Calling Out Demolition Deniers

[Rayaan]

Dude, none of these people are telling an ounce of fact. I've heard these same people debunked. Over. And over. And over. These people aren't whistle-blowers, they're speculators and attention whores vying for 15 minutes of fame by spouting whatever sensationalist bullshit they possibly can to get cameras put in their faces; and if they happen to have a lick of knowledge "in the field" in regards to what supposedly happened, then they REALLY can cash in on it...never mind that most of these guys claim to be "engineers" or "demolitions" experts and then you dig things up on them and oh look, Michael Springmann is spewing bullshit!

And how do you know all that? I mean, have you come across anything specific that demonstrate that the whistle-blowers are actually lying?

And these people used to work in government positions and most of them, after becoming whisteblowers, were fired from their jobs and then even ignored by others. And not only that, but they have also risked their own lives by blowing the whistle, and many of them were prosecuted for doing so, while some of them are in prison right now. And they know that they could have probably made more money if they didn't blow the whistle because then they could have kept working for the government instead of being kicked out for being a whistleblower.

So, ironically, what you said about the whistleblowers are contradictory to all the unproven motives that you just attached to them yourself ...

Government Protects Criminals by Attacking Whistleblowers

Protecting Torturers, Prosecuting Whistleblowers

This moron claims he was "ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants."

One little problem: The embassy's consular officer is the one who has final authority on the issuing of visas; not the guy who oversees the bureaucratic administrative offices of the visa credentials. Without signature, documentation, and declaration by the consulate, the visa is NOT VALID. They wouldn't order the third-in-command to do shit, they'd tell the consulate to do it and this attention-whore wouldn't have even heard so much as a peep about it.

That doesn't like a problem to me, because whether or not Michael Springmann had the "final authority" on issuing visas, he was still in charge of issuing visas because he was a chief of the visa section at the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. So he was still an authority regardless, and he is telling us what happened while he was working there as head of the consulate. But if you doubt him or if you want to cast aspersions on what he is telling us, then your claims about him have less of a credibility unless you can verify them with facts and evidence because he is the authority, not you.

Sprigman testified that he rejected hundreds of shoddy and incomplete visa applications. He denied the applications at first, but then he received phone calls from CIA officers who repeatedly over-ruled him and ordered the visas to be issued even though he denied them. He complained about this to the State Department, the Justice Department, and congressional committees, and he filed FOIA requests as well, but he was just met with a blind eye for the most part.

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. [BBC, 11/6/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 11/25/2001] In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springmann denies them a visa, he gets “an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa.” Springmann refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springmann realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes “more brazen and blatant” as time goes on. On one occasion Springmann is even told, “If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind.” [CBC Radio One, 7/3/2002; Trento, 2005, pp. 344-6]

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp...bia_office


He also tells us that many of the American staff in the Department of State in Jeddah in reality were US intelligence agencies (or CIA).

See the following 3 articles on that:

There you have it. The United States of America, whose diplomatic posts are too often outposts of the CIA and NSA, was running (and, from what I can see) is likely still running a visas for terrorists program, while blaming the rest of the world for causing disasters of its own making. According to a former CIA Station Chief and a member of State's Inspector General's office, both of whom I wish to protect, at least one-third of the people who claim to work for the Department of State in reality work for one of the many U.S. intelligence agencies. In my limited experience, I would be inclined to raise that proportion which, I am inclined to believe, is increasing. (In Jeddah, all but three of the 20 or so U.S. staff worked for intelligence offices.)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Mis...5-269.html

In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. Department of State had been working hand in hand with the Saudi Arabian government, the CIA, and its asset, Osama bin Laden, to recruit fighters for the war in Afghanistan against what was then the Soviet Union. Future terrorists, recruited from all over the region as well as South Asia, were brought to Jeddah, principal city of the Hejaz, Saudi Arabia’s western province. But Jeddah, then the 5th largest visa-issuing post in the region, was not a State Department operation. Of some 20 Americans working there in 1987-1989, I can say from personal experience as then-Chief of the Visa Section that only 3 people, including myself, did not work for the CIA or the NSA (National Security Agency, the organization charged with making and breaking codes and engaging in “signals intelligence”, i.e., listening to telephone and radio communications, whether public or private).

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011...r-the-cia/

I have repeatedly been asked by journalists if I believe that the CIA was "involved" in 9/11. Such questions are sometimes attempts to discredit me as a "conspiracy theorist." I am nothing of the sort, and my answer is simple: when I was Chief of the Non-immigrant Visa Section at the United States Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, I watched dozens, if not hundreds of visa applicants who could provide no legitimate reason for visiting the US, obtain visas without difficulty. Official statements notwithstanding, the CIA was running the consulate, and protests by mere State Department employees were fruitless. In my case, such protests cost me my job.

... and a few paragraphs later ...

The CIA was (and is) heavily involved in Foreign Service posts in the Kingdom, occupying one entire floor of the embassy (possibly two), assigning case officers to high-ranking positions in Dhahran, comprising nearly the entire American staff of the consulate in Jeddah.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SPR302A.html


The last quote above rings truer when we discover that the CIA has even been operating a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia for the past two years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21350437


What is more interesting is that Springman's claim that the Jeddah consulate was heavily run by US intelligence agencies coincides with a broader investigation of the relationship between the Saudi government and the US government over the years - especially in regards to their involvement in the September attacks - according to the lead investigator of the Congressional Joint Inquiry Senator Bob Graham, his former Senate colleague Bob Kerry, as well as another CIA whistlblower named Phillip Marshall.

"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/9...tacks.html

Backed by official NTSB, FAA and black box recordings, Marshall finds the most capable and most documented group of conspirators buried deep within a Congressional Inquiry's report and retraces their work in gripping detail. Fasten your seatbelt --- the sad truth is that all of the solid evidence points to a dark collaboration between members of the Bush Administration and a covert group of Saudi government officials.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bamboozle-...1468094580

Richard Fuisz, an entrepreneur who DOES seem to have CIA connections, met with Lindauer weekly since 1994. He said that he had banned her from his office after 11 September 2001, when her ideas became "malignant" and "seditious". Lindauer later claimed that she had been a CIA asset during this period.

She may have been called "malignant" and "seditious" in the sense that she opposed or rejected whatever that Richard Fuisz was telling her to do.

And the fact that she used to have conversations and meetings with Richard Fuisz (who was an intelligence asset also), and that she learned about an attack being planned on America with explosives and airplanes even before it occurred, and that she told other people about it, and that she got banned from her office exactly on September 11, 2001, all suggest that she did have inside information about 9/11 and thus lends only more support to her claim of being a former CIA asset.

As I responded to Tiberius earlier (I know you're lurking, Tibs, can't fool me ):

Maybe she has no hard evidence for that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no good reason to support her claim either, i.e. that she worked for the CIA.

And this:

She also told some of her friends and other people about an attack on America that would occur at around August or September of 2001 and she also knew that the attack would involve the use of airplanes and explosives, which this is mentioned in many different websites, two of them which I already linked to in this post ... and all of this is more support for her claim that she did have CIA connections.

And this:

After she was finally allowed to stand in trial, it was confirmed by the witnesses present there that she was an intelligence asset and that she did warn people about 9/11.

Listen to this from 7:27 to 8:00:

---

---

And this:

Richard Fuisz being a CIA agent was also reported in a Sunday Herald newspaper in May of 2000 (as I quoted below).

It also acknowledges his connection with Susan Lindauer ... coincidence?

[snip]

http://911review.org/Lindauer/LindauerPa...Herald.txt

Going back to your comments ...

Plus her loudly repeated declarations of being an anti-war activist kind of shows, I dunno, A BIAS?? It doesn't help her case to declare these things;

I have no idea at all how just being an anti-war activist shows a bias ... bias against who?

if she were interested in maintaining her legitimacy, she would've fucking kept her yap shut about it instead of going on and on about her "peace negotiations." Seriously, peace negotiations? With the CIA? The CIA don't make peace negotiations, they kill and watch people. The fucking embassies handle diplomacy, and they have their own agents who handle matters of peace negotiations with both administrative and non-administrative contacts.

Maybe she doesn't care about maintaining her legitimacy as much as she cares about saying what is right and just. She was strongly against the war in Iraq and she knew that the US government was going to launch a false flag attack on itself so that it can justify an attack on Afghanistan and then move on to Iraq. And as an authority herself, she had the right to urge peace negotiations or at the very least express her disapproval of such a deceptive war (to the CIA or whoever she wants). I don't see anything wrong with that.

It was already known in the intelligence circles that the war in Iraq was a fraud because they knew that the claim of WMD in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was "the new Hitler and everything in the world depended on getting rid of this guy who could strike any country in the world in the next 45 minutes" were fantastic lies that were used on Americans just to win their support for a war. Susan was well-aware of this fact and that's why she opposed it so much.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs

REAL whistleblowers have credibility and information to back their claims up. Again; see Snowden for details. FAKE whistleblowers are people trying to get attention.

Susan Lindauer does have information to back her claims up, and she has done this repeatedly in her book and in her interviews. But whenever she does that, you think that she is doing all this just for getting attention and therefore she is a "fake whistleblower" according to your idiotic reasoning. So now the question is (and it's a rhetorical one so you don't have to answer this), how can a whistleblower communicate his or her credibility and knowledge to other people without trying to get attention? Maybe everyone blows the whistle for getting attention to a certain extent, but who cares if they are telling the truth at least?

What about Sibel Edmonds? Is she a fake whistleblower also? If you think so, then go ahead and provide your justification for that.


I also noticed you didn't make any comments on the following, which is the main topic of this thread:

I appreciate that you took the time to write a lengthy and verbose explanation on this subject. But, with all due respect, none of that really convinced me to be honest. You might think that I'm an absolute dumbass for disagreeing with you, but I don't care. Simply put, I don't think that smoke and fire from a jet collision would cause an entire steel building to collapse so quickly into its own footprint; there was very probably explosive materials pre-planted inside the buildings that made them go down the way they did.

And besides the issue of thermite and everything else that you said in your post, the most glaring thing that points to a controlled demolition behind the 9/11 attack is how the WTC 7 collapsed. I mean, look at the way the whole building came down in a symmetrical fashion at an accelerating, free-falling speed (in less than 7 seconds) just like a building collapses under a controlled demolition. Do you seriously think that normal smoke and office fires could have done all that in less than seven seconds? But before you answer that question, please listen to the following as carefully as you can ...