|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 15, 2007 17:22:13 GMT -4
Of course Silverstien says something that when stretched and mangled could possibly if you really try hard mean that WTC 7 was a CD, and instantly all the CT's accept it as proven fact. OBL says, not once, but 5 times that he was behind it and even handpicked the hijackers, 6 months before he was captured KSM says that he was responsible for the planing of it, and now says so again, and no, that we can't possibly believe.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 15, 2007 23:51:08 GMT -4
You know, that quote doesn't support the idea that the men in question thought the US government was responsible for the attacks. It supports the idea (as do I) that the US government used the attacks after they happened to support goals that the current administration had gone into office with. It takes a very . . . easily suggestible mind to come up with another interpretation if you actually read what's said.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 16, 2007 2:08:14 GMT -4
None...as he says in the lecture linked. He says it looks fishy to him, and he hopes someday the truth will out. I admire that attitude, but I also expected no less from someone with his courage. I find it appalling the paucity of real news in the States today, and the inertia of the press -- look at the recent "scandal" around the Veteran's Administration (and try to FIND a vet who would have, any time in the last thirty years, spoken highly of their treatment there....not exactly a big secret, but boy did it take the media a long time to tear themselves away from Paris Hilton and start talking about it.) Yeah, there's plenty of fishlike smell here. The WMD's, the who-told-who-when, the massive disorganization on the day and the finger-pointing since, the terrible toll on civil rights post 9-11, the snake oil and power-politics going on with the Homeland Security budget.... hey, but underreported as this stuff might be in mainstream media, it is there. I completely agree with your points here. Even if you don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, there are more than enough problems with the official account to warrant a true, independent investigation, wouldn't you agree? Nothing is there, nor has there been for most of the history of these United States, close to the sheer awful scale and criminality and amorality of what the CT's are claiming. Small-pox laden blankets, lynch mobs, Mai Lai....nothing comes even close to ordering American servicemen to participate and cover up in large scale murder of their own civilians within a major metropolitan area under the intense scrutiny of the entire world. This is orders of magnitude beyond the worst crimes committed during war, and my imagination is not up to the people touched allowing it to remain undiscovered. The number of people in the know did not have to be nearly as large as often believed. That's mostly because it was planned to coincide with numerous war games - including those which closely replicated the actual attacks. The recordings clearly indicate that there was mass confusion - we've heard comments such as "Is this real world or exercise?" The ability to pull off such false flag operations has long been considered achievable - the Northwoods documents are proof of that. The key is in the planning - determine all necessary operations, and work towards consolidating them within the control of a very small group of people. That's why we've discovered so many amazing "coincidences" about 9/11 - FEMA arriving in NYC the very night before 9/11, the same security company for the WTC and airports involved in 9/11, linked to Bush. Rumsfeld changing SOP's regarding hijacked aircraft just months before 9/11, putting him in charge of procedures which had been the responsibility of the military. Cheney putting himself in control of the military operations just before 9/11 - hence the "coincidental" wargames planned and conducted on 9/11. These and many other actions helped to consolidate the number of people who were required to be in control of the sub-operations necessary to pull off the entire 9/11operation. The massive cover-up required is much more difficult to accomplish to perfection than the operation itself. That is the mandate given to the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST. The 9/11 Commission was the first group to attempt a whitewash, and their Report is too pathetic for words. FEMA made the next attempt, and they created more questions than they answered, or tried to answer. NIST's investigation had even more questions unanswered, and we still haven't seen the final report on WTC 7, after several delays and buck-passing. Again...are they all cowards? Is every man or woman who saw a blasting cap on the ground, or who worse yet was asked to pile bodies into a faked 757 (or whatever asinine plan is being touted now for the Pentagon attack), going to stand by and remain silent for the rest of their lives? No deathbed confessions? No anonymous tips? No letter to the Washington Post, or perhaps La Monde? And again I say - no, they are not all cowards. And we aren't even able to see if they already have spoken out. As Cynthia McKinney noted... "The 9/11 Commission has sealed all the notes and transcripts of some 2,000 interviews, all the forensic evidence, and both classified and non-classified documents used in compiling its final report until January, 2009." I'd hate to live in your world. I hate having to say it, but it's not just my world. It's yours, mine, and everybody else's. We only have one world, and we all have to live in it, and we are all responsible for it. I'm not a brave man myself. I learned that a few years ago while looking the wrong way at a sawed-off shotgun. I don't know how this experience made you realize your (self-perceived) lack of bravery. I had an experience where I blocked out the fear of being shot in order to help save the lives of my friends who were nearby. It's probably because I just acted right away and didn't think about the danger I was in myself. My friends still consider what I did as "brave", but it really wasn't. I just didn't think about anything except getting them out of there. If I hadn't moved, or been able to move, then I'd probably have crapped my pants on the spot. I don't know what I'd do if I saw something and my family was made the price of my silence. I do know very well, however, that I wouldn't go on about my business. I couldn't do so, and remain a human being. I do know that my family and friends come first. If that means having to clam up, then I'd clam up. The truth will come out eventually, when there are too many people to silence or bribe. But for those who are, or have been, in such a situation, it's hardly something easy to live with, day after day, year after year.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 16, 2007 3:43:51 GMT -4
I completely agree with your points here. Even if you don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, there are more than enough problems with the official account to warrant a true, independent investigation, wouldn't you agree? Not of how the buildings came down, no. There's no realistic, science-based doubt about it. Doubt about the failures in intelligence leading up to it? Yes. Doubt about the administration's manipulating the situation to take us to war with a country unrelated to the events? Definitely. But the science of the collapse is still correct and doesn't need to be gone over again; you still wouldn't agree with the answer. Well, no. You see, the key difference here is that no one pulled anything off regarding the Northwoods documents. It was never executed, just talked about. Since it never happened, we cannot say what would have happened if it had been--people don't always work the way the government's planners assume they're going to. That's why, oh, hurricane evacuations don't go smoothly. Oh, you mean those coincidences that almost certainly turn out to be "someone misspoke once," "someone is quoted out of context," or "someone's pulling the 'coincidence' out of their hinder"?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 16, 2007 4:32:11 GMT -4
Yes...let's not misread me too much. I do believe there is a conspiracy; a conspiracy to cover up flaws in the current administration's plans, organization, and world-view. A conspiracy, as well, to gather all reigns of power in as tight a fist as possible, to ignore any messenger who doesn't bring them what they want to hear, and to cow those they can.
This...this absurdity of hidden bombs and black-ops vans dropping body parts on the Pentagon lawn, and threatening phone calls in the night to Swedish and Australian engineers....this frightens me, because people are running after this make-believe, Hollywood evil when there is real evil right in front of their noses.
It's an attitude that says "Why vote; it doesn't matter. Why speak up; the populace are sheep. Why learn science or engineering; those are just tools used to brainwash you." I hate this attitude. And it is ultimately circular. If you believe in this villain that can move such masses of people and get away with so much, why fight it? I'd prefer to fight the villain that manifests in party politics and corruption, in kickbacks and payoffs and sweetheart deals. That's a villain my efforts could have an effect on.
By the by, I didn't entirely lose control. It was just him and me, and ultimately I took a gamble and turned my back on him. I actually made it about twenty feet before he pulled the trigger. Those twenty feet saved my life. However, he went on to take another. Could I have stopped him? Probably not. But I'd like to think if there was a next time I'd give him more of a contest.
|
|
|
Post by Alliterative Andy on Mar 16, 2007 11:34:37 GMT -4
The number of people in the know did not have to be nearly as large as often believed. That's mostly because it was planned to coincide with numerous war games - including those which closely replicated the actual attacks. The recordings clearly indicate that there was mass confusion - we've heard comments such as "Is this real world or exercise?" So, how many do you think were in the know? 10? 50? 100? 500? Why does it seem unusual for someone to ask if this is a drill? While knowing whether or not the situation is real or not might skew the results (if it's a drill), it's only human nature to want to know, anyway. The ability to pull off such false flag operations has long been considered achievable - the Northwoods documents are proof of that. The key is in the planning - determine all necessary operations, and work towards consolidating them within the control of a very small group of people. So, what were the percentages given for success in any of the scenarios described in the Northwoods documents? That's why we've discovered so many amazing "coincidences" about 9/11 - FEMA arriving in NYC the very night before 9/11, the same security company for the WTC and airports involved in 9/11, linked to Bush. Rumsfeld changing SOP's regarding hijacked aircraft just months before 9/11, putting him in charge of procedures which had been the responsibility of the military. Cheney putting himself in control of the military operations just before 9/11 - hence the "coincidental" wargames planned and conducted on 9/11. Ever play that game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? Coincidences are interesting, and might help in the support of a developed argument, or perhaps lead to actual evidence. But until you get that actual evidence, you're stuck with these coincidences, speculation, and gut feelings. These and many other actions helped to consolidate the number of people who were required to be in control of the sub-operations necessary to pull off the entire 9/11operation. Down to how many, do you suppose? How many would it involve had they not taken these actions? The massive cover-up required is much more difficult to accomplish to perfection than the operation itself. That is the mandate given to the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST. The 9/11 Commission was the first group to attempt a whitewash, and their Report is too pathetic for words. FEMA made the next attempt, and they created more questions than they answered, or tried to answer. NIST's investigation had even more questions unanswered, and we still haven't seen the final report on WTC 7, after several delays and buck-passing. Damn. There goes your small-group theory. So, what now? Were they strong-armed (Involves more people in on it)? Bought off (Involves more people in on it)? Ignorant? And again I say - no, they are not all cowards. And we aren't even able to see if they already have spoken out. As Cynthia McKinney noted... "The 9/11 Commission has sealed all the notes and transcripts of some 2,000 interviews, all the forensic evidence, and both classified and non-classified documents used in compiling its final report until January, 2009."So, what prevents them from speaking out again in the meantime? I assert that unless all of those documents and interviews are fully released with no censorship, people like you will claim that it is suspicious, another coincidence, and/or that the undisclosed information will hold the key. There is precedence for this. I further assert that if all of the information is disclosed without any censorship (unlikely as that is) and that the information lends no support or even discounts some of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, people like you will claim that "they" have altered that information, thus rendering it useless. To the contrary, if the released information shows actual evidence of government involvement, I and other skeptics like me, will concede that the government was involved to the degree that the evidence warrants.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 16, 2007 20:46:49 GMT -4
The recordings clearly indicate that there was mass confusion - we've heard comments such as "Is this real world or exercise?"
The only confussion was that no one knew what was happening and the information coming into NEADS was patchy and inaccurate to say the least. They were getting more and more "incidents" involving supposedly different planes and having to deal with that. Strangely that's what happens in RL situations.
As to the comment of "Is this real world or exercise?" one that question was asked and asnwered, those in NEADS were fully and totally aware that what they were facing was not an exercise and acted on it as such. There was never any confusion about if it was real or not and anyone that did real research instead of repeatedly and continually parroting the CTsite trash would know that.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 16, 2007 22:32:42 GMT -4
It seems I stand corrected, turbonium. I apologise for misdirecting my questions. Thanks, Jason. I appreciate your integrity.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 17, 2007 1:24:40 GMT -4
Of course Silverstien says something that when stretched and mangled could possibly if you really try hard mean that WTC 7 was a CD, and instantly all the CT's accept it as proven fact. OBL says, not once, but 5 times that he was behind it and even handpicked the hijackers, 6 months before he was captured KSM says that he was responsible for the planing of it, and now says so again, and no, that we can't possibly believe. OBL denied responsibility in his first post-9-11 statement. But you ignore that because it went down the memory hole. You'd rather believe a fake CIA OBL video in which he takes the credit. But wait, that's just been trumped by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who recently took credit for 9-11 "A-Z" (odd expression for someone speaking arabic, different alphabet and all), along with the JFK assassination and the JonBenet Ramsey murder. (He also took credit for starting the giant neck hole fashion trend.) Isn't torture great? We can get confessions from anybody! Sure beats due process or a real investigation!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 17, 2007 2:32:41 GMT -4
Love when you move the goal posts, you cited the “FEMA” firefighter’s account to rebut a fireman’s account of a hole up to the 10th floor now you cite a line from a preliminary NIST report. ?! "Move the goal posts"?? No. I cited the NIST preliminary reports as a specific response to your "report of a hole extending to 'ABOUT the 10th floor'." But, as I said, it is quite apparent that there is an officially accepted account of damage for their preliminary and future investigations / reports on WTC 7 - that about 1/3rd of the south face was gouged out from the bottom floors up to and including the 10th floor. It’s not unusual for witness accounts to vary.. Of course it's not unusual. I've been saying that all along. and you didn’t reply to all my points: ."Are we sure he walked the entire perimeter? might his view have been obscured by smoke? could the hole have expanded between the time he was on the 9th floor (and when the other fireman saw it)?" This is what the FEMA report stated.... According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor façade occurred at the southwest corner.So, let's consider your questions.... "Are we sure he walked the entire perimeter?"By "entire perimeter", do you mean the entire 9th floor? We only know that he walked along the south side of the 9th floor. The report doesn't mention whether he did or did not walk along the other sides of the building. Perhaps the question should really be - Are we sure he walked the entire south side? Yes, that is quite apparent by the note about "...the only damage to the 9th floor façade...". The only way the firefighter would actually know that was the only damage to the 9th floor façade was if he had walked the entire south side. "Might his view have been obscured by smoke?Again, we can take the note "...the only damage to the 9th floor façade..." into consideration. If smoke obscured his view, it would not have been possible for him to come to this conclusion. "Could the hole have expanded between the time he was on the 9th floor?"Very unlikely. One aspect of the many varying accounts does not differ - that the damage was caused by debris from the tower, not from the ensuing fires. That is, whether the damage was claimed to be small or large, none of the accounts mention any of it being caused - in whole or in part - by the ensuing fires. BTW the 2nd NIST quote doesn’t indicate they assumed there was a hole from the 10th floor to the ground Why would you even dispute this point? NIST had already specified it on page 14 of the report.... South Face Damage – middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to groundSince they were interested in structural damage in that paragraph they might not have considered what he said about fires relevant but as noted as far as we know he only examined one part of one floor (probably) shortly after the collapse of the North Tower. Firefighters have said the fires became more intense later. Even he didn’t see signs of strong fires on the south face of the 9th floor when he was there, that doesn’t contradict the numerous fireman who said there were intense fires on various floors. Sure, that section of the report deals with the damage. But the next section does deal with the fires, and if the 9th floor firefighter had reported seeing fires, it would have been included in this section of the report. As FEMA noted, ...there is limited information about the ignition and development of fires at WTC 7..According to fire service personnel, fires were initially seen to be present on non-contiguous floors on the south side of WTC 7 at approximately floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19.Notice - no fires were reportedly seen on the south side of the 9th floor, by any fire service personnel. This is further confirmation that the 9th floor firefighter did not see any fires along the area he walked. I skimmed through his interview with Alex Jones and didn’t see anything especially damming or anything about a lack of a) damage to or b) fire in 7 WTC or bombs there. Perhaps you can highlight what he said that you think supports your case I haven't listened to his interviews recently, but IIRC his account relates to the towers, not so much about WTC 7. But I'll address it further after reviewing the clips, anyway. So they’d risk their lives to save the lives of strangers, rioted and risked losing their jobs because they thought Giuliani wanted to use mechanical excavation too early (possibly destroying the remains of their colleagues buried in the rubble but wouldn’t risk their jobs to unmask the murders of those same colleagues? Why exactly would they face dismissal 1) the 1st amendment guarantees free speech, they could not be fired for what they say when off duty 2) it’s very difficult to fire civil servants in NYC 3) firing them would make them martyrs OK. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the risk of being fired may not be of prime concern for speaking out. Serpico, as noted earlier, was not fired for speaking out. But they made his life a living hell, day after day, for speaking out. (His courageous refusal to quit was amazing - very few among us could have, imo.) This is the strategy they tried with Serpico - a progressively intensive effort to coerce him into resigning. In essence, it was ...."If you don't quit, we'll make your life so miserable that you'll wish you had." Face it you are trying to rationalize the fact that you only have one emergency responder who backs your position a cop who was there about 15 minutes and only spoke up 5 years after the fact after seeing “Loose Change” sorry but I find the reports of numerous firemen a few weeks after 9-11 more credible. You consider the selectively released accounts "more credible" than the comparatively few alternative accounts. Why are you ignoring the thousands of records sealed by the 9/11 Commission? And the testimonies that the Commission tried to twist? To "fit" in with their pre-determined "version" of the truth? We deserve to see all the evidence! The thousands of photos, videos held by NIST, FBI, et al. The thousands of testimonies and other evidence sealed from public view by the Kean cabal. It's easy to consider the selectively released accounts "more credible" - as long as you continue to ignore the fact that most of the accounts have never been released to the public. There is no reason to suppress all this evidence. For "national security"? That is utterly ridiculous. How do the witness accounts, for example, merit such a lame excuse as "national security"? Or any excuse? And this is what bothers me the most about your position - you don't care one whit about this massive suppression of evidence. If numerous cops and firemen believe the same thing they could come out together. That's the ideal situation. If enough of them were to somehow join into a cohesive group. We can go in circles over this, he said twice he was misquoted by People and has never said since then he still thought there were bombs in the towers. Yes, we've already gone over this issue in depth. Regarding the People quote - "We think there was [sic] bombs set in the building." - Cacchioli later told Popular Mechanics he was misquoted - "I said, 'It sounded like a bomb.'" His experience with the 9/11 Commission makes it quite apparent that he said things they didn't want to hear, that they tried to get him to change his account to fit in with the pre-determined version. The firefighters tapes that were finally released do not include anything he said. And his testimony has been sealed from us, among thousands of others. But none of that is worth consideration, for some of us.... I think he is a liar because he has repeatedly contradicted himself as spelled out in the other thread. I believe the version he told up through 2004 including in his RICO suit and interviews with “inside job” journalists. A single person can be brave and dishonest it is harder to believe that dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people who routinely risk their lives would be intimidated to speak up about the murders of their friends I haven't looked at your thread on Rodriguez, yet. In your comments above, you grudgingly seem to accept Rodriguez' bravery on 9/11. But apparently, you are only interested in portraying him as a liar. I'll post on the thread you've devoted to this effort, asap.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 17, 2007 4:44:52 GMT -4
Yes...let's not misread me too much. I do believe there is a conspiracy; a conspiracy to cover up flaws in the current administration's plans, organization, and world-view. A conspiracy, as well, to gather all reigns of power in as tight a fist as possible, to ignore any messenger who doesn't bring them what they want to hear, and to cow those they can. And again, on these points - I agree. This...this absurdity of hidden bombs and black-ops vans dropping body parts on the Pentagon lawn, and threatening phone calls in the night to Swedish and Australian engineers.... You consider false flag operations absurd? They have been planned and implemented throughout history. Operation Northwoods was approved by the JCS - the only block to its implementation was JFK (and possibly, Sec. of Def. McNamara). The documents proving Northwoods existed would never have been released if they had actually implemented the operation. Well, let's be sure - it's extremely unlikely. And what if Northwoods had become a reality? - The government would have controlled the entire "investigation" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) - The government would have offered up "evidence" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that "proves" Cuba was behind it all. - Many people would question the government story and demand a fully independent investigation. - Many would see evidence that points to an inside job. - Without a shred of doubt, many would be calling that a crazy conspiracy theory.. and chalk it all up to "massive incompetence" by our government. In other words, a Northwoods conspiracy would today be considered as crazy and impossible as a 9/11 conspiracy...... And there are proven false flag operations that were implemented...the USS Maine, the Reichstag, the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, and many others. It's not absurd to say that these events take place. It's absurd to say that these events don't happen, or haven't happened, or can't happen again. this frightens me, because people are running after this make-believe, Hollywood evil when there is real evil right in front of their noses. This couldn't be more accurate. People chasing after a "make-believe evil" when there is real evil right in front of us. But I guess you didn't mean it the way it does to me.... It's an attitude that says "Why vote; it doesn't matter. Why speak up; the populace are sheep. Why learn science or engineering; those are just tools used to brainwash you." I hate this attitude. And it is ultimately circular. If you believe in this villain that can move such masses of people and get away with so much, why fight it? I'd prefer to fight the villain that manifests in party politics and corruption, in kickbacks and payoffs and sweetheart deals. That's a villain my efforts could have an effect on. No, it's an attitude that says vote in those who truly represent our interests, who uphold the laws and rights of our nation, and respect the rights of others. Throw the book at those who have betrayed their sworn oath of office. Each and every rotten member of the administration, congress and senate who voted in favor of criminal, traitorous acts - whether they are Democrat, Republican, or independent. Those are the true villains. Science is not viewed as simply a tool for brainwashing. That's nonsense. But like most things, it can be manipulated and abused. Ethics are a fundamental requirement of sound scientific practices. But that does not mean those ethics are inherent within all those who claim to follow those practices and principles. No person or group should be deemed impervious to scrutiny and criticism. NIST has assumed god-like status, incessantly being questioned by unqualified simpletons who are utterly incapable of understanding the science. By the by, I didn't entirely lose control. It was just him and me, and ultimately I took a gamble and turned my back on him. I actually made it about twenty feet before he pulled the trigger. Those twenty feet saved my life. However, he went on to take another. Could I have stopped him? Probably not. But I'd like to think if there was a next time I'd give him more of a contest. How far away was he when he first pointed the gun at you? I'm curious, because from what you've said about your situation so far, it seems to me that you didn't do anything different than what most people would have done.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 17, 2007 7:14:59 GMT -4
So, how many do you think were in the know? 10? 50? 100? 500? Why does it seem unusual for someone to ask if this is a drill? While knowing whether or not the situation is real or not might skew the results (if it's a drill), it's only human nature to want to know, anyway. How many knew about the entire operation? Obviously, one can only speculate, and you probably know how the saying goes about someone's opinion! It's the same as if we consider it as a hypothetical. That is, "If the government had orchestrated 9/11, how many people would have had to be in the know?" Most of the time, those who don't think it was an inside job say it would require several thousand people to be in on the operation. (Btw, how many people do you think would have to be "in the know?") First of all, by "in the know", I'll take that to mean anyone who is aware that they are part of a covert government operation to murder thousands of innocent people on US soil. That is to exclude the ATC's, FAA, all personnel at Air Force bases, etc. who were previously informed, and are being reassured on 9/11, that any apparent hijackings are all just a part of the war games. So how many people would need to know that there are genuine "hijackings" among the simulated ones? Obviously, as many people as it requires to remotely control and direct 4 pre-designated planes. Maybe 10 or 20 people? Rigging the buildings with explosives could be done with another, say, 20 people, over several weeks, or maybe months, if needed. Those are two primary groups of people truly "in the know", as I see it. Imo, maybe 200 people would be required to be completely "in the know" about 9/11. Just as a quick guesstimate. So, what were the percentages given for success in any of the scenarios described in the Northwoods documents? That info wasn't in the released documents, though it seems logical that they would have considered the chances for success of the various scenarios, and documented them. Ever play that game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? Coincidences are interesting, and might help in the support of a developed argument, or perhaps lead to actual evidence. But until you get that actual evidence, you're stuck with these coincidences, speculation, and gut feelings. But that's what I'm saying - there are several significant "coincidences" regarding 9/11, but certainly they are not regarded as separate, isolated events. Establishing a solid case, whether it's for 9/11, or a murder, or a robbery, usually involves and intertwines several points of evidence. It's not taken as 300, or 30,000, separate, isolated points. They combine to establish a body of evidence. For example, consider the "coincidence" that FEMA arrived in NYC on 9/10. Do we know if FEMA has any other links to 9/11? Yes. They were the first group to "investigate" the collapses. They were led by several individuals who also helped lead the NIST team - the second group to "investigate" the collapses. FEMA and NIST are both government agencies, and the people in charge of them are always directly appointed to their positions by the President's office. The reports they create are always sent to the President's office first, for assessment. They decide if it meets their approval, or if revisions are required. Along the way, certain drafts are given approval for public release, until the final report is approved and released. So, let's consider how this could help develop a hypothetical case for an inside job.... The President assigns the heads for FEMA and NIST. They are to be given full control of the forensic "investigations" for the soon to occur "collapses" on 9/11. That means they need to already be in place beforehand. The head of FEMA orders his team to arrive en masse in NYC - the day before 9/11. They were luckily "just in the neighborhood" at the time to establish control of ground zero activities and cleanup. They enacted strict controls on the areas other responders could or could not go into. Matthew Tartaglia, a rescue worker during this time, saw firearms being drawn and pointed at people who didn't comply with area restrictions. There is much more involvement and connections than just what I've mentioned. But that should be enough to make my point. Down to how many, do you suppose? How many would it involve had they not taken these actions? Damn. There goes your small-group theory. So, what now? Were they strong-armed (Involves more people in on it)? Bought off (Involves more people in on it)? Ignorant? No, the numbers "in the know" haven't changed. The problem is that so much incriminating evidence existed. That's when we saw the steel scooped up, testimonies sealed by the thousands, photos and videos confiscated and suppressed, etc. And the witnesses are still a big problem for them. So, what prevents them from speaking out again in the meantime? I just discussed that in an earlier post or two... I assert that unless all of those documents and interviews are fully released with no censorship, people like you will claim that it is suspicious, another coincidence, and/or that the undisclosed information will hold the key. There is precedence for this. People like me? Who would that be - other "CT's"? And what about people like you? Who are those people - GCT's, I presume? That's all quite infantile, no? As for the rest... With no valid reason to withhold and seal this mountain of evidence, how can it be considered anything but suspicious? I mean, what does it look like to you? If there's nothing to worry about, then release it!! There is precedence for this, indeed - JFK's assassination still has heaps of sealed evidence. I further assert that if all of the information is disclosed without any censorship (unlikely as that is),, Unlikely is putting it mildly. We have a better chance of seeing flocks of pink elephants flying around. Dogs will start speaking Portuguese before they let us see all the evidence. and that the information lends no support or even discounts some of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, people like you will claim that "they" have altered that information, thus rendering it useless. Ah, yes. A worn-to-death claim of the GCT bunch - "Even if they released the evidence, you'd just say it was faked!" I have an idea - See if you can invent a new excuse that's more asinine than that one. To the contrary, if the released information shows actual evidence of government involvement, I and other skeptics like me, will concede that the government was involved to the degree that the evidence warrants. Good. So let's see all the evidence, agreed? No matter what it does or doesn't show. But it can't simply be ignored or considered irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 17, 2007 16:28:06 GMT -4
Reichstag fire a conspiracy? Yes, it most certainly way -- but it hardly stayed secret for long. Actually, the majority of the false-flag incidents I know of (you forgot my favorite; the Mukden Incident) were basically laughed at by the majority of the world. Only a few people seemed willing to take them at face value, and for most of them it was expedient they did so.
The US has done a bit better with keeping certain scientific/engineering details hidden, with arms deals and assassination attempts overseas, and a fair number of cover-ups of previous malfeasance (usually monentary but as often, just plain incompetence.)
None of these have anything to do with a large-scale operation on US soil that directly leads to thousands of deaths and involves the knowing collusion of thousands of people across military, civil, and civilian organizations. It is not a matter of scale; it is a matter of kind. Look...imagine if Liet. Calley had decided to lead his gunships over Scranton, PA, gun down hundreds of people -- and the government covered it up (or tried to blame it on some really, really clever and hard-working NVA.) Or if perhaps the slow deaths in the Navaho nation and other areas surrounding the uranium mining had taken place in downtown New York, and people dying in large numbers and in public places by suddenly exploding in a flash of Cherenkov blue -- and the government tried to pretend that not only had it never happened, but radiation didn't exist.
Actually, thinking about it, this conspiracy of yours reads like what Roger Ebert called an "idiot plot." It requires not that the conspirators be especially clever, but that everyone else in the movie be an absolute idiot. You require that everyone from firefighters to foreign architects be both incompetent and lazy; that evidence that should be obvious to a five-year-old is ignored by people whose job it is to find and use such evidence, that the behaviors of some of the largest structures humanity builds are so poorly understood and worse yet, so poorly researched that a skyscraper can behave in magical ways without attracting the attention of anyone who builds the durn things!
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 17, 2007 22:53:15 GMT -4
This is what just kills me, that the collapse of the WTC is SO anomalous that 'just some dudes' can figure it out. One would think that even if many 'experts' are cowering in fear of the US government there would at least be more than just a few kooks coming forward.
Turbonium you can say whatever you want, you can conjecture and demand explanations all you want, but you CANNOT, no matter what, deny that your opinion is in the abject minority as far as people who study building collapses go.
You can spin, you can dance like a butterfly, but you will never sting like a bee as long as that fact remains.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 17, 2007 23:48:09 GMT -4
Operation Northwoods was approved by the JCS - the only block to its implementation was JFK (and possibly, Sec. of Def. McNamara). As I have attempted to point out to you in the past, there is no evidence that friendly casualties were expected or desired in any of the Northwoods scenarios. Any claim that friendly casualties were intended is clearly extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof. Further, as I have also attempted to point out, the primary purpose of Northwoods was to fool the international community long enough to forestall Soviet intervention in Cuba, and not to stampede American public opinion (though this was seen as a potential beneficial side effect). The documents proving Northwoods existed would never have been released if they had actually implemented the operation. Well, let's be sure - it's extremely unlikely. [emphasis original]FOIA would still apply. Without a shred of doubt, many would be calling that a crazy conspiracy theory.. and chalk it all up to "massive incompetence" by our government.
[edit: spacing] In other words, a Northwoods conspiracy would today be considered as crazy and impossible as a 9/11 conspiracy......There is no way you can know this without knowing what the actual evidence for Northwoods would have been. You are merely postulating that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by the US Government, that strong, credible evidence is being ignored, and therefore you assume that the same thing would have happened with Northwoods. And there are proven false flag operations that were implemented...the USS Maine, the Reichstag, the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, and many others. The Maine was destroyed by an internal explosion that was almost certainly accidental. William Randolph Hearst elected to use the incident to whip up anti-Spanish feelings among the American public in order to sell more newspapers. Although it is definitely possible that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire ), it is by no means certain. It is also possible that the Nazis merely capitalized on a fortuitous event. The USS Liberty was attacked by the Israeli Air Force. Whether she was genuinely mistaken for an Egyptian vessel, as the Israelis claim, or she was attacked to keep her from seeing something the Israelis didn't want her to see, as has been alleged, how does this even qualify as a false-flag operation? Both the Liberty and the IAF aircraft in question were showing their true colors throughout the incident. As for the Tonkin Gulf Incident, the North VIetnamese later admitted that the first attack had occurred (I read somewhere that they even have a torpedo tube from one of their participating PT boats in a museum, with a plaque explaining that the tube launched a torpedo at the USS Maddox). The second attack appears not to have occurred, but the report of such was evidently an honest mistake, which was then covered up by embarrassed intelligence agencies. It's not absurd to say that these events take place. It's absurd to say that these events don't happen, or haven't happened, or can't happen again. And no one here is saying that. We say rather that there is no credible evidence that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated, or even allowed to happen, by the US Government, or elements thereof. This couldn't be more accurate. People chasing after a "make-believe evil" when there is real evil right in front of us. But I guess you didn't mean it the way it does to me....And what sort of make-believe evil do you feel we are chasing? No, it's an attitude that says vote in those who truly represent our interests, who uphold the laws and rights of our nation, and respect the rights of others. Throw the book at those who have betrayed their sworn oath of office. Each and every rotten member of the administration, congress and senate who voted in favor of criminal, traitorous acts - whether they are Democrat, Republican, or independent. Those are the true villains. [emphasis original]These people, whom you are so quick to libel (as usual) have the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Your and other conspiracists' handwaving and histrionics in no way constitute proof. No person or group should be deemed impervious to scrutiny and criticism. NIST has assumed god-like status, incessantly being questioned by unqualified simpletons who are utterly incapable of understanding the science. Straw man. We merely observe that all of the criticism from conspiracists thus far has been ignorant and non-credible. This in no way implies that we believe NIST should be above criticism. Also an affirmed consequent.
|
|