[natedogg]

Every major problem society has had to deal with in recent history has always had a group of people saying "the governement did it". This makes sense because in nearly every situation the government can make gains if looked at at the right angle. That being said, there are a whole bunch of coincidences that conspirators drawn on in the years prior to 9/11 and beyond. Even if you are a full believer in what the media, government, etc., has told us, which is just fine, i encourage you to watch at least one of the following. They are long but that's not the point.

The 9/11 Ripple Effect
Loose Change 2nd Edition
Loose Change Final Cut

And skeptic or not, ALL of you should take a look at this site at History Commons. It is a complete compliliation of events, big and small, related to 9/11. Some of them are in great detail too. History Commons 911 Timeline
In these videos and sites there are information that should set you thinking. Learn with an open mind and don't make a decison till the video is completely over or you have read the whole article. Obviously, the videos are presented in a bias way, but the facts still remain.

Feel free to debunk after viewing.

[DieChecker]

The only point I would make is that if the government created the collapse of the Twin Towers by manipulating those muslim terrorists and planting explosives in the buildings, then why were they not able to find Weapons of Mass Distruction only a year latter? You would think if the gov was able to manipulate and command what must have been thousands of people into a coverup, they would be able to air lift a couple hundred chemical and bio WMD to Iraq to plant as evidence.

How could the same gov be A+ smart on one operation and F- on another?

This post has been edited by DieChecker: 07 September 2009 - 01:50 AM

[Dr. D]

DieChecker, on 07 September 2009 - 02:50 AM, said:

The only point I would make is that if the government created the collapse of the Twin Towers by manipulating those muslim terrorists and planting explosives in the buildings, then why were they not able to find Weapons of Mass Distruction only a year latter? You would think if the gov was able to manipulate and command what must have been thousands of people into a coverup, they would be able to air lift a couple hundred chemical and bio WMD to Iraq to plant as evidence.

How could the same gov be A+ smart on one operation and F- on another?

So you're saying that if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy then the Bush Administration deserves an F- for its dealing with the mythical WMDs?

[aquatus1]

Dr. D, on 07 September 2009 - 03:06 AM, said:

So you're saying that if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy then the Bush Administration deserves an F- for its dealing with the mythical WMDs?

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

[onesliceshort]

As regards exactly WHO pulled off 9/11 or the reasons, the discussion will go round in circles ad infinitum as it has done from 2001.
But if you are talking about actual PROOF that has been documented, corraborated and verified by people who were actually there that day at one of the four events check this press release out:

My link

Please look carefully at the information presented with an open mind. Watch the video presentation of this evidence:

My link

Please follow any links given at the former link BEFORE discussing it with me. It is vital.

Thanks.

[onesliceshort]

aquatus1, on 07 September 2009 - 11:20 AM, said:

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

´A+ performance´?
It wasn´t THAT good a performance if they left so many holes in the official story. Continually caught lying and asking us to believe physics had changed for the day in all four episodes.
A+ for the military operation maybe.
The WMD episode? I truly don´t believe they gave a rat´s @ss if this shambles was discovered or not. They got their war. What is anybody going to be able to do about it? If they got away with 9/11 why would they possibly care?
The worldwide bank fiasco has come and gone...what has changed?


The true fact of the matter is ordinary people have no say. Politicians are puppets. We are insignificant in the scheme of things. We have been for decades and especially since 9/11.

Maybe THAT was the real reason behind the massacre?

[aquatus1]

onesliceshort, on 07 September 2009 - 03:44 PM, said:

´A+ performance´?
It wasn´t THAT good a performance if they left so many holes in the official story. Continually caught lying and asking us to believe physics had changed for the day in all four episodes.[/quotes]

If it was a performance, it was a performance for the fit audience, though few.

Quote

A+ for the military operation maybe.

If you like. I personally can't see the military pulling off a performance like that.

The WMD episode? I truly don´t believe they gave a rat´s **EDIT** if this shambles was discovered or not. They got their war. What is anybody going to be able to do about it? If they got away with 9/11 why would they possibly care?

If this was a performance, they went through an incredible (I would say unbelievable) amount of effort to keep it from being uncovered. To the point that people advocating these theories have to stretch out to ridiculous lengths to find even the most tenuous links after 8 years of "investigation".

Quote

The worldwide bank fiasco has come and gone...what has changed?

Irrelevant

Quote

The true fact of the matter is ordinary people have no say. Politicians are puppets. We are insignificant in the scheme of things. We have been for decades and especially since 9/11.

You keep thinking that. It makes life easier for the rest of us.

Quote

Maybe THAT was the real reason behind the massacre?

To make ordinary people insignificant for decades past?

Great planning. A+.

Alternatively, maybe the government isn't hyper-competent, maybe it just wasn't paying attention in the right place and the right time, and got mugged walking down the street. Infuriating, and humiliating, and unlike a hyper-professional organization, they reacted in a rather emotional manner, attacking anyone in their way.

This post has been edited by aquatus1: 07 September 2009 - 06:38 PM

[The Silver Thong]

aquatus1, on 07 September 2009 - 05:20 AM, said:

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

Why did there even need to be WMD's? War was declared and that was the goal to start a "just" conflict in the ME. WMD's didn't matter the war is still goin on man. So WMD's become irrelivant, found or not found, made no difference.

[Dr. D]

aquatus1, on 07 September 2009 - 12:20 PM, said:

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

Considering that the administration publicly announced that bin Laden was a principal character in the 9/11 attack and then promised to bring him to justice, I think the question of the real cause of the incident is moot and the administration failed miserably to resolve the issue just as it failed to prove or find WMDs in Iraq. **EDIT** on all counts.

**The profanity filters are there for a reason.**

This post has been edited by aquatus1: 07 September 2009 - 09:33 PM

[onesliceshort]

aquatus1, on 07 September 2009 - 06:38 PM, said:

If this was a performance, they went through an incredible (I would say unbelievable) amount of effort to keep it from being uncovered. To the point that people advocating these theories have to stretch out to ridiculous lengths to find even the most tenuous links after 8 years of "investigation".

Exactly WHO has run the ¨investigation¨ into what happened that day? Are you going to tell me that the whole episode was investigated in an unbiased fashion?
The whole process was worked backwards. First with the conclusions already predrawn and information woven in to fit said conclusion.
Testimony and evidence was cherrypicked and/or completely dismissed depending on whether or not it fitted neatly into the 9/11 commission´s findings.
Even the authors of the 9/11 commission have distanced themselves from the report on the grounds that their ´hands were tied´ in some areas of CIA contributions and demands of the government.
The official story (´story in every sense of the word) has become ´tenuous´ to say the least.
I´m not a proponent of all 9/11 theories that have surfaced but have found the aforementioned links in my other post to be VERY intriguing.

Quote

Irrelevant

The banking fiasco was given as an example of how much the present regimes can get away with.

Quote

You keep thinking that. It makes life easier for the rest of us.

When I said that we are insignificant as a people, I meant in the scheme of things, that we are increasingly finding ourselves incapable of affecting change or for airing our grievances.
I do not see myself in the light that you presumed I painted. Far from it.

Quote

To make ordinary people insignificant for decades past?

Great planning. A+..

Human rights have been eroded for decades. After 9/11 they wrote it into law.
The US Constitution?
Draconian laws introduced to enable secret services and police more control and powers to invade our private spaces
to a degree where everything is covered under the guise of ´national security´, whether it be tapping our communications or censoring information. Arrest and detention. Free speech. The list goes on.

Quote

Alternatively, maybe the government isn't hyper-competent, maybe it just wasn't paying attention in the right place and the right time, and got mugged walking down the street. Infuriating, and humiliating, and unlike a hyper-professional organization, they reacted in a rather emotional manner, attacking anyone in their way.

How the government handled the aftermath has nothing to do with it. Certain people were obviously paying attention as can be seen through the ´Able Danger´report, the coincidental wargames scheduled for that day, the incredibly irregular share movements that day on the very businesses that were affected, the fact that major players and politicians were advised not to fly commercial that morning, the payment of $100,000 into the account of Mohammad Atta by Pakistani intel, warnings from French, Turkish, Syrian, English and Italian intel agencies (and the CIA knew nothing?)
So no, I don´t believe that they were caught unawares. Not for one minute.

[onesliceshort]

Quote

I personally can't see the military pulling off a performance like that.

It was a military op but not in the sense of the USAF or regular army. I meant that it was carried out with military precision.
I know from the evidence given in my links that there was definitely a black op carried out at the Pentagon by nefarious elements from WITHIN the military machine. Which countries/agencies? I don´t know.

[aquatus1]

The Silver Thong, on 07 September 2009 - 08:15 PM, said:

Why did there even need to be WMD's? War was declared and that was the goal to start a "just" conflict in the ME. WMD's didn't matter the war is still goin on man. So WMD's become irrelivant, found or not found, made no difference.

Nonsense. WMD's would have validated the entire Iraq war. Even if we had had absolutely no reason at all to invade, finding WMD's would have validated it.

If a SWAT team breaks into an apartment without due process and find absolutely nothing, they are in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, they break into an apartment without due process, and find roomfuls of explosives and timers, yeah, they'll be in trouble, but the fact that they found the explosives, and that they averted a potential disaster is going to go a long way towards getting them out of it. It's just basic human nature.

No, finding WMD destruction would have changed the entire way that America was viewed by the rest of the world. There is absolutely no way that the presence of WMD would not have been relevant. Heck, they would have been the entire focus.

Dr. D, on 07 September 2009 - 08:21 PM, said:

Considering that the administration publicly announced that bin Laden was a principal character in the 9/11 attack and then promised to bring him to justice, I think the question of the real cause of the incident is moot and the administration failed miserably to resolve the issue just as it failed to prove or find WMDs in Iraq. **EDIT** on all counts.
**The profanity filters are there for a reason.**

Not sure what that has to do with the example of the government being hyper-efficient in one regard and utterly lacking in another, but as long as you understand the example, whatever.

onesliceshort, on 07 September 2009 - 10:30 PM, said:

Exactly WHO has run the ¨investigation¨ into what happened that day? Are you going to tell me that the whole episode was investigated in an unbiased fashion?
The whole process was worked backwards. First with the conclusions already predrawn and information woven in to fit said conclusion.
Testimony and evidence was cherrypicked and/or completely dismissed depending on whether or not it fitted neatly into the 9/11 commission´s findings.
Even the authors of the 9/11 commission have distanced themselves from the report on the grounds that their ´hands were tied´ in some areas of CIA contributions and demands of the government.
The official story (´story in every sense of the word) has become ´tenuous´ to say the least.
I´m not a proponent of all 9/11 theories that have surfaced but have found the aforementioned links in my other post to be VERY intriguing.

Not really interested in all the conspiracies about 9/11. Pretty much the only topic about it that gets my interest is the engineering aspects of it. As far as the engineering aspects go, and that covers everything physical and structural that occurred, if this was a performance by whoever, it was done perfectly. There is nothing about it that would be out of place in the scenario as described by NIST.

Quote

The banking fiasco was given as an example of how much the present regimes can get away with.

Oh? What did they get away with?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has even shown they were intentionally involved, let alone got away with it.

Or is "present regimes" one of those catch-all terms that can mean government leaders, secret NWO groups, world-wide banking cabals, or any vague, generalized, faceless enemy of human rights?

Quote

When I said that we are insignificant as a people, I meant in the scheme of things, that we are increasingly finding ourselves incapable of affecting change or for airing our grievances.
I do not see myself in the light that you presumed I painted. Far from it.

Really? 'Cause it really does seem to give that impression. It was almost depressing, reading that.

Quote

Human rights have been eroded for decades. After 9/11 they wrote it into law.
The US Constitution?
Draconian laws introduced to enable secret services and police more control and powers to invade our private spaces
to a degree where everything is covered under the guise of ´national security´, whether it be tapping our communications or censoring information. Arrest and detention. Free speech. The list goes on.

Yes, the US Constitution was indeed instituted to restrict state powers, enact a stronger (or draconian, if you want to be melodramatic about it) central government, and introduce the concept of "national security" to what was a disorganized and failing confederation of individual states. They understood that, as nice as the rhetoric given to the masses about freedom and liberty where, in all practicality a government that intends to be successful had better have control of the powers within it, or suffer the consequences (look at what happened with the rail system, the food industry, and most currently, the economic system. All grew powerful and corrupted until the government had to step in and restrict their freedoms).

Quote

How the government handled the aftermath has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't?

The claim is made that the government acted hyper-efficiently one moment, but how the government acted directly after then has nothing to do with it?

That's a rather specific way of defining your argument there. Any other annoying little discrepancies that go counter to the argument that you want to cut off before they start making sense?

[onesliceshort]

aquatus1, on 07 September 2009 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nonsense. WMD's would have validated the entire Iraq war. Even if we had had absolutely no reason at all to invade, finding WMD's would have validated it.

If a SWAT team breaks into an apartment without due process and find absolutely nothing, they are in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, they break into an apartment without due process, and find roomfuls of explosives and timers, yeah, they'll be in trouble, but the fact that they found the explosives, and that they averted a potential disaster is going to go a long way towards getting them out of it. It's just basic human nature.

No, finding WMD destruction would have changed the entire way that America was viewed by the rest of the world. There is absolutely no way that the presence of WMD would not have been relevant. Heck, they would have been the entire focus.



Not sure what that has to do with the example of the government being hyper-efficient in one regard and utterly lacking in another, but as long as you understand the example, whatever.



Not really interested in all the conspiracies about 9/11. Pretty much the only topic about it that gets my interest is the engineering aspects of it. As far as the engineering aspects go, and that covers everything physical and structural that occurred, if this was a performance by whoever, it was done perfectly. There is nothing about it that would be out of place in the scenario as described by NIST.



Oh? What did they get away with?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has even shown they were intentionally involved, let alone got away with it.

Or is "present regimes" one of those catch-all terms that can mean government leaders, secret NWO groups, world-wide banking cabals, or any vague, generalized, faceless enemy of human rights?



Really? 'Cause it really does seem to give that impression. It was almost depressing, reading that.



Yes, the US Constitution was indeed instituted to restrict state powers, enact a stronger (or draconian, if you want to be melodramatic about it) central government, and introduce the concept of "national security" to what was a disorganized and failing confederation of individual states. They understood that, as nice as the rhetoric given to the masses about freedom and liberty where, in all practicality a government that intends to be successful had better have control of the powers within it, or suffer the consequences (look at what happened with the rail system, the food industry, and most currently, the economic system. All grew powerful and corrupted until the government had to step in and restrict their freedoms).



It doesn't?

The claim is made that the government acted hyper-efficiently one moment, but how the government acted directly after then has nothing to do with it?

That's a rather specific way of defining your argument there. Any other annoying little discrepancies that go counter to the argument that you want to cut off before they start making sense?

Read my post again. Calmly this time?

The banking fiasco I was referring to was the bankrupcy that has happened of late.

My post showed that 9/11 was nowhere near the open and shut case that you seem to imply. That the government was caught ´offguard´ is a non runner.

All I am saying is that there needs to be a new unrestricted, open enquiry where ALL suspicions and irregularities aren´t just brushed under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That NOBODY has a veto on the outcome. Transparency.

How the government reacted afterwards has no bearing on this discussion the way you were talking about it.
´They felt they were mugged´ and struck out at anyone in their way...
It is a presumption based on what? How has my rejection of it made my argument non sensical?
You assume that I believe the US government had a role in the dynamics and carrying out of the operations.
I don´t know who carried them out nor even the real reasoning behind it but I certainly know that their hands aren´t clean. That they took a backseat that day. Allowing this atrocity to happen.

I have given proven facts (just a small number of those available) that prove that there was prior knowledge at the very least.

The attack on the Constitution would be bearable if it was being done so in the honorable and sensible way you say, but it is being used against individuals for selfish reasons. It is in the hands of unaccountable, faceless people loyal to themselves and the bankers.

FEMA have admitted that fire was the unlikely cause of the collapse of WTC7. NIST´s report on the towers is based on mathematical assumptions that have changed how many times? ´Pancake´? ´banana´? ´powerdrive´?

The ASCE report on the Pentagon fails before the plane allegedly made contact with the facade. The left engine dragging the lawn before impact?

´Present regimes´ is exactly what it implies. Those with power.
Please don´t try to pin the tinhat on me yet.
I hope we don´t enter that realm of discussion. It grates on me and I´m sure anyone watching the discussion.


Have you checked out the link?

[onesliceshort]

´National Security´ can be the reason given for ANY withholding of information in the hands of the government.
It can also be used for arrest and detention.
It can be used to override ANY law they wish.
They can do or say anything they want on the back of these words.
Two simple words. No argument. Perfect.

[aquatus1]

onesliceshort, on 07 September 2009 - 11:51 PM, said:

Read my post again. Calmly this time?

As opposed to what? Oooh, I get it! You want to make it seem like I'm being irrational! Good one!

Quote

The banking fiasco I was referring to was the bankrupcy that has happened of late.

I figured. I just can't tell What relevance it had to what we were talking about, about the government being hyper-efficient one moment, and a failure the next.

Quote

My post showed that 9/11 was nowhere near the open and shut case that you seem to imply.

The thing about it is that, well, just saying something isn't the same as showing something. To you, claiming that the government cherry picked evidence, that tossed stuff out, that was biased to begin with, may well be showing, but to me...it's just you making these statements. In order to believe them, really the only option I have would be to believe you, and I don't really know you that well. And, like I said, it's not really my area of interest. I like the engineering aspects of it, in large part because there is no belief required there. You don't have to take someone's word that something works or doesn't. You can't check it yourself.

Quote

That the government was caught ´offguard´ is a non runner.

Don't understand this, so won't comment.

Quote

All I am saying is that there needs to be a new unrestricted, open enquiry where ALL suspicions and irregularities aren´t just brushed under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That NOBODY has a veto on the outcome. Transparency.

Yeah?

So who would you trust to be on this query board?

Who would you trust if, at the end of it, they told you that it was right the first time?

Quote

How the government reacted afterwards has no bearing on this discussion the way you were talking about it.

I can't see why not. The entire argument (which I did not begin, by the way), was that it didn't make sense that the same government who was so hyper-efficient that they could carry off a false attack on 9/11 suddenly became inept at pretending to find WMD in Iraq. That's a pretty direct correlation.

Quote

´They felt they were mugged´ and struck out at anyone in their way...
It is a presumption based on what? How has my rejection of it made my argument non sensical?

I don't know what you mean by "presumption" (presuming what?), but what made your argument nonsensical was saying that finding something so dangerous it would get pretty much anyone off the hook would be irrelevant and make no difference. We have a long history of human behaviour in which objectional behaviour was overlooked if the ends made that behaviour worthwhile.

Quote

You assume that I believe the US government had a role in the dynamics and carrying out of the operations.
I don´t know who carried them out nor even the real reasoning behind it but I certainly know that their hands aren´t clean. That they took a backseat that day. Allowing this atrocity to happen.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me, in terms of the argument. My argument is about logic, i.e. how can a government act hyper-efficiently one moment and utterly incompetent the next.

Quote

I have given proven facts (just a small number of those available) that prove that there was prior knowledge at the very least.

I'm sure you have. Heck, I even believe it. I haven't actually seen anything that makes me think that there was anything concrete enough to be acted on, but then, it really isn't something I have an interest in.

Quote

The attack on the Constitution would be bearable if it was being done so in the honorable and sensible way you say, but it is being used against individuals for selfish reasons. It is in the hands of unaccountable, faceless people loyal to themselves and the bankers.

Again, all I have to go on here is your belief that this is so, and I don't find your logic strong enough to warrant it.

Quote

FEMA have admitted that fire was the unlikely cause of the collapse of WTC7. NIST´s report on the towers is based on mathematical assumptions that have changed how many times? ´Pancake´? ´banana´? ´powerdrive´?

None, actually. I am quite familiar with what NIST said.

Quote

The ASCE report on the Pentagon fails before the plane allegedly made contact with the facade. The left engine dragging the lawn before impact?

If you like.

Quote

´Present regimes´ is exactly what it implies. Those with power.

Way to narrow it down.

Quote

Please don´t try to pin the tinhat on me yet.

I'll try, but you are kinda hitting each bullet on the list...

Quote

I hope we don´t enter that realm of discussion. It grates on me and I´m sure anyone watching the discussion.
Have you checked out the link?

No, I'm still on the argument that I was originally at. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a government that put together such an incredible production on 9/11 was unable to put together a much more relatively simple on finding the WMD's in Iraq. It was an impressive dance you did, and it would probably have worked if I was interested in the rest of the topic, but as it is, the argument was not addressed; indeed, it was just dismissed as irrelevant with the same casual wave of the hand that skeptics are accused of doing with the CT arguments.

If you are looking to get into the politics of 9/11, I recommend asking someone else. As a lot of people here know, I just don't get into those discussions.