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

#796    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,157 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:16 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Of course not, however, but must remember that the war of terror began when terrorist attacked the United States, that, after bin Laden declared war on America.

Its a no-win situation because nobody wins.  It's a loser.  Not to be betted on.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#797    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 11 February 2013 - 02:14 PM

View PostGummug, on 11 February 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

This isn't a case for proof, just a case for possibility:
p1 Governments have historically killed their own citizens (think of Hitler, Stalin, etc.). There is actually a name for it, called "Democide" I believe.
p2 USA has a government (well, duh)
conclusion: At least there is the possibility that, as our society continues to corrode, and the politicians/government along with it, that our government could be guilty of democide.
Like I said, I know you were looking for proof (or maybe I should say a logically consistent argument), of which I have none, but this at least would seem to open the door to the possibility.
Unless one were to posit the US government were impervious to corruption...would that it were so...

Sure, it's possible, lots of things are possible, except contradictory claims. But in inductive reasoning we are looking for the inference to the best explanation.


#798    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:40 PM

View Postacidhead, on 11 February 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Its a no-win situation because nobody wins.  It's a loser.  Not to be betted on.

Osama bin Laden, lost, and most of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda has been taken down as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#799    Gummug

Gummug

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,252 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:05 PM

View Postredhen, on 11 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Sure, it's possible, lots of things are possible, except contradictory claims. But in inductive reasoning we are looking for the inference to the best explanation.
I'm glad you seem to accept the possibility. As far as the inductive reasoning, that's the reason I was trying to tiptoe out of this thread before I got caught, others (particularly Q24) have done it, or attempted to do it (depends on your viewpoint I guess) far better than I, like I say, I am way out of my league here.
As a footnote that you might be interested in, you started this thread (if I understand correctly) because of the way people were treating SandyHook people. I totally agree with you, some of the behavior exhibited by CTers...if they really are that...is totally egregious and unacceptable. However, you may be interested to know that you inspired me (if that is the correct word) to read about Sandy Hook in this same section (Conspiracies) and after reading it and watching the OP video, I am less convinced than before that it happened the way we were told. I'm still on the fence about it, because I hate jumping to conclusions and being wrong, and as a friend of mine put it (and I quote), "I would rather believe someone and be let down than doubt someone and be put down".

Posted Image


#800    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:42 PM

View PostGummug, on 11 February 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

As a footnote that you might be interested in, you started this thread (if I understand correctly) because of the way people were treating SandyHook people. I totally agree with you, some of the behavior exhibited by CTers...if they really are that...is totally egregious and unacceptable.

It doesn't seem to slowing down either. Victims of the Aurora movie theater massacre are also being harassed.

Quote

"I would rather believe someone and be let down than doubt someone and be put down".

Well it depends on how credible the authority is.


#801    Gummug

Gummug

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,252 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:09 PM

@Redhen: Fair enough. The harassing is ridiculous, I admit. Even if Gene Rosen were just a paid actor (and I'm going to be in the minority here and just say I don't know one way or another) I think it's pointless and rude to harass him or anyone else.

Posted Image


#802    StrYdeRmE

StrYdeRmE

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2013

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:41 AM

Well guys.  As ya look out unto the world and see, hear, feel and smell the fear as the police state closes its clamps around the necks of We The People...  Need we contemplate the answer to the question which spawned this thread.  Man oh man...


#803    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM

View PostQ24, on 07 February 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

When I posed the questions, it is upon the specific basis, “given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists”. Now I’m not familiar with the Dahmer case but I’d hazard a guess that what the police knew at the time is incomparable to that which the CIA knew of the terrorists prior 9/11. For example, if you could fill me in, did the police know that Dahmer had murderous tendencies, perhaps hung out with serial killers and had the appearance of preparing for a killing? Did a police colleague inform them that “someone will die” if Dahmer were not taken in, and complain that Dahmer received “protection”? I doubt it. Though the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were terrorists and connected to previous attacks, illegals inside the country, attended ‘Al Qaeda’ meetings, in all likelihood that they were undertaking flying lessons and the FBI had warned that, “someone will die” and complained that the terrorists received “protection”.

With this background information I can answer the questions I posed. Please answer the questions above to fill me in on the Dahmer case so that I can best respond to yours. I think the answer to your first question, “What might cops attempting to prevent murder have done?”, could well be, “Nothing, because they did not have sufficient intelligence available.” From there, the argument falls apart, as the answer to the third and final question becomes, “both/neither”.\

The point of the Dahmer analogy is to illustrate the absurdity and spin involved in boiling down a complicated question to a simple, dichotomous, misleading, 'preventing an attack' or 'allowing an attack'. You're right that the knowledge they had of Dahmer was incomparable to what the CIA knew of the terrorists, but in a vastly more relevant way the information they had is entirely incomparable in the opposite direction, because there is a serious crime occurring right in front of their faces. Not an unspecified attack by unspecified people at an unspecified date/time and unspecified specific manner like our hapless intelligence agencies who are not communicating with each other. These cops had direct evidence of a naked minor who was clearly drugged/drunk and raped, and they didn't even run Dahmer's name through the system nor verify the identity of the minor. You really honestly think as a comparison that the CIA/FBI had better 'sufficient evidence' of the impending attack than that? Can you see how the cops screwed up royally in this case, it doesn't really matter that it's Dahmer, do you really think somehow they are lacking probable cause here?

The Dahmer cops here pretty clearly screwed up, they failed to investigate a probable crime. No one suspects anything conspiratorial though, we all just accept that either these specific cops messed up or there's something more systemic in that city's department or maybe in law enforcment as a whole that was possibly the issue that resulted in Dahmer not being stopped and more lives being lost. I don't know how you've just swept away or compensated for these type of mundane, people-make-mistakes options, that are not at all unusual and in fact incredibly common especially in government agencies.  I would think at a minimum the myriad explanations of this type need to be dealt with in order to arrive at, 'the CIA prevented the FBI from going after people who turned out to be 9/11 terrorists, and thus, the best explanation for this is a conspiracy'.  As I stated, you're leaving out all kinds of nuance and other possible answers, such as, 'the CIA was trying to work covertly to infiltrate Al Qaeda in order to better prevent attacks ongoing'. Do you have an issue with this approach, with undercover work? You know that sometimes that requires not going after criminals for relatively less serious crimes so that you can catch them in a big one/gain more intelligence/etc? In other words, that making those kinds of decisions to not bust people as soon as you can is inherently risky?

Quote

I cannot abide your argument here at all, you are passing the buck. Come on, this is not difficult – comparing it to brain surgery is poppycock.

I'm comparing it to brain surgery because I'm not pretending I'm an intelligence agent and have all the information that the intelligence agent has who is not allowing the FBI to make their arrest. Not just information on the terrorists, but information on how I'm instructed to do my job, how I am rewarded, my personal desires as far as wanting to take credit for my busts, and a whole host of other info directly related to how people make decisions. About which, I know as much specifically as I know about brain surgery. Why are you pretending you know all this?

Quote

I do find the questions relevant and have incorporated them into my conclusions.

Glad to hear that. I still don't see any reflection that you actually have though, nor any indication as to how you are privy to all that information. It really helps your case on this point if you can show that people's actions are entirely unusual and have no other reasonable explanation outside of a conspiracy, and I'm not seeing not only where you've done that, but how you can possibly have even close to the amount of information you'd need to accomplish it. It's a tough environment for you in that most of this information is classified, I don't envy you, but regardless it doesn't change the vast amount of information that you do not have access to.

Quote

Ok. Let it be known, that because ‘Al Qaeda’ would not stop their attempts of an attack, LG would tolerate the presence of such terrorists on U.S. soil (figure that one out). Further, that although his colleagues are straining at the leash to intervene and it would take all but a handful of agents a morning to apprehend said terrorists, LG would declare lack of manpower (even though he could muster the manpower in Kuala Lumpur to monitor, break into the terrorists apartment and lead them to the accommodation of a U.S. informant inside the United States). And despite such terrorists, connected to ‘Al Qaeda’ and previous attacks, illegally inside the United States, with warnings that “someone will die” LG would not find this specific enough to act upon. Even when the terrorists are known to take flying lessons, LG would allow them to board civilian airliners!

<rest of strawman burned to save space>

To put it as nicely as possible, this is just loony. I've read what you quoted from me a couple of times, you know, the questions I just asked that you admit are relevant and that you have supposedly incorporated, and I ain't seeing where you get any of this garbage. The careful, sober, rational reader may note that LG said absolutely diddly-squat about what he personally would tolerate, declare, and/or allow. It's not even properly called a strawman, it's just delusional.  I'm just going to rack this up to you spleen-venting and ignore it, let me know if there's an argument that needs responding to baked in there somewhere.

Quote

The Challenger is an interesting case for comparison...

In contrast to the 9/11 case, that engineer was not prevented from investigating nor attempting to rectify the O-ring problem, as the FBI were prevented from investigating or rectifying the terrorist problem. An apparent similarity is that the Challenger higher-ups ignored the engineer warning for political and financial reasons, namely that the mission was time critical... it follows there may have been similar political pressure for the CIA to ignore the FBI warning.

Well, if you spin it right, the engineer was 'prevented' in that he was never given the authority himself to cancel the launch in the first place. Regardless, I think the more interesting, and more analogous, aspect is to compare the behavior of the CIA with the behavior of the higher-ups. Both received warnings that could lead to catastrophe that they ignored, only to find these previous warnings to be tragically spot-on. We look at the Challenger disaster and attribute it to both systemic and individual issues, despite there being specific warnings of the exact problem that caused the accident that in hindsight don't appear to have been responded to rationally, but we basically understand to some extent how these things can indeed happen. Same with the Dahmer cops, it's a blatant oversight/laziness/systemic issue, but we're not left looking to conspiracies either to try and find a satisfactory answer. We switch to CIA agents preventing the FBI from busting their suspects, which would deprive the CIA agents of that privilege, reward, etc, and I'm then supposed to think conspiracy is the best answer? When the explanation for their action/inaction is possibly the same all-too-commonplace factors as it was for NASA/those cops? I grant that there's more evidence of a conspiracy involved in 9/11 than in either Challenger or Dahmer, but that introduction of conspiracy as another possible explanation for 9/11 does not magically remove these more common, albeit complex, explanations that lead people to make decisions that turned out to be very bad in hindsight, but that are eminently explainable without resorting to conspiracy.

Quote

Here is a big area which highlights the difference between a genuine mistake, where all parties are interested in getting to the truth of the matter to prevent a recurrence, and an event where politicians are not interested in the truth: In the case of Challenger, two investigations were completed, which identified not just cause of the disaster but the reasons behind it, holding those areas responsible to account and all within 7 months of the event. Yet in the case of 9/11, under protest of the Bush administration, it took over a year just to establish an investigatory committee, reasons for the failure and those responsible were not questioned and the report took nearly 3 years to see light of day.

I'm not happy about the delay in the investigation either nor Bush's stonewalling, but again it's not like there is absolutely no explanation as to why they would protest it: the investigation is an evaluation of their performance. Was Nixon doing all he could to cooperate with the Watergate investigation? Clinton on Lewinsky?  Reagan on Iran-Contra?  Jesus, any administration at all? Stonewalling is not just an expected reaction when what you have to hide is your involvement in a conspiracy, but your ineptitude also, and you shouldn't really need any evidence of the govt's ineptitude and display of it. Add in that unlike Challenger, 9/11 is larger in scope and a combination of multiple events, involves not just one agency, NASA, but several intelligence agencies, and by its nature involves sensitive and classified information, and I would expect the report and investigation to take longer to complete. I'm with you as far as any efforts you'd like to take to prevent the government from legally keeping so many secrets, but regardless, this is again business as usual for the time.

Quote

I disagree with your claim that it’s 20/20 in this case – the argument is based on facts that were known at the time/pre-9/11, not with hindsight. Of course the CIA did not know when and where the attacks were to occur. I have been repeatedly listing broadly what the CIA did know (you just quoted it), and it was more than enough to act upon, to end the threat right there. We can add this to the President’s daily brief, which in August 2001 did mention these specifics: -
  • “Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to carry out terrorist attacks in the US
  • “his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef”
  • “Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington
  • “Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US
  • “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft
  • “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings
The assemblage of this data into what was to happen is hindsight though. Just reading these lines I'm not sure that 'WTC bomber', 'retaliate in Washington', 'hijack an aircraft' should logically be inferred as all referring to the same incident and not separate occurrences for example, you may have other evidence showing that the agents should have taken it that way.  You said you are incorporating my other questions into your analysis, so how many other inspecific threats were there. How many other vague threats turned out to be nothing? How many false alarms do you need until it starts to take an effect on the decisions agents make when confronted with future alarms? Why are you giving me a list of just threats related to 9/11 just from August 2001 if Bin Laden has been threatening since '97, no threats were made in the intervening years?

Quote

For someone who won't challenge anything the CIA did, you seem very quick in your attempt to undermine the word of an FBI agent.

I'll keep in mind that this perspective is being offered by someone who thinks scientists who do not agree with a conspiracy and whose opinions and analysis of the details of the WTC collapses are not at all in conflict with the scientific consensus should be tried for treason.

Quote

It is not hindsight when the FBI wanted to act before 9/11, attempted to act before 9/11, and were blocked before 9/11. These are the actual acts that took place - it doesn't matter that it was reported in 2009. It does not take hindsight to know that under normal procedure terrorists should be hindered, not provided free passage.

And under normal procedures, drug dealers should not be allowed to freely travel and deliver drugs, and undoubtedly engage in violence, yet that's exactly what they are 'allowed' to do as part of sting operations, undercover infiltration of drug organizations, etc. Right? How many police investigations have been halted and criminals 'protected' so that the feds can possibly prosecute higher level criminals in the future? If one of these higher level criminals orders an attack and we look back and find that an IRS agent wanted to prosecute them and put them away for a couple years for tax evasion or something, is that what you think should have been done, it's inexcusable that they continued their operation to try and get at the top level leaders? After all 'the attack as we know it wouldn't have happened if we would have just busted him earlier'.

No, I don't think the CIA or any of the agencies responsible for not preventing 9/11 should necessarily be 'defended' against anything but insufficient arguments, there's plenty that we do know of that they deserve to take the blame for.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#804    Gummug

Gummug

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,252 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:47 AM

View Postjoc, on 13 January 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Since this thread is going nowhere but straight to hell fast...I will post this link...watch if you want...don't if you don't...I gave it to Palladin already in a PM:

LINK
It is an hour or so long and no one is going to watch it because no one really wants their deep rooted understanding of the garbage the government feeds us upset.  But if you actually care about the truth...watch it...and then go back to your opinions.

I just finished watching joc's link here and what the *snip*??? I didn't realize three buildings fell down...not just wtc1 and wtc2 but wtc7 also, which if I understand, wasn't even HIT by a plane...and according to this link, it fell at even FASTER than free fall speeds (sorry Redhen I know this isn't what you were looking for but I couldn't resist).
edited cuz I messed up as usual

Edited by Gummug, 13 February 2013 - 03:48 AM.

Posted Image


#805    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:59 PM

Seriously Gummug, or are you kidding?

Are you really just discovering WTC7?  If you are, I can totally relate.  It took me 4 years to discover that fact.


#806    Gummug

Gummug

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,252 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 February 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Seriously Gummug, or are you kidding?

Are you really just discovering WTC7?  If you are, I can totally relate.  It took me 4 years to discover that fact.
Yeah, sometimes I'm a retard. Or more accurately, an idiot-savant.

Posted Image


#807    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM

Nothing to be ashamed of.  You're to be admired for openly admitting it.  Cheers :clap:

Some folks like to pretend it was just another Tuesday afternoon in Manhattan, when it came down, no big deal.

That was what changed my perspective, because before I had more or less supported the official story, having been traumatized psychologically that morning.


#808    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:20 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:


That was what changed my perspective, because before I had more or less supported the official story, having been traumatized psychologically that morning.

Looking at the facts, all of the evidence support the official story.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#809    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostGummug, on 13 February 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

(sorry Redhen I know this isn't what you were looking for but I couldn't resist).

Thanks, but I was already briefed.

"Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[69] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later.[70][71] The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks


So obviously, the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati/Reptiles wanted revenge against the Greek Orthodox Church for suppressing true knowledge of the Holy Grail. Everything else was just a cover, obviously.


#810    Gummug

Gummug

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,252 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:14 PM

View Postredhen, on 13 February 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Thanks, but I was already briefed.

"Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[69] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later.[70][71] The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks


So obviously, the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati/Reptiles wanted revenge against the Greek Orthodox Church for suppressing true knowledge of the Holy Grail. Everything else was just a cover, obviously.
You uncovered the plot, Redhen! Finally someone did it!

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users