Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Hi Babe, just for the record, who do you think planned and controlled the 911 attacks, and for what purpose. And why do you believe this to be so?

Thanks

I guess I should be honored that you have made a specific response to a post!

Having just finished Christopher Bollyn's 2 books on the subject, "Solving 911", it seems most likely that the impetus for the operation began in Israel, or at least within the minds of Israeli agents. There are so many of them working within the Pentagon and many other places, it's impossible to say exactly where it began.

The purpose was to advance Israeli interests by provoking the US as the proverbial Big Dog into military intervention in the mideast so that Israel's various enemies would be crushed.

But certainly there were many many overlapping interests not necessarily related to Israeli interests. That is, there were many NON Israeli interests advanced I'm sure, though it is interesting how the Israeli theme always runs just under the surface.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stories like this new one is the reason why I created this thread. A guy who helped some of the Sandy Hook kids moments after the attack has himself come under attack by Sandy Hook truthers. Crank calls, fake websites in his name, a general smear campagin.

http://www.salon.com...arassed_for_it/

This is disgusting, what's wrong with you people? Have no you respect for others?

So, I thought I should go to the source, the original 911 "conspiracy". If I had a loved one whose charred remains were posted all over the usual "ogrish" sites and truther sites, I would be raising hell.

So, back to the thread. Does anyone else have a coherent, reasoned argument? The last, and only one, got shot full of holes, rearranged, and then succumbed to a natural death. Thanks for trying joc.

p.s. this is not an argument. It's just a comment.

Damn those troofers, eh RH? People interested in what really happened are 2 b condemned at every turn, eh RH?

Maybe I've watched too many episodes of Dragnet or Columbo, but if either of those two investigators encountered the contradictions in testimony and statements that the public has encountered in both Newtown and the events of 11 September, they both would be extremely suspicious that they were being lied to.

I can relate. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just finished Christopher Bollyn's 2 books on the subject, "Solving 911",

and before reading this book, what did you think?

it seems most likely that the impetus for the operation began in Israel, or at least within the minds of Israeli agents.

So the Israeli government as a whole, or some rogue agents. Big difference.

There are so many of them working within the Pentagon and many other places, it's impossible to say exactly where it began.

Many Israeli agents working in the U.S. gov't? Well, I'll accept a handful, just like there's most likely a handful or Chinese and Russian agents. Why do the Jews always get the credit?

The purpose was to advance Israeli interests by provoking the US as the proverbial Big Dog into military intervention in the mideast so that Israel's various enemies would be crushed.

Well, at least it's possible. Not sure about how probable it is. It is pretty out there ...

But certainly there were many many overlapping interests not necessarily related to Israeli interests. That is, there were many NON Israeli interests advanced I'm sure, though it is interesting how the Israeli theme always runs just under the surface.

Other interests advanced? Absolutely. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a hand in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn those troofers, eh RH? People interested in what really happened are 2 b condemned at every turn, eh RH?

That's not what I said. I have a problem with people harassing and tormenting victims of these attacks.

Maybe I've watched too many episodes of Dragnet or Columbo, but if either of those two investigators encountered the contradictions in testimony and statements that the public has encountered in both Newtown and the events of 11 September, they both would be extremely suspicious that they were being lied to.

Contradictory statements? Again, there are other alternatives instead of latching on to the idea of a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures. People make honest mistakes, people have only second hand knowledge, people are not in a right frame of mind, people interpreted an event wrong, people are biased ....

And as Columbo would say ... ah, just one more thing...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I said. I have a problem with people harassing and tormenting victims of these attacks.

Contradictory statements? Again, there are other alternatives instead of latching on to the idea of a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures. People make honest mistakes, people have only second hand knowledge, people are not in a right frame of mind, people interpreted an event wrong, people are biased ....

And as Columbo would say ... ah, just one more thing...

Yes, just one more thing. I have never said the Newtown thing was "a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures", but you simply must inject that. I get it. I recognize your style. No problem.

What I said, is that the story doesn't add up. It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Is that simple statement really so difficult to comprehend?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said, is that the story doesn't add up. It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Is that simple statement really so difficult to comprehend?

What is difficult to comprehend, is why you continue to make up stories as you go? Where's your evidence that nuclear bombs demolished the WTC buildings?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and before reading this book, what did you think?

I suspected Mossad involvement, but had no idea it was so consistent and thorough. I already knew Dov Zakheim was closely involved in the Pentagon since the days of the Reagan administration, and I knew Zakheim was not Chinese or Russian. I don't think Bollyn ever mentioned his name.

So the Israeli government as a whole, or some rogue agents. Big difference. Yeah, no doubt.

Many Israeli agents working in the U.S. gov't? Well, I'll accept a handful, just like there's most likely a handful or Chinese and Russian agents. Why do the Jews always get the credit?

Well, at least it's possible. Not sure about how probable it is. It is pretty out there ...

Other interests advanced? Absolutely. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a hand in it.

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof. They are masters of deception.

But it certainly makes a very very very strong circumstantial case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, just one more thing. I have never said the Newtown thing was "a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures", but you simply must inject that. I get it. I recognize your style. No problem.

Well, it's not really my style. But given the lack of satisfactory answers to "who", I am forced to make up a Straw man argument. I know, that's wrong, but you tell me "who" they are?

What I said, is that the story doesn't add up. It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Is that simple statement really so difficult to comprehend?

It's a valid statement, and is comprehensible. But taken together as a syllogism, it's nonsensical;

It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. p1

the story doesn't add up (intermediate conclusion)

Thus, 911 was an inside job (main conclusion)

“Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form”

- Immanuel Kant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof. They are masters of deception.

Are you implying that American Airlines and United Airlines lied when they reported the loss of their aircraft, which were; American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof. They are masters of deception.

But it certainly makes a very very very strong circumstantial case.

So you are just speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So using your ananlogy, show me the prints on the gun.
I already did.

rumsfelds prints are all over the change in defence procedure which lead to him disabling NORAD's defence response.

zeilkow's prints are all over the 911 commission coverup document, the conclusion of which contradicts his pre-911 document co-written with a cia director which laid out the whole thing.

it was impossible for rumsfeld to know the attacks were over, unless he had foreknowledge of the attacks.

it was impossible for the person who decided that bush stay at the school for 2 hours to know the school was safe unless they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not really my style. But given the lack of satisfactory answers to "who", I am forced to make up a Straw man argument. I know, that's wrong, but you tell me "who" they are?

It's a valid statement, and is comprehensible. But taken together as a syllogism, it's nonsensical;

It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. p1

the story doesn't add up (intermediate conclusion)

Thus, 911 was an inside job (main conclusion)

“Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form”

- Immanuel Kant

Consider this sir: just exactly HOW am I supposed to know whodunnit? Are you accusing me of being in on it? Your correct syllogistic form seems to come up with some pretty silly questions. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are just speculating.

Yes Pallidin, as I have said many many times since day 1, I am just speculating. I'm thrilled we've reached that point in comprehension! :tu:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof.

Never? You need to qualify such statements. After the 1972 Munich Olympic game massacre, Mossad went on a revenge spree. Things did not always go as planned though. Some went to Norway to hunt down a terrorist, but they ended shooting the wrong guy. "Most of the Mossad team were captured and convicted of complicity in the killing by the Norwegian justice system, in a major blow to the intelligence agency's reputation." http://en.wikipedia....lehammer_affair

They are masters of deception.

Hmm, yeah, when they're not blowing their cover and executing the wrong people.

But it certainly makes a very very very strong circumstantial case.

No, in order to have a strong argument, I would think that over 50% of your premises must be true, under 50% would be a weak argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Pallidin, as I have said many many times since day 1, I am just speculating. I'm thrilled we've reached that point in comprehension! :tu:

Just like when you said that no Boeings were responsible for the crash at the Pentagon and near Shanksville despite the fact that American Airlines and United Airliners reported the loss of their aircraft at those crash sites.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rumsfelds prints are all over the change in defence procedure which lead to him disabling NORAD's defence response.

I'll accept that.

zeilkow's prints are all over the 911 commission coverup document,

Well, he was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, no surprise there.

the conclusion of which contradicts his pre-911 document co-written with a cia director which laid out the whole thing.

How so ?

it was impossible for rumsfeld to know the attacks were over, unless he had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Why, was he helping someone onto a stretcher too? I'm not following you here?

it was impossible for the person who decided that bush stay at the school for 2 hours to know the school was safe unless they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Is it not possible that Bush was advised to leave but he refused? If it's not possible, explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this sir: just exactly HOW am I supposed to know whodunnit? Are you accusing me of being in on it? Your correct syllogistic form seems to come up with some pretty silly questions. :innocent:

Ok you're not a truther, you said you don't know the specifics, you just have a hard time accepting some of the inconsistencies and anomalies. That's fine.

This thread was aimed at truthers, those who believe they have a justified true belief (aka knowledge) that 911 was an inside job.

Thanks anyways.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok you're not a truther, you said you don't know the specifics, you just have a hard time accepting some of the inconsistencies and anomalies. That's fine.

This thread was aimed at truthers, those who believe they have a justified true belief (aka knowledge) that 911 was an inside job.

Thanks anyways.

You're welcome.

But I think your definition, connotation, I know, of "truther" is incomplete. I see a truther, at least within the context of the events of 11 September, as being one who merely seeks the truth. He or she does not assert that only he knows the truth, or that he knows the truth at all.

Merely, he is seeking the truth. :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think your definition, connotation, I know, of "truther" is incomplete. I see a truther, at least within the context of the events of 11 September, as being one who merely seeks the truth. He or she does not assert that only he knows the truth, or that he knows the truth at all.

Merely, he is seeking the truth. :yes:

Granted, it's possible. so there's different subsets of truthers. Don't make me start drawing Venn diagrams now.

But still, there seems to be an awful lot of people who profess to know, and want to share it a lot, with conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joc said scramble, and you talk about shootdown. deception noted.

It doesn't matter. The F-16s out of Andrew AFB were not even armed and the only action they could have taken was to ram the aircraft, but in the absence of a shootdown order, that was not going to happen.

As it was, the pilots were in identification mode only and not authorized to shoot down an airliner before United 93 crashed and once again, an F-15 pilot said that even if he did intercept an airliner, he would not have shot it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already did.

rumsfelds prints are all over the change in defence procedure which lead to him disabling NORAD's defence response.

What is that suppose to imply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll accept that.
great, so you agree this is prima facie, so why was this covered up by the 911 commission?
Well, he was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, no surprise there. how so ?
I already told you.

zelikow (with the cfr and the cia) wrote the document "imagining the transforming event", it was zelikow who also primarily wrote the 911 commission report which concluded "911 was a failure of imagination", so they imagined it and failed to imagine it, all at the same time, so the 911 commission report was a coverup.

Why, was he helping someone onto a stretcher too? I'm not following you here?
I already told you.

Rumsfeld was the defence secretary.

Rumsfeld was helping stretcher the injured on the pentagon lawn.

Rumsfeld was in his office on the opposite side of the pentagon to the plane strike (a very large buildiing).

Rumsfeld took the time to travel from one side of the building to the other and then proceed to help the injured.

Rumsfeld was therefore not available during that period to give approval for any requests of scramble (and maybe even longer since his whereabouts were unknown previous to this period).

Rumsfeld knew that he had to be available to give approval of scramble orders because he was the one who changed the procedure to require his approval for scramble orders, so he cut himself out of the loop knowing his being accessible was essential for a military response. if this was a surprise attack then rumsfeld should have been available to respond to the approval requests, not involving himself with first aid duties.

Is it not possible that Bush was advised to leave but he refused? If it's not possible, explain.

of course anything is possible but there's no evidence. he sat in the chair for at least seven minutes after the second crash without saying anything to anyone and without anyone saying anything to him. whether bush made the decision to stay or whether someone else made the decision to stay, the decision to stay is not consistent with the security threat, unless it was known the school was not to be a target.

"The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [bush] away.” The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-contradictions-bush-in-the-classroom/8555

so once again we see a departure from long standing standard procedure.

Edited by Little Fish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No job, No Inside Job, Nada ! Got not a foot to stand on in this regards !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already told you. Rumsfeld was the defence secretary.

Yes, he was.

Rumsfeld was helping stretcher the injured on the pentagon lawn.

Rumsfeld was in his office on the opposite side of the pentagon to the plane strike (a very large buildiing).

Rumsfeld took the time to travel from one side of the building to the other and then proceed to help the injured.

In other words, Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon on the day the Pentagon was attacked and not miles away hiding in a bunker.

Rumsfeld knew that he had to be available to give approval of scramble orders because he was the one who changed the procedure to require his approval for scramble orders, so he cut himself out of the loop knowing his being accessible was essential for a military response.

The only response the military could have provided at the time the Pentagon was attacked was to simply watch since there was no shoot down order, which only came later from the President of the United States and passed down the chain of command, and remember, Rumsfeld had no such authority beforehand.

if this was a surprise attack then rumsfeld should have been available to respond to the approval requests, not involving himself with first aid duties.

American Airlines didn't say a thing about participating in a surprised attack on the Pentagon. After all, it was its B-757 that crashed into the Pentagon. Are you now implicating American Airlines in the attack on the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No job, No Inside Job, Nada ! Got not a foot to stand on in this regards !

It is amazing that there some folks, who will simply pull things out of thin air and concoct conspiracy theories with nothing viable to backup their theories. They seem to think that all Air Force fighter pilots are trained in air defense procedures and familiar with NORAD's protocol, which is not the case at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.