Why Would Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll Question 9/11?

Carroll 4The coach of the 2014 Super Bowl winning Seattle Seahawks is not just a football leader. One reason that Coach Pete Carroll deserves special attention is that he is known to have questioned the official account of the 9/11 attacks. Even today, he is still looking for answers about those crimes, saying, “I will always be interested in the truth.”

The average football fan might wonder why Carroll would go there. Here are a dozen quick reasons why everyone should seek the truth about 9/11.

  1. The directors of the FBI and the CIA ignored or facilitated terrorism in the years leading up to 9/11.
  1. Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
  1. On 9/11, NORAD was running military exercises that mimicked the events of the day. This caused the military air defense responders to confuse the actual hijackings with the exercises.
  1. In the years since 9/11, we’ve been given several, distinctly different, official explanations for the failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes. The last explanation, given in The 9/11 Commission Report, requires us to believe that many U.S. Air Force officers had previously been lying in a way that made them all look very bad.
  1. We’ve also been given several, distinctly different, official explanations for the unprecedented destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. The last explanation is false in every way and critical evidence has been ignored to this day.
  1. The U.S. government now admits that the third WTC skyscraper that was destroyed on 9/11 was in free-fall. The official report for its destruction was built entirely on a computer model that we are not allowed to see.
  1. No changes have been made to building construction standards in response to the officially cited root causes for the WTC destruction. No existing buildings have been retrofitted to ensure that they do not fail from those alleged causes.
  1. On 9/11, the Secret Service did not protect the president at his well-publicized location, despite the obvious danger from terrorism.
  1. The 9/11 Commission claimed 63 times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
  1. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.
  1. The first alleged Al-Qaeda leader detained by the U.S., upon whose torture testimony the 9/11 Commission Report was built, is now known to have never had any relationship to Al-Qaeda at all. The 9/11 Commission vice-chairman has developed amnesia about that most important torture victim while his Report stands as the best, and perhaps only, argument in favor of a continued U.S. torture policy.
  1. Some of the most lucid and intelligent Americans, including Noam Chomsky, quickly feign ignorance when presented with information that contradicts the official account of 9/11.

Therefore Pete Carroll probably has good reasons to wonder what really happened on 9/11. The next question is—will football fans be able to take Carroll’s lead and move beyond the vacuous official account of 9/11? As the threat of never-ending war continues, an increasing number will answer in the affirmative.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 9/11. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Why Would Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll Question 9/11?

  1. Ed Perkins says:

    Wow! What a pleasure to read your Pete Carroll story on Washington’s Blog and what a delight it is to find your blog. I read through several of your recent posts, skimmed others, and added Dig Within to my favorites list.

    Re 911 – for what it’s worth – when I discuss 911 with the uninformed, I ask just a few questions. They are: 1) Where are the airplanes? There’s a YouTube video featuring CNN and MSNBC reporters at Shanksville and the Pentagon who each say there’s no plane wreckage; 2) Where are the videos. Eighty-two security camera videos were seized by the FBI from the Pentagon and nearby private sites immediately after 911. Why were they seized and why can’t Americans see them? 3) How did the tops of the twin towers get blown to dust? Anyone can see that they didn’t collapse as NIST found, they were turned into dust. 4) How did 1200 cars, many far away from the twins towers site get toasted? and, 5) If WTC7 collapsed as NIST said it did, why did the unaffected penthouse collapse before the building started to fall?

    Well those are my five key points for questioning the government’s 911 explanation. But, you know what… I’ve never been able to ask them. Whenever 911 is brought up and I start to raise my objections and offer my questions, I get attacked as a conspiracy nut, a tin hat, or one of those people.

    Ed Perkins

    • Mike Corbeil says:

      Welcome to “the club”, Ed. No one has called me a “conspiracy nut” or “tin hat”, not directly anyway, but these are minor insults compared to some I’ve received at YouTube. Its always annoying, for it isn’t intelligent discourse at all. Intelligently disagreeing is fine, but doing it in an asinine manner isn’t at all welcome.

      9/11 is about conspiratorial attacks. There’s no quetion about it. Who’s really guilty is a matter for investigation and Kevin Ryan has greatly provided in this respect. I don’t know of anyone else working this “angle”, say, of the attacks and his work is not only very credible, it also is very convincing. I was convinced over a decade ago that bin Laden was a nobody in all of this and that Washington was lying. I knew Washington was lying the second Bush’s explanation for war on Afghanistan was made public, for his expalantion wasn’t justification for war on any country. All his explanation could justify would be an international police force going to Afghanistan to find and arrest bin Laden, take him in and put him on trial.

      Well, la-dee-dah-dee-day, in 2006, Cheney was interviewed on the Fox Tony Snow show or program and was questioned about what proof Washington had against bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for 9/11. None! No proof whatsoever, Cheney said, and we know he was more than only VP on 9/11. He was more P. than VP. The clip is about 2 minutes.

      Ha …. “We never made the case that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11”. Cheney had to kidding. Either that, or I must’ve been having a weird dream when 9/11 occurred, for the war on Afghanistan was premised on the claim that bin Laden was responsible, was in Afghanistan, and the Taliban, who weren’t responsible, supposedly refused to hand him over. They didn’t refuse to do this, but we weren’t supposed to learn about this part, either.

      It’s a little “funny” how claims can change over time; very “funny”.

      We have more lies from upper echelons than we have truths and anyone believing that absolutely no conspiracies are included is an idiot or liar.

      • craigbhill says:

        There have been some breakthroughs of note in mainstream media of late. It’s as if there is a rebellion brewing in the ranks of our masters where some are spilling the beans to the public. NYT for example never entertained the notion to question 9/11 thru the first decade of the century despite being the city that suffered most from it, now lists revealing research in its bestselling books list. Watch, at some point, it seems, they’ll actually mention Bldg 7 and maybe grow a testicle to eventually dig in. Altho i have no doubt they know. But cracks are forming in the ice of the coverup. We still need to keep pushing this.

      • mikecorbeil says:

        craigbhill,

        Quote: “There have been some breakthroughs of note in mainstream media of late. … NYT for example never entertained the notion to question 9/11 thru the first decade of the century despite being the city that suffered most from it, now lists revealing research in its bestselling books list. …”

        I just searched the NYT’s best sellers for non-fiction hardcover and paperback books for “9/11” and find only one example. It’s for a hardcover book by Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell and is entitled, “AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES”.

        I don’t know that Jesse Ventura is someone we should rely on for the best of 9/11 research or analysis and haven’t heard or read of any corporate msm media promoting any good books about 9/11. So, you’d need to specify titles of good 9/11 books being promoted by any of these media companies.

      • craigbhill says:

        I appreciate your research. I was under the apparent false impression the NYT has “accepted” as bestsellers more than a book by Jesse Ventura, which nevertheless qualifies as at least a lesser 9/11 expose. I was thinking more of the JFK coverup than 9/11, see the book “Brothers” by David Talbot, which chronicled Robert Kennedy’s private conclusion his brother was mudered by his own goivernment, an “official” NYT bestseller.

      • Laura Cullen says:

        As you surely realize, all the foot dragging involved in releasing videos, statements, research, newly revealed connections, etc. must have a sinister reason/purpose. My belief is the delays are designed to allow the Grim Reaper to visit the perpetrators of 9/11. At that point, it will be said that “what is the point of further investigation?” “All of the principles likely involved are dead or nearly so so evidence will not be easily uncovered now.”. What a defense strategy! Using TIME as a defense witness. Not even Perry Mason thought of this one!

    • Stephen says:

      Good questions to ask, Ed. And when I bring up 9-11 I get similar conspiracy nut looks. It’s as if people are afraid there MIGHT be some truth to them that they’ll have to confront and are unwilling to. How can a democratic republic survive with so mant timid souls?

  2. carolync967 says:

    Thanks for this succinct summary of the holes in the official story. It is so frustrating to me that so many people I know are unwilling to look at the facts about 9/11 and just think I’m some kind of kook when I bring it up. I applaud this coach for his willingness to be laughed at in order to voice his doubts.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      Yes, Kevin Ryan is someone to pay attention to. I don’t know of anyone else investigating 9/11 the way he’s been doing for many years now. 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net have well contributed to my 9/11 education and include some of Kevin Ryan’s work but only some of it. GlobalResearch.ca has some but less. We need to be subscribed to this blog.

      If people don’t want to believe him, then there’s nothing we can do about that, but people should at least read and listen to what he provides; imo. I don’t know of anyone else getting into the “nitty gritty” details like he’s been working on. 911review and 911research have provided good work, but Kevin is leading us deeper into the “rabbit hole”.

      One thing for sure is that it isn’t Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda who’re responsible for 9/11. Maybe some AQ people were involved, but that, imo, should be the least of our concerns. Follow Kevin deep into the “rabbit hole”, I figure. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than idiotically believing that AQ could’ve been responsible for all of the 9/11 attacks and consequences. How would AQ have made sure that important crime scene evidence was removed and shipped abroad, f.e.? It’s only one of many questions that prove that 9/11 wasn’t an or just an “outside job”. We have people who’re for 9/11 truth but who aren’t yet ready to think that this was and is an “inside job”. I’m not sure what’s causing them to hesitate. Something is, but what it is is up to question, I guess. Maybe some people want the truth but are afraid of considering the “darkest” possibilities.

      I began believing it around Fall 2002 and previously knew, within the first two weeks following 9/11, that war on Afghanistan most definitely wasn’t justifiable. How did I know the latter? I listened to what Bush stated for so-called justification and it definitely didn’t justify recourse to war. I studied in maths and other sciences. There was no way that Bush et al were going to fool me with their bs. I did a minor in business and didn’t want more, for there might not be a lot of bs, but there is bs. There’s no bs with maths or physics. Yes, the knowledge is used in wrongful ways, but when studying the pure subjects, then there’s no bs; unlike with business.

      The UNSC also didn’t vote to authorize this war and I only learned this later on, but it was comforting, say, for it was my judgment before the damn war was fully commenced on 7 Oct 2001. The so-called justification stated by Bush clearly wasn’t justification; plain and simple. It’s not my fault. I didn’t tell him what to say. I wasn’t directing him. He stated the so-called justification and I said, “Hunh?”.

  3. craigbhill says:

    There are too many holes to cover, tho covered up they have been. One comes from the then-Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta who was in the WH bunker with Dick Cheney, watching as the thing that hit the Pentagon came closer and closer to DC while Cheney refused, as requested by a military aide, to release the fighter jets at Andrew AFB one minute’s flight time from the Pentagon to intercept, until after the Pentagon was hit when finally Cheney ordered the jets to fly. Mineta reported this over a dozen times to media and the 9/11 commission, all to no avail, as the govt stonewalled and the media refused to report it. There are hundreds of such facts which prove governemnt treason and media cover-up, from which our country and Constitution has never recovered.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      1) “the thing that hit the Pentagon” was either AA 77 or a similar airliner and people can get very interesting information, I believe also real evidence, for this at either, if not both, 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net.

      2) “until after the Pentagon was hit when finally Cheney ordered the jets to fly”? This is the first time I’ve read or heard that Cheney ever ordered for interceptors to intercept. It’s also darkly hilarious that he would’ve done that, given that it was already too late for interceptors to be able to have the slightest of chances of being able to intercept “after the fact”; but, it’s nonetheless possible that he did and that he could try to use this in order to try to get away with bs denial of mal-doing, say.

      I listened to a number of videos for Norman Mineta’s testimony about this though and don’t recall him having said that Cheney ever ordered for interceptors to be sent for anything. The only thing the several videos I listened to provided is Mineta’s testimony that certainly makes it seem like Cheney ordered stand-down. I’m not sure that Mineta literally said that Cheney ordered stand-down, but it’s certainly understandable that many people would interpret the testimony in this manner. I did and many other people also have.

      However, you say that Mineta reported this “over a dozen times to media and the 9/11 Commission”, so his words could’ve varied from what’s said in the videos I listened to at YouTube and I think all of those are for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission or maybe at some congressional hearing.

      Lastly, it would be best if you provided links to sources. It’s always better when providing sources that we read or listened to and it definitely would be in this case since you refer to Mineta having stated the account to “dozens of media”. It’d permit people reading your comment to be able to check all of the sources you’ve listened to or read and then compare this to what we’ve read and listened to. It would, in turn, permit us to see how Mineta’s explanation may’ve possibly varied. After all, it’s humanly possible that there’re inconsistencies, but it’s also possible that he was consistent all while sometimes providing additional information.

  4. mikecorbeil says:

    My, my, we have some peculiar arguments. Your first link is for the following article.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/01/30/seattle-seahawks-and-pete-carroll-have-the-911-truth-movement-on-their-side-going-into-the-super-bowl

    Quote:
    Seattle Seahawks and Pete Carroll have the 9/11 Truth movement on their side going into the Super Bowl
    By Marissa Payne January 30

    End quote

    Reading a little further, we find the following.

    Quote:
    “Is Seahawks coach Pete Carroll a 9/11 truther?” Deadspin asked in 2013. “That all depends: Does badgering a former four-star general about whether 9/11 was real make one a truther?”
    End quote

    “spin” in “Deadspin” seems to be fitting. The argument isn’t at all worthwhile without providing proof that coach Carroll was badgered for a response about 9//11. Even if he was, however, we’d need to carefully wonder why he’d say or infer that we still don’t have the full truth about 9/11. If he thought we had the full truth, then he’d surely say this clearly enough, but he reportedly didn’t and, instead, implicitly, or explicitly, expressed doubt. Asking someone whether the 9/11 attacks happened is a moronic argument in this case. The whole world knows that the attacks happened. Not everyone agrees about how the attacks happened, but I never came across anyone claiming that the attacks didn’t happen. We had the clowns pretending that no airliners were used and that what we see in video footage are only holographic images. It’s a completely bs “theory”. But, itl isn’t saying that the attacks didn’t happen. It’s saying that the attacks happened and is just a bogus “theory” about how these were performed.

    Who’s badgering who? Carroll is lead coach of the Seattle Seahawks and, according to Wikipedia, this team is in the ownership of Microsoft, not some nickle-and-dime guy like me. Actually, the team is “owned by Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft”, rather than being owned by MS. Well, anyone at all knowledgeable in IT knows that Paul Allen is a big name … in IT, given that MS is “all over the place”, used almost everywhere there’s a computer for office work applications and plenty of other applications. My experience was mostly with UNIX, but there was also some VAX/VMS as well as MS Windows, more the former but still close to equal amounts of time. UNIX and later, personally, Linux are the systems I most worked with. With MS, I’ve only been an ordinary user. But, we’re going to learn about MS anyway and Paul Allen was, if not still is, a big name with MS.

    If he doesn’t “discipline” Pete Carroll about this 9/11 matter, then I consider it a hint about what Allen thinks of 9/11. There’s an old expression that says something like, “Silence is golden”; it can tell us plenty without it needing to be stated. We can’t be entirely sure. F.e., Allen might not “discipline” Carroll because he’s evidently a good coach and Allen plans on making lots of money with this football team; but there’s an equal “chance” that Allen agrees with what Carroll said. Even half-wits can see this.

    If Allen remains silent, doesn’t do anything against Carroll about 9/11, then maybe this news can spread like wildfire, for many millions of computer users use MS Windows. It could turn out to be a way to sensitize many people who think that Washington is right about 9/11 to finally realize that maybe Washington is and has always been very wrong about this.

  5. tg says:

    “As the threat of never-ending war continues, an increasing number will answer in the affirmative.”

    Watching the numbers on ‘American Sniper’ I get the feeling most Americans will not even entertain the thought of a different scenario for 911. It is disheartening but I think the mythmakers have the upper hand.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      Don’t despair too much. Yes, it may be discouraging to see very high attendance for this film, but we should avoiding despairing too much, for it’s going to be unhelpful. Instead, “live one day at a time” and maintain hope; or develop a healthy dose of it and then maintain it.

      I won’t bother ever seeing the film. After learning of what Ross Caputi, an Iraq war veteran who served in the first or second, if not both US attacks on Fallujah, had to say about this film, I know what there’s no need whatsoever for me to see it. According to what he said, the film depicts what conditions were like for US troops but also omits what I consider to be the most important message, which is that this is a war of aggression and Iraqis definitely had the right to try to defend themselves against this aggression. It’s the US et al that were wrong and not the Iraqi Resistance.

      I’ve read about these wars more than enough to know that he’s certainly right and the source is a brief interview he provided to RT. The video was published on 21 Jan 2015 and is 3 minutes long (or short):

      Here’s my transcription from his words that begin at 1:38.

      Quote:
      In a sense, it was a very accurate portrayal of what veterans go through in war. It also accurately portrayed how narrow our perspective was during that time and (or in?) we never once stopped to consider whether or not they had legitimate reasons for fighting against us. I mean, through their eyes, we were an invading foreign army in their country, which had invaded, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. It’s all, it all gets lost in this very subjective war experience that veterans go through and that never even once in the film is questioned.

      End quote

      Chris Hedges published a scathing critique of the film and while I think he’s very right, the piece lacks the nuance or nuances that Ross Caputi provided and that I think should be considered helpful.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-sniper-killing-ragheads-for-jesus/5427723

      Quote:
      “American Sniper”: Killing Ragheads for Jesus
      By Chris Hedges
      Global Research, January 28, 2015
      Truth Dig

      End quote

      It evidently is another propaganda piece that’s mal-suited, say, for honest education.

      • craigbhill says:

        I don’t believe the popularity of the film American Sniper is proof of any public agreement with the official fiction of 9/11. It’s merely reflecting hero worship of Chris Kyle. The underlying lies by either the hero or the government are to his fans irrelevant. It’s an agreement by his fans that’s based on their accepted political illiteracy.

  6. mikecorbeil says:

    You should’ve more thoroughly quoted Kevin Ryan in order to emphasize context, say.

    Quote: “Therefore Pete Carroll probably has good reasons to wonder what really happened on 9/11. The next question is — will football fans be able to take Carroll’s lead and move beyond the vacuous official account of 9/11? As the threat of never-ending war continues, an increasing number will answer in the affirmative”.

    As for the number of people attending movie theatres or otherwise watching “American Sniper”, I can’t make a judgment call. The film is realistic according to Iraq war veteran Ross Caputi. The video is roughly 3 minutes and he speaks beginning at 1:38.

    “Hero or Killer? ‘American Sniper’ movie raises controversy over Iraq war”,
    Published by RT on 21 Jan 2015

    He says the following, using my notes.

    Quote:
    In a sense, it was (was or is?) a very accurate portrayal of what veterans go through in war. It also accurately portrayed how narrow our perspective was during that time and we never once stopped to consider whether or not they had legitimate reasons for fighting against us. I mean, through their eyes, we were an invading foreign army in their country, which had invaded, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. It’s all, it all gets lost in this very subjective war experience that veterans go through and that never even once in the film is questioned.

    End quote

    Ross Caputi was a US soldier in the first and/or second attacks against Fallujah, Iraq, and, based on a lot of reading for now over 12 years, I think he’s surely right about the film. I’m not going to bother watching it and will just give apparently good critics “benefit of doubt” about this Clint Eastwood production.

    Chris Hedges provided a more scolding, say, critique of the film and I think he’s right, while lacking some of the nuance that Ross Caputi provided.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-sniper-killing-ragheads-for-jesus/5427723

    Quote:
    “American Sniper”: Killing Ragheads for Jesus
    By Chris Hedges
    Global Research, January 28, 2015
    Truth Dig

    End quote

    Take these two critiques and maybe one or two others, and there’s then no need to see the film. Eastwood isn’t getting a red penny from me.

    • craigbhill says:

      Not a Repub, nor a Dem, both are cesspool-level-corrupt, not a fan therefore of Eastwood’s politics (his support of one-half of the single corporate party laughably, naively, oafish), tho if i hated him for it i’d have to do so much hating i’d essentially become a de facto Repub. Getting that out of the way, and hating war like an old-fart Dem as opposed to the squishy-liberal Dems of today who lazily accept war for every wrong reason imaginable, which makes them de facto conservatives, i am OK with American Sniper, why? It’s a hero tale, not unlike Homer’s heroes 4000 or so yrs ago, extolled for their bravery and success in war. AS IT IS WITH MOST PEOPLE, 9/11 is portrayed as The Reason Eastwood’s hero joined up to go to war against the pseudo-perpetrators of 9/11, Muslims per se, in the minds of most who blame 9/11 falsely on them. FTR, the only Muslims involved in 9/11 were paid employees of the Pentagon, their rolodex base of Arab warriors courtesy of Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda, which MEANS “the base”, their names used to start these wars for the attacks on America orchestrated by the traitors in (a) the Bush admin, (b) the Dems in Congress who went along and are still going along like the scum they are, and (c) the Pentagon, which needs to be RAZED. American Sniper does not portray Eastwood’s hero’s faults, other than his inabilities to overcome PTSD in his family life. OK i get that. AS A MOVIE, it is a skillfully told and filmed story, emphasis on story, a high-quality film all around, with great, legitimate suspense of real actual true heroism under fire, and for that reason i have no problem with it as a movie. Eastwood is a GREAT story-teller, as he has proven; his unfortunate acceptance of brutality in his storytelling as acceptable by me onscreen as fiction as real-life kneejerk Dem war-funding based on lies is unacceptable.

  7. marvinsannes says:

    Here’s another good reason: The story has not changed since 12:30 pm on 9/11/01, every single thing learned since that initial story has been either ignored or filtered through the media to fit. Here’s another good reason: Not a single court case in nearly 14 yrs., where are the lawyers?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s