9/11 a staged attack

Post Reply New Topic

I'm I expected to believe that you're taking the moral high ground here?? Get Real!! !

If you would've insulted me for my lack of belief, you simply would've exposed your position for the dogmatic umprovable non-sense that it is.

Scepticism is the agent of reason that protects us from organized irrationality.





earlier you said you thought it was likely wrong. I see you've taken Professor Bill Clinton's Semantics 101



As I've stated earlier, the reason many of these news sources are "independent" is because they are'nt credible sources.

Journalism, like science, has a peer-review process. That's how that one black guy (I can't remember his name) from The New York Times was exposed. Your "independent" news sources are most likely "independent" because they don't want thier stories cross-checked by independent review.

Last but not least, you keep asking me to look at your previous points to refute them. I don't see the point. EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. IT IS NOT INCUMBENT ON ME TO DISPROVE THEM!! !! !! !! !! !

Moral high ground? I'm just asking you to be respectful, as I have been to you. I am often skeptical of things...I have no problem with scepticism, except when one is blinded by it. When is irrationality irrational? When it denies evidence. I'm not saying that I've given unquestionable evidence, but there's a lot I HAVE said that you have yet to specifically refute, especially in my last post. Just sitting there saying that you don't believe any of it without giving a reason why specifically you don't believe something doesn't convince me of anything. May I ask again, What is the motive for creating this misinformation? Give me a reason for every specific bit.



As I stated before--I didn't say it was LIKELY WRONG. I said it was likely that it COULD be wrong. To me, those are two very different things. If to you they're the same, then I'm sorry for the confusion. To be clear, simple, and blunt: I believe it, but I admit that it could be wrong, that it's very possible they had nothing to do with it, but I think it's also very possible that they DID. You have yet to give me a reason why they wouldn't--and hell I've asked for one. Plus, you still haven't answered my question: what would you say if there was evidence, staring you straight in the face? All you've said is you can bet I wouldn't be able to produce evidence, so I ask again: if someone did, what would you say? Would you admit that you were wrong?



And as I've said before, ditto for practically ANY news at this point--ESPECIALLY the mainstream news! And a lot of independent sources are independent because they want to remain critical of the government, or don't think that a 30 second spot on a protest focusing on the angry-looking cops is critical enough of it.



Exactly--and that independent review is always controlled by the government. With the mainstream media, it's not about whether something is true or not. It's about what the government wants to go on, and what it doesn't want to go on. As I have said before, there are many times when the mainstream media starts to report a detail that is vaguely suspicious, but then suddenly shuts up about it and never brings it up again. You can look at old tapes and old footage to varify this.



But as I've been saying before, there has already been evidence given, you just refuse to accept it because of its "independent sources." If you don't want to think that Bush made the votes of many African Americans in Florida not be counted, even though there have been multiple, detailed interviews and computer files to prove this, just because it hasn't been mentioned by the governmnet-controlled mainstream media, then fine, look at my last post. That deals with the fishy things the mainstream media HAS stated, but then shut up about. You can look for the footage I mention, varify the facts I mention, in that one if you are still convinced that they're automatically "bull" and never happened. They DID happen. I saw them showed on TV myself.

Prove it.



Prove it.



If we're in a police state, how come you haven't been arrested for knowing too much?

I don't have the hour to watch that video, and have not read through the whole thread, so I will post my opinion.
The first time I saw the news video of this was this year. I knew of the controled demolition theory. As I watched the towers fell, It seemed true. The tower tops, above where the planes hit, didnot fall for about 10 minutes, longer than one would think it would take for the fuel to melt the steal. The tops also sort of 'pancaked' themselves. In both towers, there was a bit of a pause once each top hit the area where the plane crashed, then went straight down, with no pause at each floor as one would expect to happen. This goes with what Veresae was saying. The only thing I think could do that is a very persicely set group of bombs.

The only problem I see with this is that it is not very well planned. I think you could make it look more like the planes did it.

I also think the Justice department was partly behind it, as the completely unnessicary Patriot act followed. (I have an article that explains this, pester me enough and I'll get it for you.)

It was caused by the structular failure of the steel trusses used in the constuction. With trusses you don't have to melt them just weaken them just enough once piece of the truss fails it doesn't have the streght to hold the load and the whole thing fails. Controlled demolition takes months to prepare and involves a lot of weaking of the structure at presise piont something that would be noticed

Yes, but have you ever tried getting "facts" for political or social discussions? You can't without sorting through all of the rhetoric, and nothing that ever gets its way in the news has any scientific value, even from a political scientist. What gets me is that some political "scientists" are conservative or liberal, and both accuse the other side of lying, which goes far beyond opinion differences.

The system is built on bewilderment and propaganda. People are supposed to be confused. Then, if you present an opinion, you will be seen as a hero by one side and as a creep by the other.

Logically, two sides can't be liars, because then there is no truth ... but, in the political system, they get away with it. And they have to, because they've got interests to support, and the public can't be aware of many of those, or that will ruin the integrity of the entire system. I don't care. The integrity should be ruined.

- Ray M -

Yes, for some interesting reasons:

PEARL HARBOR -- It's known now, but wasn't then, that FDR purposely got us into the war for economic reasons using the bomb.

COINTELPRO -- They attempted to ruin Martin Luther King's reputation by condemning his wife, all of this happening without any media knowledge. Nobody knew what the FBI was doing until the papers were leaked.

Bring back the 1960's, because then this government will be on its ass. Luckily, I wasn't alive back then ... but I would have loved to witness the turning of the tables. Breaking Timothy Leary out of prison takes guts!

And the CIA? They can get away with anything, and if the 9/11 attacks were staged, the CIA may have been responsible. Hell, they have the knowledge to handpick people just for the fall. The CIA was involved in the building up of Osama to begin with, and they have been known to take part in overthrowing dictators behind the public eye. If there is a leak, then nobody has to worry ... because, remember, the political establishment focuses on two-sided propaganda simplicity. Nobody knows the facts. They'd have to take on a huge research project just to find out what the truth is, and even then, it would be like sorting through a computerized binary tree with hundreds of branches, probably.

- Ray M -

in addition to aeturnus points above, something else to consider:

OPERATION GLADIO:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 74-3756745

Pearl harbor was real.
1.To get us into the we would only need to be attacked. We wouldn't need to lose most of the pacific fleet.
2.Manhattan project started in 1942. It is true that Einstein sent his letter in 1939, they still knew very little about the bomb, and probably had no clue when it would be ready.

Yes! It was real! That's the whole purpose of me putting it in my post.

Someone asked whether or not they thought the 9/11 attacks may have been staged. So, how do you answer a gut feeling? You just provide some facts to make it sound plausible. There are more than enough facts written in American history to make it sound plausible. In fact, I would take that view over many others, because it is controversial and also because American government has a reputation of deceit and lies. The American Government made me think the way I think, therefore I don't care if they see it as a lie or not. If they do, then who should be ashamed? If a lot of people woke up tomorrow morning and provided opinions that were all different from the newspapers, then the system would be in complete disarray. That would turn the tables, and cause many of our leaders and representatives to make all sorts of mistakes just to proclaim their victories. Then, I'd sit back and laugh as they all fell ... one by one.

- Ray M -

For me, there's two ways to look at this... Before 9-11, Americans would not have gone for all the ways the government is slicing away our freedom for our "protection". The patriot act would have stirred up a considerable amount of angry sentiment. Now, look at all the security checkpoints we have around. I remember when one could walk right through the Atlanta airport and go right up to the concourses without passing a security checkpoint. Nowadays, you can't even do that in your local courts building. Everywhere we go, our freedom is compromised in the name of "stopping terrorism".

Now the point is, who is responsible for this. On one hand, I say the terrorists won! The terrorists that struck our buildings on 9-11 were looking to change our way of life, and reduce our freedom. Although Bush says "We will not live our lives in fear and they will not stop freedom" the terrorists, in fact did! Now then, the biggest question...who are the terrorists! There is a thought in the back of my mind that the terrorists are in fact the US government! I would not put it past them to pull off something like this in order to wrench down on the citizens even more, all the while shooting off more patriotic "freedom" propaganda to the citizens to make us think we are still free, even as they take it away! The middle east is an easy scapegoat, the place is unstable, poor, and relatively powerless, so blaming these 3rd world countries for something they staged can be pulled off rather easily.

Who are the terrorists? You say? ... All one has to do is take a walk up Wall Street sometime, and then you can see who the terrorists are.

I think Ward Churchill's speech, the one that really pissed off Bill O'Reilly, had it quite correct.

Actually, most Americans do live in fear. What Bush is saying is nonsense. He wants us to cower in fear, because then his cabinet has more control. If people are scared, they can support a lot of insidious things. That's how Hitler became powerful, convincing the people that the Jews screwed up the economy and so forth. Just replaced Jews with foreigners, and you have the picture.

I believe there was evidence that Americans would have wiped their freedoms away before 9/11, because many of us despise foreigners. There may be reasons behind this, but we still refuse to put forth any true "family planning" program. Besides, it's nothing but scapegoating. It takes the focus away from the real killers, such as Exxon / Mobil and General Electric. Ever hear of the term "structural adjustment?" It's used by the International Monetary Fund. Research it sometime. Then, you can see how terrorists are formed in other countries. And the way the United States is treating Hugo Chavez is simply a crime.

- Ray M -

Did anyone see this on PBS last night?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

What a scary man, that Cheney. This is our leadership. Not good.

people just want something OFFICIAL,news telling it how it happen,the politicians themselves saying it was an inside job,those kind that are too proud of their country that in their mind its impossible for that to happen,but u know what? it did,right in front of your eyes,and there is tons of proves,but u need heart to accept it,not intelligence,need to accept the truth without fear,and after all the politicians do not do it for america,so dont feel sad about your country,which is a piece of land like all countries with drawn borders for you to stay in like a prison,gain pride to think your country its the best and even if they do something wrong u can see it as a "mistake",in your mind though not in reality.

show me a pentagon video with a visible plane hitting,and maybe ill think its not an inside job...

show me another building that has collapsed from fire,and maybe ill think its not an inside job...

tell me why the metal was immediatly shipped to china after the attack,sand maybe ill think its not an inside job...

tell me why the terrorists chose "911" and flight "11" that day,and maybe ill think its not an inside job...

show me a shanksville picture of the plane crash with noticeable debree,and maybe ill think its not an inside job...


nice trick to create more wars and steal the freedoms of americans as well as the world...but its beeing exposed and people are learning,so it is a matter of time until the truth comes out...





i want to know if there is any members that have been spreading the word and giving dvds and doing that kind of stuff...???...


thanks for reading and God bless the people who want the best for the world and not just for their country.

peace

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

I think there is something fishy about 9-11, but 'Loose Change' is disinformation. Anyone who makes ridiculous 'no plane' theories should be regarded suspiciously.

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

Ask yourself; why would a filmaker spend so much time on bunk theories that a) make no sense b) has zero evidence, when there is so much in the official story that they could critisize meaningfully and provide a wealth of evidence? Dont waste your time researching this garbage: watch some genuine 911 truth films.

Last edited by psych on 07 Feb 2007, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't get why some people act like "it can't happen to us". I'm sure the jews in the 1940's in Germany were saying something similar to that as well. As for proof, there are tons of blatant cover-ups. Such as, why did Bush block every attempt by an independant invesgative committee to investigate 9/11? That should have been the 1st red flag. Then the Patriot Act, and the attempted succession of Patriot Act 2. Everything Bush has done has mirrored other dictators throughout history. This is proof enough to see what's going on, why even take notes on history if people refuse to learn from them?
The government plasters "conspiracy" all over sci-fi to brainwash the masses to think "this isn't realistic, this is just sci-fi geek s**t". That's exactly what they want you to think, but history will tell you otherwise.