Since basically the crash of the twin towers, crash in the field and the plane smashing into the pentagon, there has been this idea that it was all the government's doing.

My idea is... The government didn't plan or conduct 9/11 but in a secret covert operation of mass propaganda the government is planting the seeds of 9/11 cover-ups, reviews and more on the internet to actually distract the conspiracy theorists from the real cover-ups and black operations around the world and in your own backyard.

Think about it once. What is the sole biggest hitter right now in conspiracy theories? It's basically giving the government a free pass, is it not to do more things?

9/11 was planned and conducted by terrorists. Time to look around else where people.

9/11: Debunking The Myths



9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction



the fifth estate: Conspiracy Theories



U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba



Six myths of 9/11

What You Think You Know About Sept. 11 … … but don't.

dont be too quick to look else where!!
thats what disinformation is supposed to make you do..this is my 1st post here i hope im not too bold.

What do you believe are the real cover-ups and black operations?



Any individual or an organized group that would commit unlawful attacks or threatened violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments are called terrorist. Who do you believe conducted the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks?



Where do you believe individuals should seek answers to unanswered 9/11/01 questions?

Personally I think it was 19 terrorists. Who do you think it was?



What questions are these? I hope you don't mean.."stand downs"..."pull its".."missiles".."freefalls"..etc.

These questions have been answered and documented ad nauseum.
The question shouldn't be "where can people look for answers"..but "what evidence will the cts accept as valid?" Is there ANY degree of evidence that a CT will accept if the act of accepting it will lead to the crumbling of a belief they've held so dear for so long. Its very much like a extreme religious belief. Reality doesn't matter...things will just come from the sky one day...because you just "know it".

Bolderdash sir utter bolderdash. How dare you make such an assumption. Next you'll proclaim aids was created by the CIA. where is the evidence? monkeys you say! yeah right it's a natural disease. But is it? Don't turn to the Bible for your answers apply science and think man!

LOL..Thats funny! I tip my cyber-hat!

i can understand the reason for your cognittive disonance-- the truth can be quite disturbing-- the fact remains that it is not a wild conspiracy but a resonable conclusion to thorough scrutiny-- the video of bldg 7,without any help from outside influence,raises the demolition theory all by itself and the firefighters testimony,the bush administrations actions,history and common sense do the rest for you-- it is a no brainer-- keep trying though and you will pass through the second stage of denial soon-- eventually you will realize that it was self evident from the very begining-- c'mon though cheneys wargames,ex order w199i and bldg 7's collapse do not point to foreign amatuers

What do you mean by "cognitive disonance?...is that whatever stands as proof against ANY CT theory?

--

What fact?? The "fact" based on what?? observation? And this is an important point to clarify..How do you define "reasonable conclusion"? Please define it.
To me "resonable conclusion" means one that is the result of the process of REASONING..i.e. there is a "reason" to accept the conclusion as fact and those reasons are the product an investigation of the evidence...not "common sense"..not "intuitive deduction"..not "looked like" and certainly not from the process of ignoring anything that doesn't fit a preconcieved conclusion and ideological bias.


--

No..a video thats been edited to show only what one wants to show is not evidence..its manipulation. Building 7 took over 33 secs to collapse from the first VISIBLE signs of failure..why do CTs ignore these things? Do you mean the carefully edited testimony of some firefighters? That too is obvious manipulation. I know for a fact that the in context full statements of those very same fighters has been posted on this very forum and I know you've read them...maybe you forgot..but I know they were posted. If information becomes known that conflicts with the bias....do you just forget it because its messy for nice pat theory?







100% irrelevant.






We're not talking about mental games. The facts of the situation is the only "self evident" thing about the events of 911.

What do you mean by "foreign amatuers"? You're joking right??

Fine Eggy, you still believe all 19 terrorist hijackers conducted 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. When it has been reported that only 1 of the hijackers led a group of Moslem men to carry out the attacks.



Not sure.



Why is it when member post a question, you decide to reply and post nonsense. At any rate, if you want to ask me a question of a particular 9/11/01 terrorist event, just ask.

What does that mean? Are you disputing numbers or that fact that the attacks were carried out by terrorists? You CTs are alway so vague. I suspect it a trait that always leaves you an ambigious out.




Ahh...the dishonest vagueness. You know quite well that I didn't ask you what you were SURE of ..I asked who you thought carried out the attacks if not the 19? Appearently you think SOMETHING else..At the end of your post you said if I had any direct questions to ask them of you ...o.k...theres one. Your post eluded to not believing the 19 highjackers actually carried out the attacks. Who do you THINK did?




Well..I'm here to learn. I have no idea what you're talking about. Please refrain from commentary and simply copy and post...and then comment on..some of my "nonsense".

Thanks.

Why would you post that common sense and observation are not important during, before and after an investigation?



It means 1 terrorist hijacker conducted the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.



No.



Why do you assume that I am a conspiracy theorist?

--
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them.



first off your completely in denial(see above definition concerning "cognitive dissonance") concerning the time of collapse-- the video is clear as day and your 33 second nonsense is NOT verified in the video and exists only in your mind-- the firefighters are not amatuers and the descriptions of what they heard,felt and saw is not vague and cannot be denied-- to try and write off bush's executive order protecting bin laden just two months before 9/11 is hardly irrelavent-- its obviously a vain struggle at maintaining your govt version house of cards that fell long ago except to those in denial-- to think that an amatuer cesna pilot could assume command of a "big bird" and manuever across multiple states without the use of the navigation instruments and a view consisting of nothing but clouds is absolutely ludicrous-- wake up and quit defending a major failure for a president responsible for lying us into multiple wars using manufactured terrorist events,forged documents,rendition,torture,domestic spying and election fraud

try again

--


..and this is the problem that CTs have in accepting reality.




Wrong. It is documented by several sources on sight and on video that the collapse took 33 secs. You should check the cognitive dissonance in yourself. Another trait of cognitive dissonance is that the person simply doesn't believe he's/shes under the spell...no matter how much evidence is presented.

Answer this honestly. In all the "evidence" video footage of the collapse of #7..how much footage is shown before the visible failure starts? There is documentation by a t.v. stations cameras and commentary..AS ITS HAPPENING..detailing the sag and movement before the visible global failure...sorry 33 secs. It IS documented on video..just not the edited video that most CTs choose to see to the exclusion of any other...RE: cognitive dissonance.

The manipulated "time" of a video is proof of nothing. I pointed out in another post that timing anything depends on when you start the clock.


-

Then why are you denying it? What MAKES it vague..and one must wonder the movitation behind someone "making" it seem so...is the manipulative editing.


--

Please link me to the protecting bin ladem order?..But this is what I mean about the extent of the cognitive dissonance taken by CTs..on the one hand many rail on argueing that Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks and wave the discredited Ummat report stating he had nothing to do with it...then when it works in favor the other way....well Bush PROTECTED Bin Laden and allowed him to call the attack.

Which camp are you in?



That is purely conjecture on your part.....but what are you saying with that statement?..you don't think it was the terrorists?..if not them who flew the planes?...Let me guess..you don't know.....you're just sayin'.....keep it vague, clarity and focus doesn't bode well for conspiracy theories.

by manipultive editing you mean isolating the quotes talking about bombs,secondary devices and detonators--also by mentally catagorizing all truthseekers into one group you are defeating your own chances of awakening-- please by all means supply your own video link to bldg 7 collapsing-- if you cannot then i call BS on that claim-- which camp am i in? do you realise the ignorance in assuming that the only two possibilities are that bin laden acted alone or that the govt acted alone-- jumping to conclusions is not using reason-- maybe if you would utilize your common sense you would understand the rationlity in the obvious which is that they were closely linked-- bush sr and bin laden sr were long time business partners and the cia in tandem with pakistan created the taliban-- jr's first oil company "arbusto oil" was funded by bin laden--youve been linked the resources for the ex order many times if not learn how to use google its not that hard-- that way you can choose your own reference and realise the truth for yourself

Yes.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "truthseekers"..kinda vague.Its like.."evildoers"



This is a bit presumptuous. What do you mean "my awakening"..In one sentence you obfuscate by using mumbo jumbo words that have no meaning or purpose other than keeping things vague.

--

I'll dig it up. Will it do any good? I doubt it. Any information that counters the preconcieved ideas is usually somehow dismissed or simply ignored and the topic changed...the true mark of a "truthseeker". But whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander so will you provide the link I asked for showing Bushes order to protect Bin Laden? If not I have to call BS.



--

Then you misunderstood my question...or you're just deflecting. Obviously there are many details to anything...but details arrise from basic questions or positions.
My question to you(..which wasn't directed to you alone as I was simply pointing out the way in which CT in general jump back and forth..) was by you're statement concerning Bushes "protection order" for Bin Laden, you seem to imply that it was in fact the muslim terrorists who caused the attacks on 911....but in a previous post you seem to claim that an "amatuer cesna pilot" couldn't possibly been at the controls of ONE of the 3 plane attacks on 911, so I was just wondering which BASIC camp of thought you belonged to..government "inside job"..or terrorist attack...or something else. In not stateing either one of original possibilites, I assume you fall into one of the many "other" catagories.

So in order to more effectively communicate, could you state what your position actually is?




Totally irrelevant as far as the events of 911.

How am I being dishonest?



I believe (as reported) terrorist hijackers forcibly established control of commercial airliners on 9/11/01 and crashed the planes into World Trade Center 1 & 2.



O.K.



Stop whining.

Maybe dishonest was not the best word..maybe inconsistant or confused would have been better.
Why do I say that?
Because you state first that you're "not sure" who did the attacks...then you state..


..then you say that 1 highjacker did. (thats the confused part)..4 planes 1 highjacker.

Then you state:



..so its either.. inconsistant or confused or deliberate obfuscation of your position...which would be dishonest or something else. Care to clarify?






I stated:



..which is just asking for a clarification as to what you claim is "nonsense" in my posts and asking for you to post an example of it....still waiting. How is that whining?

How would you explain each of what you posted?



Why did you post that common sense and observation are not important when conducting an investigation? Also, to accept conclusion as fact without conducting a fair and thorough investigation can be at times deceitful and misleading, especially when some issues and events are either incorrect, stonewalled, whitewashed, unresolved, interfered or are not clearly known, in addition to tampered evidence. Observation and common sense are important factors when conducting a coherent investigation; common sense is also instrumental when trying to solve a crime. Moreover, official investigators need to listen to Individuals who were at the area of a crime scene while the crime was occurring, in addition to examine all available evidence (if it is available) and talking to educated individuals who could help investigators learn insight as to why the crime occurred.



Media and establishments often edit videos of events to either to show a select group of individuals or to the viewing public. Media establishments are viewed by millions individuals, therefore have a responsibility to ensure that all edited videos shown to the public are fair and accurate. Those who knowingly decide to manipulate video of an important or historic event for selfish reason and present it as truthful is wrong, therefore should be punished. However, when a video is being edited to show clips or sequences of accurate true events to educate and to achieve public awareness of an occurrence or situation is an acceptable presentation.

Eggy, I will ask you two questions.

1.) How do you explain how and why World Trade Center 7 was demolished?
2.) What 9/11/01 videos have you seen that were manipulated?



How is Sunofone post irrelevant?

This is charcteristic of a disinfo agents strategy. Because they have so little to work with they have to be very creative with faked confusion. The above is a classic example, I will label it the "Apples & Oranges" routine. Let explain how it works by "not working".

Cognitive dissonance is a mental event that a reader or listener undergoes upon percieving information that has disturbing aspects. eGGo has said mixes the idea of cognitive dissonance and the labelling of "conspiracy theories", 2 completely different but related concepts. Related in that the perceiver experiences cognitive dissonance when confronting CT's. In other words he has said, "A listeners disturbance is proof against what is disturbing."

This could very easily be a line from a section of the official "Disinfos Operation Manual", if such exists, and I have a strong feeling it does by the prominence of that concept of confusion induction.

To avoid allowing distraction for the subject, evidence of high explosives must be applied.

Here's the official response to the people who think 9/11 was in some way a self inflicted wound. Notice how they reference Popular Mechanics in their statments. Here it is everyone, read it.

State Department "Identifying Misinformation" website

9/11:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../16-241966.html

conspiracy damage control:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

In 2005, the U.S. State Department posted a website for "Identifying Misinformation" as part of their public relations efforts http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html to defend the undefendable.

Their website, run at public expense, is an excellent guide to nearly every disinformation tactic on 9/11 complicity claims. It contains a mix of obvious government lies and highlights of fake claims that distract from the best evidence.

It is not surprising that the State Department, like other defenders of the official story, focused on the hoax that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. but ignoring serious documentation of foreknowledge, and complicity as documented by Michael Ruppert, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Daniel Hopsicker, and David Ray Griffin, among others.

http://www.oilempire.us/state.html

How does my post confuse you? As stated in my previous post (as reported) that 1 of the 19 terrorist hijackers conducted the operation while him and other hijackers carried out the attacks on the World trade Centers 1 & 2. You would have already known that if you knew how to read above a second grade level.



Because of your difficulty reading above a second grade level, you continually whine and ask me to reply to post I already answered.

Sorry..I don't fall for that crap.



But anyway, back to topic. HEY!..any of you guys have any actual evidence to support your fairytales?

1. There was no stand downs..no pull its..no missiles..no freefalls.




I didn't say they were not important in conducting an investigation. I said that they are useless tools for arriving at a conclusion of what the evidence shows.



What is your evidence of the investigation not being complete and fair? What is your evidence of deciet..whitewash..tampering etc.




Give me an example.





This is what was done plus much more.

How do you think it was conducted?


.

No argument from me on that one.



Give me an example.



1. I chose to wait for the final report.

2. The editing of the comments of firefighers. The video clipping of #7.

But manipulating is not just working with a piece of video or interview..it also encompasses conviently leaving things out...or showing valid video but prefaceing it with leading commentary..etc.




Sunofone comment is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with 911.

Yeah whatever.

HEY! Thanks for posting that pic! Did you notice that huge chuck of building in the lower left falling far ahead of the collapse?.....or am I just saying its there when it isn't? lol.

Could you be more specific?



I need you to explain each account of what you believe didn’t occur on 9/11/01, in addition to how and why.



When crime is committed and the investigation to solve it is currently active, official investigators assigned to the case must obtain evidences, accounts and testimonies to solve a crime. Sometimes the evidence is concrete therefore points directly to a suspect and common sense is why investigators know whom to apprehend. However there are times when the evidence is sketchy and accounts are conflicting. This is when investigators must use common sense and observation to review the evidence when trying to solve a crime.



This television special hosted by Barrie Zwicker shows truthful accurate video of the events of September 11 2001 in addition to other historical events.

The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw

The funniest part of the whole 9/11 scam is that FBI claimed to have found all the passports belonging to the terrorists on the planes.
Yet at the same time, rescue squads reported that the heat from the blasts were so intense, not even the planes' black boxes survived.

So, a paper/plastic passport is found, and a black box isn't?

Sure! The "crap" I'm talking about is the disinformation technique of deflection and distraction you CTs uses to change the subject from having to answer a question to blithering about a fantasy..i.e. make a false statement and then start riffing on it. Why not simply address the question? ( I assume your response will include the predictable.."what question?")




Problem with comprehension? lol. "each account" is....no stand down..no pull its..no missiles..no freefalls. What don't you understand? "How and why" something DIDN"T happen?? welll.."how" it didn't happen is .welll..it didn't happen...why?...thats not how its done.



In what type of crime investigation are you talking about? You seem to believe everything is sooo cookiecutter and consistant? Your explaination seems to imbed an accusation. You seem to imply that the investigation failed to apply long standing and tested methods of evidence evaluation as soon as things became "sketchy" and "conflicting". What are you talking about? What makes you think that happened?



Interesting that you should state what you did about this movie after posting your process of determining "valid" evidence.
How did you determine that this movie "shows truthful and accurate information"?
Why do you avoid answering any questions?

They did? Got a link to that information?






Sure. Do you think that impossible? It may seem odd, but in reality its not that unusual.

Here, enjoy:

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html

http://truedemocracy.net/td4/45s-blackbox.html

I think you misunderstood my question.

I didn't ask about the black boxes. Thats a red herring argument. I didn't ask about the much debunked "THEY LIVE"!!!!

I asked about your disinformation statement about ALL the passports being found.
They I asked why you thought it unusual that one may survive a blast and fire.

Thats not unusual at all.

nothing unusual at all, in fact if u look at a slow-mo of the second plane hitting u can clearly see the tip of the plane exit the tower still intact pressuming at least one of the highjackers was at the front of the plane his passport could have easily been blow away from the flames and as far as i can remember only one passport was found

Could you be a more specific?



The video was edited not manipulated.



Media and establishments often edit videos of events to either to show a select group of individuals or by millions of viewing public. Therefore Media establishments have a responsibility to ensure that all edited videos shown to the public are fair and accurate. Furthermore, it is important to note that video editing should be confused with video manipulation. Those who knowingly decide to manipulate video of an important or historic event for selfish reasons and present it as truthful are wrong. However, when a video is being edited to show clips or sequences of accurate true events to educate and to achieve public awareness of an occurrence or situation is an acceptable presentation.



So you believe the George W. Bush administration is innocent of the 9/11/01 situation?



Why do you assume that I am a conspiracy theorist and what disinformation are you posting about? Furthermore, why do you continually state hateful allegation every time member post or responds to a post and why are you so angry?



Are you or are not going explain each account of what you believe didn’t occur on 9/11/01, in addition to how and why.



One of the most important factors in solving a crime is common sense.

My post previous was explaining in general without accusation why common sense is important during an investigation. It stated, when crime is committed and if the case is currently active, official investigators assigned must obtain evidences, accounts and testimonies to solve a crime. Sometimes the evidence is concrete therefore points directly to a suspect and common sense is why investigators know whom to apprehend. However there are times when the evidence is sketchy and accounts are conflicting. This is when investigators must use observation and common sense in addition to other tool at their disposals to review evidence and accounts of the case in hopes of solving a crime.

CourtTV.com



The television special I posted was hosted by Barrie Zwicker who is a mainstream award-winning journalist. During the broadcast, if one has any doubts of the historical events presented, they can research the events for themselves.

The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw



What question are you referring to?



It is already known that the whole of World Trade Centers 1 & 2 did not catch fire thus is it not unusual for paper to rain down from the towers. However when the commercial airliner crashed into the building (although not impossible) one would need to ask themselves how did passenger passport escape the inferno of the plane crash?

Uncle Sam's lucky finds

It is not impossible for the passport to have survived. Here you can see a picture of a seat cushion found on the street.
http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/medium
There are also reports of mail that survived the crash, was found, and delivered later.
Some small fragile objects even survived the Columbia space shuttle disaster including a canister containing worms for an experiment. The worms were still alive.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts10...rms_030501.html

I'm not assuming you're a conspiracy theorist. I'm evaluating the evidence of your methods of interaction and communication and they are consistant with that of a conspiracy theorist.
What disinformation? Read your post.



Common sense tells me you're a conspiracy theorist.

It is already known that life forms and wreckage from an airplane can survive extreme conditions. However, paper cannot survive such extremes, the material can only escape it. Thus one has to ask themselves, how did a passenger passport on 9/11/01 escape the inferno of the plane crash?

Hardy lichen shown to survive in space

Uncle Sam's lucky finds



Why do you label me a conspiracy theorist and what disinformation specifically are you referring to? Furthermore, why do you continually state hateful allegation every time member post or responds to a post and why are you so angry?

I already answered those questions. As much as you CTs like to go around in circles..I find it a waste of time.

Hateful allegations? Like what?

Angry?..No

Why are you so touchy?..Hit a nerve?