Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#616    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 January 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

I’d let the TSA off on this one, seeing as the hijackers had at first glance legitimate VISAs, obtained from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah.

True, U.S. Immigration policy and officials are a joke. "Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel." One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." Even more amazingly, he got a visa." http://old.nationalr...wbray100902.asp

Quote

Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers)

Source please.

Quote

or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed.  It’s a long story with evidence from multiple official sources, but 9/11 would not have happened, at least not as we know it, without that assistance from the CIA, and it reaches higher into the Bush administration than that.

You sure it wasn't just the usual government incompetence ?

Quote

It would have been more correct for the 9/11 Commission to declare it, “a failure to pro-actively respond to that imagined and intelligence”.

Agreed.

Quote

And that’s at a minimum, because as initially noted in this post, it was not simply that the CIA and Bush administration did nothing, it’s that they forged in the exact opposite direction to be expected in preventing what had been imagined and presented in intelligence.

Yeah, the government does some really stupid things, like increasing immigration and outsourcing while its citizens face mass unemployment. I hate when they do that.

Quote

As for Rumsfeld, he made himself unavailable (it is absolutely ridiculous he was out on the Pentagon lawn with the U.S. under attack and NORAD in need of direction).

You're assuming that he deliberately went missing in order to carry out a heinous attack on American citizens. There are other, more plausible explanations which I have already mentioned.

Quote

The ‘conspiracy’ would therefore be between Rumsfeld and others who created and carried out the attack.  Your rebuttal there was very poor.

So, it's much more believable that Rumsfeld went missing in order to carry out a heinous attack on American citizens (for some vague reason; money, power, oil) rather than posit that he temporarily lost his focus as a plane slammed into the building he was in?

Quote

PS Sources for all the above available on request.  I hope to come back to the initial point raised in this post in a lot more detail once you and Little Fish are finished – I’d be interested to know how close it comes to meeting your standards and/or what excuses you can provide not to accept almost blatant conclusions.

The first constitutive rule of argumentation is the truth seeking principle. 911 truther claims are in the realm of possibility, most claims are except for contradictory and self refuting claims. So we have to examine the warrants for these claims to infer the best explanation. I don't think the the 911 conspiracy hypothesis is the best explanation.

Quote

I’m sure you’d like to absolve Neocon individuals of the Bush administration of all history and precedent; start them with a nice clean slate on 9/11, but that’s not going to happen.  You know, I'd love to read your biography on Cheney, jolly kind, fair and sincere man.  As Bush tried to mention, there’s an old saying: -

I don't give Republicans a free pass. They have done much I don't agree with.


#617    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:47 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 January 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

I’d let the TSA off on this one, seeing as the hijackers had at first glance legitimate VISAs, obtained from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah.  Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers) or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed.  It’s a long story with evidence from multiple official sources, but 9/11 would not have happened, at least not as we know it, without that assistance from the CIA, and it reaches higher into the Bush administration than that.

The above is all some of the argument I promised to run through but I didn’t want to disrupt Little Fish’s flow just yet.  I must say redhen, you are providing some strange responses to his posts – particularly in regard to Zelikow and Rumsfeld.

Documents show that Zelikow and other government officials and departments who would form the Bush administration (at both high and low levels) certainly imagined the “transforming event” or “catastrophic and catalyzing event” more than once in the years prior 9/11.  The intelligence that Al Qaeda wanted to attack New York and were in preparation for airliner hijackings was even on Bush’s desk the month prior 9/11.  It was a nonsense for the 9/11 Commission or Condi Rice to declare the reason for not preventing the attack, “a failure of imagination”.  It would have been more correct for the 9/11 Commission to declare it, “a failure to pro-actively respond to that imagined and intelligence”.  And that’s at a minimum, because as initially noted in this post, it was not simply that the CIA and Bush administration did nothing, it’s that they forged in the exact opposite direction to be expected in preventing what had been imagined and presented in intelligence.

As for Rumsfeld, he made himself unavailable (it is absolutely ridiculous he was out on the Pentagon lawn with the U.S. under attack and NORAD in need of direction).  The ‘conspiracy’ would therefore be between Rumsfeld and others who created and carried out the attack.  Your rebuttal there was very poor.

PS Sources for all the above available on request.  I hope to come back to the initial point raised in this post in a lot more detail once you and Little Fish are finished – I’d be interested to know how close it comes to meeting your standards and/or what excuses you can provide not to accept almost blatant conclusions.




I’m sure you’d like to absolve Neocon individuals of the Bush administration of all history and precedent; start them with a nice clean slate on 9/11, but that’s not going to happen.  You know, I'd love to read your biography on Cheney, jolly kind, fair and sincere man.  As Bush tried to mention, there’s an old saying: -



:lol:

Well shame on you.

C'mon guys, is this a serious conversation or what?

Both you and RedHen reference the failure of TSA.

Guys, TSA did not exist on 11 September. :cry:


#618    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:22 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 January 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

C'mon guys, is this a serious conversation or what?

Both you and RedHen reference the failure of TSA.

Guys, TSA did not exist on 11 September. :cry:

You are right. In that case it was whatever agency that oversaw airline screening. But the bigger failure was the lax attitude towards militant Islam even after the first attack on the WTC, U.S.S. Cole and embassies. I submit that this attitude was fostered by Leftist professors and college admin who indoctrinated students with "multiculturalism", "Critical Theory", "diversity" and "political correctness".

See my thread here http://www.unexplain...howtopic=241258

And, yes, even though I did not look up the creation date for the TSA until just now, this is still a serious discussion.


#619    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:16 PM

RH

What's funny, interesting, is that the company providing security at Logan Airport on that day was Huntleigh International or one of its subsidiaries.  I think it's a British firm.

And that company was sued by one Ellen Mariani, whose husband vanished that day whilst on United 175.  But, through terrific intercession by Congress and the Federal Judiciary, suits against those companies were not allowed.  Congress gave immunity of some sort to a variety of companies, and somehow or other forbade lawsuits against them.  Judge Hellerstein saw to it that such suits were frustrated and unsuccessful.


#620    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

View Postredhen, on 17 January 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Morning Fish. Here's what you said on pg 40; "great, so you agree this is prima facie, so why was this covered up by the 911 commission?"  Here you use the term prima facie to denote self -evident. And I told you then that it's not self evident,  many people don't accept it. It is prima facie when taken to mean at first glance, subject to further investigation.
morning.
again you seem to be wordsmithing. i never used the words "self evident" - you did. you are projecting your own interpretation on to my words, i said "prima facie". I already gave you my meaning - " "A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial", so without substantial contradictory evidence the conclusion is valid (not necessarily true, but valid nevertheless). it reverses the burden of proof - you have to refute it or accept it.
http://legal-diction...com/prima facie


the commission did not examine this pima facie evidence. if a man's gun (norad stand down) is found at the murder scene with his prints on it (he took control of the defence response) and he had prior wished the victim dead (PNAC documents which rumsfeld signed his name to), then that is prima facie evidence. he now has the burden of proof to prove his innocence or he going to be convicted. he has to offer a better evidenced explanation as to why his gun with his prints on it was at the murder scene of the person he threatened to kill, otherwise the court is going to convict him whether he did it or not. if he just sits there and refuses to answer questions, he will further implicate himself. if his defence is unevidenced speculation (like your response), again he will be convicted.

Quote

Agreed, but other responses failed that day, starting with lax TSA screening processes that welcomed the terrorists. This is something that still needs to be seriously addressed.
which does not negate the prima facie evidence that rumsfeld was a signtatory to pnac documents which desired a pearl harbour, rumsfeld took control of the defence response in june 2001 and then disabled the defence response on 911, and then changed the defence response back to automatic after 911. if you want to know how the named hijackers got into the country then google-youtube "michael springman".

Quote

I already explained. Zelikow and the CFR put out many hypothetical scenarios, that's their job. Was Zelikow responsible for approving and implementing security measures to thwart his imagined scenario? No. Like many think tank opinions and suggestions, this one was shelved. Then Zelikow wrote as part of the 911 commission that there was a failure of imagination, on the governments part. Or do you think that he meant he had a failure of imagination. Such an admission would be absurd.
the document "imagining the transforming event" was co written with a cia director John Deutch, not just zelikow, so the cia and cfr had imagined it and failed to imagine it all at the same time /sarcasm.

you also dismissively misrepresent the cfr as just a "think tank" dreaming up theoretical scenarios (you might be confusing the cfr with the rand corporation). the cfr is the american branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), which itself is the product of cecil rhodes legacy, rothschild money setup cecil rhodes to take control of foreign resources, gold and diamonds etc, his vast fortune was left in his will to setup a secret network to continue his legacy, it became known as the milner group, the clivedon set, but we know it today as the RIIA and cfr (and other councils across the world). To understand the cfr and RIIA you need to read the books of carol quiqley "the anglo american establishment" and "tragedy and hope", he even tells you that left-right democracies are a sham to fool the people into thinking they choose their leaders and have a say in policy. to dismiss their influence on world affairs in the way you did shows a serious gap in your knowledge on how and who runs and controls the world. quiqley was a cfr insider who had access to the cfr archives, he even believed in their goals and championed them (an unelected world government run by them and their councils), his only disagreement with them was that their activities should be public so he wrote his books and they document the activities (or conspiracies as some would put it) of these people which were more foul than fair. the larouche-ites say american is controlled by britain, the us patriots say it is controlled by "international bankers", others say the rothschilds or the 14 families or illuminati, they are all saying and describing the same thing differently in my opinion. bill clinton even paid homage to quiqley during his presidential victory speech to his supporters.



so you should not dismiss quiqley's works, you should take any cfr document very seriously. however I don't expect you to take any of this seriously given your responses, but the information is there for anyone with the energy to research and read it.

Quote

You'd be surprised how people react when under tremendous stress.
sure, he "forgot" he was in charge of hijack response procedures TWO HOURS after he knew there were several hijacked jets flying around slamming into buildings /sarcasm. remember the hijacks started at 7:30am (memory?) and he was walking around on the lawn after the pentagon incident ~9:37am

Quote

"no one ordered him to make himself unavailable"  Aha ! So there was no conspiracy. Thank you
wordsmithing again. rumsfeld took himself out of the loop disabling the defence response.

Quote

He may be an expert in the history of the Secret Service, but he's not in a position to know what the current secret plans are to protect the pres and ensure continuity of the government.
you ignored that the professor's view is evidenced by the agent in the school with bush who was in a position to know and said "we're out of here", but it did not transpire that they were "out of there".

Quote

Not so. This fallacy  consists of a claim where "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false,".
I have never said that my premise p was true because it has not been proven false.  I simply think your evidence does not warrant your claims, and these claims are too weak to justify your conclusion, that 911 was an inside job.
it amounts to the same thing. you are suggesting speculation as an answer without any evidence, and it seems you are requesting that its up to me to disprove your unsupported speculation instead of you evidencing it.

Quote

It sure does. Now show me the evidence that Rumsfeld was part of a conspiracy to disarm Americas (and Canada since they are also part of NORAD) national defense systems for a few days to facilitate a foreign attack that caused more American deaths than Pearl Harbor?
I already did several times, pretending i didn't won't fool a jury.
just prior to 911, he handicapped the defence response by HIS change to procedure which required HIS order to initiate the response, then went awol at the crtitical time. he also signed off on PNACs desire for a pearl harbour tragedy prior to 911.

Quote

Here's what I quoted from one of my logic textbooks on the Sandy Hook conspiracy thread;

"The point is that the more a claim accords with our background beliefs, the less strong its own credentials must be. (The claim that is snowed in Minnesota in December does not need strong credentials to be accepted). The less a new claim is in accordance with these background beliefs, the stronger its own credentials must be), (The claim that it snowed in Florida in July needs very strong credentials). Any new claim, no matter how outlandish (that is, no matter how much it conflicts with our background beliefs), could conceivably turn out to be true. But some claims are so outlandish they must have extraordinary strong credentials if they are to be taken seriously."   The elements of reasoning, 5th edition, Munson - Black

Or more succinctly as Carl Sagan would say, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"

p.s. by background beliefs is meant the reasonable beliefs that you already hold. Of which most of them are accepted from the word of others, since we can't be experts in everything.

An example from the book; "Consider the following:
A neighbour says seven hippopotamuses have knocked down your clothesline poles.

Our background beliefs about natural habitats and the security of the local zoo make it incredibly unlikely that hippos should appear in our yard. These beliefs are so well grounded that they make it much more likely that our neighbour is mistaken in his claim (he could be drunk or a practical joker)  than that the hippopotamuses are there."  ibid p 198
all you are doing here is convincing me that you are rejecting the evidence because it does not fit your own background beliefs. you are letting your beliefs drive your thinking. As i said to you before, your background beliefs are a composite of the information you are exposed to. you are claiming that the seats of power are incapable of such a thing like sandy hook and 911, but the evidence is contrary to your belief.
fact - NATO's operation gladio - hundreds of women and children killed to further a political agenda.
fact - operation northwoods outlined a plan to kill US citizens to further a political agenda.
fact - goverments kil ltheir own citizens to further a political agenda.
fact - nearly every war is started by a false flag that usually involves a government killling its own citizens.
so your sagan argument relies on and is limited by your own limited depth of knowledge, it is an argument from incredulity fallacy.
I do see a glimmer of light though because you've moved your goalposts from "evidence" to "extraordinary evidence"

Edited by Little Fish, 18 January 2013 - 03:21 PM.


#621    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:10 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 18 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

the cfr is the american branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), which itself is the product of cecil rhodes legacy, rothschild money setup cecil rhodes to take control of foreign resources, gold and diamonds etc, his vast fortune was left in his will to setup a secret network to continue his legacy, it became known as the milner group, the clivedon set, but we know it today as the RIIA and cfr (and other councils across the world).

That's all very interesting, filthy rich people getting together to form a "Society of the Elect". That's quite plausible.

Quote

To understand the cfr and RIIA you need to read the books of carol quiqley "the anglo american establishment" and "tragedy and hope", he even tells you that left-right democracies are a sham to fool the people into thinking they choose their leaders and have a say in policy.

lol, I don't need a book to convince me of that. The closest thing to a real democracy is Switzerland, where the citizens put California to shame with the number of referendums held for propositions, and the liberal use of recall for their politicians.

Quote

to dismiss their influence on world affairs in the way you did shows a serious gap in your knowledge on how and who runs and controls the world...... the larouche-ites say american is controlled by britain, the us patriots say it is controlled by "international bankers", others say the rothschilds or the 14 families or illuminati, they are all saying and describing the same thing differently in my opinion.

All describing the same thing. Hmm. So 911 was planned and controlled by Britain, "international bankers", The Rothschilds, the "Illuminati".  Damm, just as I was starting to warm to your ideas.

Quote

so you should not dismiss quiqley's works, you should take any cfr document very seriously. however I don't expect you to take any of this seriously given your responses,

I have not read quiqley's work. However these familiar conspiracy groups have been around for a long time, but you left out a few. No Rosicrucians or Knights Templars? I'm sure there's a tie in somewhere.

Quote

wordsmithing again. rumsfeld took himself out of the loop disabling the defence response.

Agreed

Quote

you ignored that the professor's view is evidenced by the agent in the school with bush who was in a position to know and said "we're out of here", but it did not transpire that they were "out of there".

So someone heard a secret service agent saying "we're out of here", yet because they did not immediately flee, it's very strong evidence that Bush knew he was safe because he was in on the whole murderous plot.  That's what you're claiming. I really don't know how you can expect people to swallow that.

Quote

it amounts to the same thing. you are suggesting speculation as an answer without any evidence, and it seems you are requesting that its up to me to disprove your unsupported speculation instead of you evidencing it.

I think you are confusing argument with debate. You wrote a reasoned argument. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Quote

all you are doing here is convincing me that you are rejecting the evidence because it does not fit your own background beliefs. you are letting your beliefs drive your thinking.

No, I'm rejecting the evidence because it is weak.

Quote

As i said to you before, your background beliefs are a composite of the information you are exposed to. you are claiming that the seats of power are incapable of such a thing like sandy hook and 911, but the evidence is contrary to your belief.

Not so, The U.S. government is certainly capable of of using military and covert violence to further their goals and aid big business. There is plenty of strong evidence that establishes the fact that the U.S. was complicit in several central and south american coups and invasions.

Quote

fact - NATO's operation gladio - hundreds of women and children killed to further a political agenda.

From what I see on wiki, this was just a resistance/guerrila strategy in an imagined occupied Europe.

Quote

fact - operation northwoods outlined a plan to kill US citizens to further a political agenda.

One of many whacky plans dreamed up, which was never acted upon.

Quote

fact - goverments kil ltheir own citizens to further a political agenda.

Indeed. We see this everday in dictatorships and oligarchies. Not so much in democracies.

Quote

fact - nearly every war is started by a false flag that involves a government killling its own citizens.

nearly every war? That's your uninformed opinion, unless of course you have credible stats.

Quote

so your sagan argument relies on and is limited by your own limited depth of knowledge, it is an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Not so. I am willing to entertain your argument. It is a live option for me, it's just that your chain argument, where different claims rest upon other claims is tenuous, and the warrants for these claims are weak.

Quote

I do see a glimmer of light though because you've moved your goalposts from "evidence" to "extraordinary evidence"

Yes, I quoted the logic textbook and Sagan to show other UM readers that I'm not just being stubborn. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I haven't seen any in this thread that would lead me to believe that 911 was an inside job.


#622    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 January 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

C'mon guys, is this a serious conversation or what?

Both you and RedHen reference the failure of TSA.

Guys, TSA did not exist on 11 September.  

Right you are BR.  Tsk... that’s the last time I listen to redhen  :lol:

But obviously the reference was to whoever dealt with border/airport screenings at the time.

redhen, thank you for the response, I’ll be back to reply to your post when possible.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#623    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 18 January 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

RH

What's funny, interesting, is that the company providing security at Logan Airport on that day was Huntleigh International or one of its subsidiaries.  I think it's a British firm.

And that company was sued by one Ellen Mariani, whose husband vanished that day whilst on United 175.

He vanished on United 175. Where is he now, and what happened to the airframe of United 175?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#624    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:27 PM

View Postredhen, on 18 January 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

That's all very interesting, filthy rich people getting together to form a "Society of the Elect". That's quite plausible.
its a documented fact, not speculation. read the reviews if you don't want to read the books.
http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=1
http://www.amazon.co...carroll quigley

Quote

All describing the same thing. Hmm. So 911 was planned and controlled by Britain, "international bankers", The Rothschilds, the "Illuminati".  Damm, just as I was starting to warm to your ideas.
you have cartoonised what i said.
you asked who and why, and i said the network for empire and world government. others have their descriptive words but they amount to the same thing, since these people which quiqley talks about are dominant in banking. britain is the banking hub of the world, financial instruments are hypothecated through london to infinity, the US has limits which means their banking practices usually end up pushing their risk through london, that's why london is the hub. quiqley documents how the british empire moved its centre to washington in the form of an alliance. "international bankers" is a phrase used by quiqley. rothschilds setup the BIS to monetise germany's war reparations, it is now the central bank to all other central banks, the lender and leader of last resort. it is a private entity. all these wars we are seeing are against countries whose central bank is not part of the BIS group, there are only a few left countries now. the 14 families are the ones who own and control the central banks, the mass media, pharmaceuticals and the other main large corporations. I'm making the point here that words used to describe the same interlocking networks can be misleading but they amount to the same thing, you want names and addresses when you should be asking who rumsfeld, kissenger and brzezinski  work for. you already admitted it isn't for the people.

Quote

I have not read quiqley's work. However these familiar conspiracy groups have been around for a long time, but you left out a few. No Rosicrucians or Knights Templars? I'm sure there's a tie in somewhere.
the only connection is a parallel in that the templars were the central bankers of their day, they enslaved nations and their peoples which eventually lead to their execution by king philip (?)  but again I can see you cartoonising which is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. quiqley's book's expose the network, would you like me to read to you from them?

Quote

So someone heard a secret service agent saying "we're out of here", yet because they did not immediately flee, it's very strong evidence that Bush knew he was safe because he was in on the whole murderous plot.  That's what you're claiming. I really don't know how you can expect people to swallow that.
the person who made the decision to stay at the school was not necessarily and unlikely to be bush. it was more likely the person in charge of the president's security (head of SS?) or someone giving that person orders.

Quote

I think you are confusing argument with debate. You wrote a reasoned argument. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
you are putting forward speculations that are not evidenced, that's as good as you "making a claim". evidence trumps speculation. I could speculate that the dead man stole the accused's gun and shot himself, this won't get the accused off the hook unless you evidence it.

Quote

No, I'm rejecting the evidence because it is weak.
you are confusing evidence with proof. your opinion that it is weak is based on your belief that the US government would not do such a thing. it is belief based thinking. if you think it is weak based on a reasoned argument, then where is your reasoned argument that takes account of all the facts?

Quote

Not so, The U.S. government is certainly capable of of using military and covert violence to further their goals and aid big business. There is plenty of strong evidence that establishes the fact that the U.S. was complicit in several central and south american coups and invasions.
but you believe not against US citizens? and you need to define "government" because that term implies congress, the senate and the president to most people, and that's not what i'm talking about.

Quote

From what I see on wiki, this was just a resistance/guerrila strategy in an imagined occupied Europe.
again you are unjustifiably minimising.
there is nothing imaginary about it and what it was eventually used for.
gladio has been active for decades and committed many atrocities against citizens NATO was meant to be defending. here's another book you can read written by an european MP:  
http://www.amazon.co...keywords=gladio

Quote

One of many whacky plans dreamed up, which was never acted upon.
it was approved up to the joint chiefs. only a president with integrity stopped it, but it demonstrates the top echelons of the US government are willing to kill their own citizens.

Quote

Indeed. We see this everday in dictatorships and oligarchies. Not so much in democracies.
you are on record stating the US is no longer a democracy and I agree with you.

Quote

I haven't seen any in this thread that would lead me to believe that 911 was an inside job.
define what you would accept as credible, because you have left the door open to dismiss anything because it upsets your belief system. do you want cheney or kissenger to break down in tears confessing?


#625    praetorian-legio XIII

praetorian-legio XIII

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola Beach

  • Beer; Now there's a temporary solution.

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:40 PM

Haven't had a chance to read all the posts, but I hope someone has mentioned what was in WTC 7, and how it just fell down.

Very interesting stuff.

And consider who held the insurance on those buildings.


#626    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:22 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 18 January 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

the 14 families are the ones who own and control the central banks, the mass media, pharmaceuticals and the other main large corporations. I'm making the point here that words used to describe the same interlocking networks can be misleading but they amount to the same thing, you want names and addresses when you should be asking who rumsfeld, kissenger and brzezinski  work for. you already admitted it isn't for the people.

Which 14 families are these? I'm not being snide, I just don't want to read through hundreds of pages of articles.

Quote

the only connection is a parallel in that the templars were the central bankers of their day, they enslaved nations and their peoples which eventually lead to their execution by king philip (?)  but again I can see you cartoonising which is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. quiqley's book's expose the network, would you like me to read to you from them?

I don't want to commit you to writing an essay (although that would be interesting to read), but a quick and dirty summary would be helpful.

Quote

you are putting forward speculations that are not evidenced, that's as good as you "making a claim".

I'm just parroting what the mainstream media have reported. I know I'm a a sheep.

Quote

you are confusing evidence with proof. your opinion that it is weak is based on your belief that the US government would not do such a thing. it is belief based thinking.

Yup

Quote

if you think it is weak based on a reasoned argument, then where is your reasoned argument that takes account of all the facts?

I have repeatedly told you I am not here to debate. I wanted to see some reasoned arguments from truthers.

Quote

but you believe not against US citizens? and you need to define "government" because that term implies congress, the senate and the president to most people, and that's not what i'm talking about.

Ok then, it's a shadow government.

Quote

gladio has been active for decades and committed many atrocities against citizens NATO was meant to be defending. here's another book you can read written by an european MP:  
http://www.amazon.co...keywords=gladio

I will check this out, resistance movements are interesting.
edit: just read an amazon summary of another book on Gladio. They claim that this right-wing anti-communist secret organization assassinated Aldo Moro. It is however an indisputable fact that he was killed by the Red Brigade, a Marxist-Lennist terror group. I have a feeling that gladio will be blamed for every terror bombing and murder in Europe. Let me dig some more.

Quote

it was approved up to the joint chiefs. only a president with integrity stopped it, but it demonstrates the top echelons of the US government are willing to kill their own citizens.

I concede this point. Northwoods was not in the same category as other whacky ideas. This one made it all the way to the top. That's scary.

Quote

define what you would accept as credible, because you have left the door open to dismiss anything because it upsets your belief system. do you want cheney or kissenger to break down in tears confessing?

Only if it was on Oprah. lol  Seriously, you raise some valid points, but I have a hard time accepting that so many people were necessarily privy to this secret plot yet it remained undiscovered.

I also have difficulty swallowing that Al Qaeda was just a tool for powerful elites. It seems to me that radical Muslim leaders have their own agenda. That they would be intentionally aiding Zionists in the world banking system sounds contradictory.

cheers

Edited by redhen, 18 January 2013 - 07:35 PM.


#627    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,155 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:28 PM

Babe Ruth,

By any chance, are you in ANY way a radical Islamic sympathiser? Please feel feel to opinion.

Just asking.


#628    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:32 PM

View Postpraetorian-legio XIII, on 18 January 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Haven't had a chance to read all the posts, but I hope someone has mentioned what was in WTC 7, and how it just fell down.

Very interesting stuff.

And consider who held the insurance on those buildings.

WTC7 collapsed silently (absence of explosions)  and suffered from serious impact damage as well, but there was no evidence that WTC7 collapsed because of explosives. Beware of that hoaxed video of WTC7 because some CT folks have used that hoaxed video as a reference in order to support their claim that WTC7 was brought down by explosives.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#629    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:55 PM

View Postpallidin, on 18 January 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Babe Ruth,

By any chance, are you in ANY way a radical Islamic sympathiser? Please feel feel to opinion.

Just asking.

Why yes!  How did you know?  Actually I'm the reincarnation of Allah Himself.  Quite perceptive on your part. :tu:


#630    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:11 PM

Hi fish, not gonna buy Cottrell's book right now. But I found a bbc doc, 2 1/2 hr, haven't seen it all. Have one comment/question.

I know most of the historical context already, so I'll just ask now. It seems these mysterious movers and shakers have a long reach, (much like Sauron). They seem to control right-wing extremists, Muslim fanatics, and commie terror cells, all as tools. Are there no other possible factors involved? I'm thinking the inherent interests (self interests) of all these radical groups, plus the Nation states and alliances.

It's appears to me a continuation of old game of balance of power. Note that Cottrell's book cover only has a NATO emblem. If he thinks the cold war is over, he might be wrong.

update; a U.S. field manual is quoted in this doc allowing the utilization of left wing extremist groups if necessary. Yeah, you know, all the real terror groups that were causing mayhem during that time.

I will admit, Italy has been a basket case (mea culpa) for many decades, and I am willing to accept the plausibility of Italian fascists pulling off some false flag ops.

Edited by redhen, 18 January 2013 - 10:07 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users