WHO HERE THINKS

[Stout1]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

The problem is to control the demolition of a building takes weeks of advance palnning and literally days to set it up physically! How could they have done all that in a few hours time and with all the chaos going on, almost impossible I say. That article I posted earlier in this thread is not new news, the American government has been playing with the idea to orchastrate terrorist attacks on US soil for a long time now! And who benefits from it, well that is an easy one I won't even touch!

I am one that wants to believe that a government is supposed to protect the people, but as a historian I know that they do not. It is far easier to say that everything is the way the official reports say, as they come from our authority figures. Also conspiracy theorists are looked at by the general public as a bunch of wack jobs, non-conformists that rebel against everything in their lives from parents to governements, does not change the fact that they may very well be right!

There are TONS of multiple and HUGE types of gov't taking advantage of it's citizens.

Check this one. Well documented and proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

If they can mess with nuclear weapons on its OWN people then bringing down two towers isn't ****.

[solidground]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

^ operation northwoods and the USS liberty too.

[Klash]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Not saying I agree but tearing down our rights, how we live, our thought processes, who we elect in the future, etc all would have a POSSIBLE reason why they would or someone in gov't would conspire to commit these acts.

I agree all those things have happened but I don't see any one person or group of people that are directly benefiting from it, who would have also had the resources and skill to do it; other than Israel. I'm definitely wanting to see a good explanation too because I am inclined to believe they were intentionally brought down.

[Stout1]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

I agree all those things have happened but I don't see any one person or group of people that are directly benefiting from it, who would have also had the resources and skill to do it; other than Israel. I'm definitely wanting to see a good explanation too because I am inclined to believe they were intentionally brought down.

Like this.....?

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/911_as_a_mossad_false_flag_operation.htm

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Kite's right! HAHAHA!!

Anyway, the towers were brought down by our government. Plain and simple. No one explains the thermate that was found at the towers, or how the towers were still smoldering for weeks (like thermate).

Also everytime I mention the whole shutting down security thing the weekend before 9/11, noone ever has anything to say to that. It's as if people only debate certain things that they have a rebuttal for, but leave the bigger "theories" alone hoping they will just go away.

I don't get why so many people are so inclined to want to make excuses for their government.

They had nothing to gain???!!!

How about the patriot act, taking over Iraq (getting it's oil with the food for oil program and building a massive military compound smack dab in the middle of the middle east!), Bombing a pipeline for Halliburton through afghanistan, Bush got his second term in office because people didn't want to change presidents in the middle of a war, Camera's going all over NYC (which would NEVER have happened or been allowed by americans before 9/11)!!

SHOULD I GO ON, OR IS THAT REASON ENOUGH???

Don't you get they want complete control. They want to tell you when, where, and how to shiit!

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Oh yeah, and most importantly....

How come Norad didn't respond?

How come Norad had training missions coincidentally the week of 9/11 that were based on if a plane was hijacked and used as a weapon. Isn't that odd that what they were training for was happening.

Also coincidentally Great Britain (whom is dug in deep with USA) also had training missions of if buses were being bombed and trains the same day that the London bombings took place.

If you look into the reports there are WAAAAAAY to many inconsistencies just in that. Those bits of information, and everything behind that is what really tipped me off to wholeheartedly believing our governments were behind the attacks!

[horsepwr]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Sheesh...mmm,mmm,mmm...That's like accusing someone of raping their own mother.

[PL456]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

DJ.....please, get a grip. scientists are doing great things with psychotropic medications these days.....Man, you are out there ("Twilight Zone" theme song plays....)..this harkens back to my questions for you on the other thread. The liberals sling these outlandish accusations...no basis in reality whatsoever.

[straydoglogic]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

they all looked like they went down in a controlled manner....if you havent seen this movie please check it out..its a great 2 hours..ive watched it 3 times...http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

DJ.....please, get a grip. scientists are doing great things with psychotropic medications these days.....Man, you are out there ("Twilight Zone" theme song plays....)..this harkens back to my questions for you on the other thread. The liberals sling these outlandish accusations...no basis in reality whatsoever.

And like I've said to you many times, I've stated the facts with links to back up my claims many times. So much so that many on this board laugh because I preach the same thing over and over again.

I've never once seen you ever disprove or even make any remarks about any links I provide. You never have anything but mere opinion or your government corrupted speaches to back up your claims.

The same government that is raping you at the gas pump. Oh that's right it's OPEC or a fire in a oil plant, or red ants infiltrated the oil refineries and are holding the oil hostage. Point is oil companies are making record profits and in turn government is getting more taxes from it AND getting tons of money in their back pockets. Don't believe me? how about this CBS video of FBI surveillance of a house representative doing back door deals with the oil industry.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3492414n?source=search_video

Now you expect me to believe there's no connection between BUSH/CHENEY and taking over oil rich countries. So theres no corruption in government? And especially there's no reason for government officials to make backdoor deals with oil companies either right? Stop living in the dark. Your government has only one concern on their minds "THE ELITE"!!

So how far in the twilight zone am I really?

[Klash]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Like this.....?

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%2..._operation.htm

Interesting information. Thanks

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Like this.....?

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%2..._operation.htm

PL if you truly are interested in the possibility of having an open mind, go to the link Stout provided. It has alot of good info that would blow you away. Reading two paragraphs isn't going to answer any questions. You need to read the whole thing.

Good post Stout. There's some stuff in there I didn't even know.

...........as the rabbit hole goes deeper...............

[Strateg0s]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

I still think Strateg0s' theory makes the most sense. Smart guy, that one. Maybe he should sit down write it up proper and get it published...

Some of you are wondering whether the government could have known that terrorists were plotting to take down the WTC. Hmm, well, Islamic terrorists ALREADY TRIED to take it down in 1993, so I'd say the message was delivered. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to think they might try it again.

They found out that the first time the terrorists who made the attempt were trying to TOPPLE the one tower into the other, killing potentially a QUARTER MILLION people.

Anyone who had the authority - but refused - to rig the WTC with explosives on February 27th, 1993, that person should have been <punished>. Why? Because at the time, they were analyzing the effect of the truck bomb to determine whether the building could stay up, or whether it was just a matter of time before it collapsed.

Again the choice would be:
1. Controlled demolition
2. Uncontrolled demolition

Anyone who decided not to take steps to BE ABLE TO do #1 ought not have any decision-making powers, because they obviously can't think straight.

Picture what would happen if on March 1, 1993, the bombed tower gave out, and fell over into the other one, which in turn fell over other buildings. Whoever made possible and then made the actual decision to "pull" the buildings, well that man would be Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1993. Savior of hundreds of thousands of people, people would name their babies after him. He'd be a shoo-in for any elected office he desired, etc. etc. Conversely, if the buildings did collapse, and tens or even hundreds of thousands of people died because someone said "I just could not, with a clear conscience, install explosives into those buildings. People worked there. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be American..." that guy would go down in infamy. People would change their names to avoid sharing his name, which would have become an adjective for shameful behavior.

Not a single thing I've said up to this point should be hard to follow, nor objectionable for that matter. Evaluate the argument on its merits.

THEN consider that, OK, maybe the government has used the attacks to grab more and more power while decreasing the freedom of the citizenry. I'd say that is correct. This doesn't mean they had to have a helping hand in plotting 9/11. Nor does it mean that they had to have foreknowledge of the particularities about the attack.

That kind of foreknowledge/complicity would, in my opinion, be simply impossible to contain. It would be treasonous, and SOMEONE amongst the thousands of conspirators would have had a crisis of conscience, and the truth would have been spilled. It takes a huge stretch of the imagination to suppose that thousands of people kept their mouths shut and actively participated in a conspiracy of that magnitude.

It is not hard to believe that, some specialists were called in to 'wire' the WTC hours after the bombing on Feb 26, 1993. It would have been criminally irresponsible for them not to have done so.

Should they have told the American Public that they'd done so? Maybe. That is something intelligent people can argue about. If they did let it be generally known, then the effect would have been simply that the WTC would have to be abandoned, because nobody would ever work there. This would have had some major economic consequences. The buildings would have to be demolished, rather than just sit there empty. So a decision would have been made - no, conceal the fact that the buildings are wired up, and let people get back to work. Boost security, reinforce the foundation, etc. etc.

The roaring 90's occur. Hundreds of billions of dollars are made, no small part due to the business conducted at the WTC. 2001 rolls along, and the buildings - both towers - get hit by commercial jetliners. All attempts are made to evacuate as many people as possible. At some point it is determined that the first tower is going to collapse soon. The HARD decision is made to "pull" it: not to mince words, the decision is made to SACRIFICE (KILL) thousands in the building FOR THE SAKE OF A GREATER NUMBER of people who would be killed by an uncontrolled collapse. In terms of choices, that's not something anyone should ever want to be faced with, but I'd say they made the right decision, the just decision, IF the scenario I've painted is indeed what happened.

Could the American public live with being told that's what had been done? That explosives which had been sitting there for EIGHT YEARS in advance were used to bring the buildings down in a controlled fashion? I think so, and I think they should have been told so. People would have freaked out, to be sure, but eventually they would have to bow to the logic of the choice. For whatever reason, the decision was made that the public were NOT to be told the truth. It is the thinking behind *THIS* decision alone is what is worth talking about for those interested in digging deeper. Those who dig around the other questions aren't doing themselves any favors or finding profound and dark truths, they are largely wasting their time. So why do they do it? Because they've decided in advance how they feel, and so they block the possibility that there could be a good (just, right, salutary) reason to "pull" the towers: since in their mind the latter has become impossible, they are stuck rooting around to explain why the EVIL decision was made. And they miss the point, and expend their energy where it could otherwise be spent more productively, namely on thinking carefully about why it was decided not to inform the public why the towers were pulled down.

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

Well under your theory stratego then I guess the government is merited to put numerous active nukes around the country. Therefore if there is any sort of outbreak they can just push the button and vaporize the problem.

Maybe they should inject people with these new devices that can track where you go, except also put a chemical in it so if the government every "FEELS" we are a danger in any way, shape, matter, or form they can just "pull" a switch and the person will be instantly killed.

If what you are saying is true, it would be ten times worse than if the government just plotted to run an operation under false flag.

I take it by your post that you feel your time is to important to read Stout's link. Typical. Atleast I'll read any links people post. Sometimes I learn something from it, sometimes I wholeheartedly disagree. But you'll never get anywhere with a closed mind.

It seems those that are opposed to this whole "Conspiracy Theory" never seem to discredit or debate any of the other instances we've all posted about previous operations our government has done to mislead, lie, and decieve the american public. If they've done it before, how come this is so far fetched for you non-believers to fathom?

[Strateg0s]

Re: WHO HERE THINKS

I read what Stout had linked to, it doesn't accomplish more than make some suggestions and offer up facts which circumstantially back up the innuendo. "I take it by your post that you feel your time is to important to read Stout's link. Typical. Atleast I'll read any links people post. Sometimes I learn something from it, sometimes I wholeheartedly disagree. But you'll never get anywhere with a closed mind." You can grab yourself some ketchup and eat that comment, pal, it wasn't justified. I've thought about the positions you claim I'm too close minded to even bother reading, you don't even show that you understand what I wrote. Not because you can't understand it, but because it pisses you off so you don't even consider it a possibility: "If what you are saying is true, it would be ten times worse than if the government just plotted to run an operation under false flag." And then you wonder why the people wouldn't be told of the logical actions undertaken immediately after the 93 WTC bombing, which would then regrettable have to be chosen in 2001.

Do you know that on the old transatlantic steamers certain members of the crew carried big cleavers in the event that the ship sank. Why? Because there weren't enough lifeboats for everybody, and once a lifeboat reached its capacity, they would have to prevent drowning people from coming aboard: otherwise everybody aboard would drown. So these crew members would be tasked with chopping off the hands or fingers of drowning people struggling for their lives to get aboard. I don't suppose they posted that information on the tourism brochures...

Just because I can see the logic of doing something you find morally incomprehensible doesn't mean that I would support something just stupid for the sake of it: "Maybe they should inject people with these new devices that can track where you go, except also put a chemical in it so if the government every "FEELS" we are a danger in any way, shape, matter, or form they can just "pull" a switch and the person will be instantly killed." Give me a break. Nothing I presented involved some dark overlord rolling his tongue over his lips while killing people because he feels like some people might be in danger. That sort of thing is ridiculous.

The American government did not have to be complicit in setting up the 9/11 attacks, but you seem to think it is the most probable thing in the world that literally thousands of Americans decided to actively participate in a false flag attack, and not one of them has leaked that. As though that is more plausible than them just supposing that the Islamic fundamentalists might some day make good on their threats, and finding out that they ultimately did achieve what they wanted.

Is the government merited in placing active nukes around the country in order to be able to stop an outbreak? Possibly, except for the fact that if terrorists were able to cause an outbreak in one location, nuking that location would do nothing to prevent them from causing it elsewhere. So the logic would dictate that no, active nukes ought not to be placed as a precautionary measure to prevent the spread of extraordinarily deadly contagions.

Along the same lines, I think that the US probably has had nuclear weapons placed in some of the major cities around the world for decades, such that if it comes down to it, any state's threat can be nullified with a phone call and a few polaroids (man with today's local paper standing next to a working neutron bomb). Is that evil? Maybe. Maybe it's a political decision made in a world where international law is a story that people hear of as children and then think it has some form of existence beyond the consent of the powerful.

In any case, if you want to try lumping me in with unthinking apologists, you're talking to the wrong guy.