@sterds

reply

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

There is no need to believe this. The facts are there

Americans elected a moron in the form of George W Bush to lead them
American population is >30% obese by current (2010) statistics.

Case closed.

p.s. i am american by the way and not proud.

reply

[–] WWu777 13 years ago

pawalsh:

Ok you believe everything you read and all Americans are fat assed and watch to much dancing with the stars. You really need more of a case then this for me to believe it. 1 u don't like America because you say were all mindless fat assess 2 Over 1400 architects and engineers wants 9/11 to be re-investigated because there's no way in hell that two planes hit two building causing 3 to collapse into its footprint at free fall speed.
Only 2 fell at first, tower 7 fell after 1 & 2 towers landed on them if I remember right and don't forget the buildings were built with the outside used as the metal support not like a conventional building with a metal skeleton frame, so the burning fuel would cause the concrete floors to pancake and fall on themselves.
My biggest problem I have with people saying it was an inside job is why would Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda take credit and claim to doing it? the entire worlds media would have to be in on this claim of what your saying to blame al quada and not investigate the US goverment which I can't see happening. You don't like the US and all the worlds newspapers, intel agencys ect do like us enough that they would fabercate this as an attack with us and over look it if we did for some strange reason to kill 3000 people on US soil. Let me guess it was for the oil right, the oil were buying now off the same arab and south american people we were buying it off of before 9/11/01,. What's changed since 9/11/2001 that bennifed us for us to attack ourselves?

The pancake theory was debunked years ago. Not even the US government defends it anymore. They now claim an inward bowing theory. The pancake theory didn't fit the data. If it happened, there would be a stack of many floors at the bottom, and the collapse would be slow, not fast, and there would be 42 core steel columns still standing. None of that was there. Only pulverized dust was. Thus the pancake theory fits none of the data.

This is basic logic and common sense. It's sad that so many Americans like you lack basic logic. Even many children can see that the official 9/11 story was a farce. No rational person who has looked into it buys it.

The US media told you that Bin Laden admitted to 9/11. Bin Laden didn't tell you that. The US media also showed a video of Palestinians in 1994 rejoicing something, and claiming that they were rejoicing about 9/11, when that video was from 1994. Thus the US media has planted or staged false footage in the past. Your problem is that you believe everything you hear, and that authority=truth to you.

Actually, if you do the research, 9/11 has been proven to be a fraud, I mean the official version of it. This would take hours to get into. But might I suggest you see these films on 9/11? They are all available on YouTube for free and are irrefutable.

Zero: An Investigation into 9/11
9/11 Blueprint for Truth
9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out

There are now 1500 professional credible architects and engineers that say that the government's theory that fire alone caused three steel skyscrapers to fall at free fall speed and pulverize to dust, is 100 percent impossible. It's a no brainer. Even children can see that it's BS. How sad that most American adults don't see that.

http://www.ae911truth.org
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

The cell phone calls from airlines on 9/11 was also impossible. Next time you fly on an airline, turn on your cell phone during flight and you will see that it has no signal. Anyone can test this. It's another smoking gun that debunks the official 9/11 story.

In the alternative research community, there is no debate about the official story of 9/11 being a fraud. No one defends it anymore. The only question is how the perpetrators did it. That is what is being debated now.

http://www.happierabroad.com - The Overseas Solution for Single Men

reply

[–] DariusStrain 13 years ago

Most militaries in the world, I think in US as well, are quite sheltered in that they really can't be 'sued'. The military is there to protect the nation, or so they claim, but nobody really protects the people of a nation from the military.

Just some food for thought.

reply

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

Who said the documentary was supposed to bring down the US military.
Did you perhaps think it was hoping to change it rather than bringing it down?

reply