Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Was 9/11 planned by bush so he could go to war

Well?

by Anonymousreply 449December 8, 2020 5:22 AM

Go away!

by Anonymousreply 1July 1, 2015 10:31 PM

Far, far, away!

by Anonymousreply 2July 1, 2015 10:53 PM

No.

But, his buddies saw their chance to take advantage of terrorist act to make lots and lots of lovely money.

by Anonymousreply 3July 1, 2015 10:56 PM

Not by Bush, OP.

He's not smart enough to do that.

But yes, it was planned by the CIA & the military-industrial complex.

They considered doing something like 9/11 as early as the 1960's. (The documents were recently declassified).

by Anonymousreply 4July 1, 2015 10:58 PM

How original, OP. I'm sure that hasn't been discussed here before.

by Anonymousreply 5July 1, 2015 10:58 PM

[quote]How original, OP. I'm sure that hasn't been discussed here before.

This can't be discussed enough!

How come those buildings completely collapsed and how come even though the Bush administration was warned about the attacks they did nothing. How come fighter jets trying to intercept the planes were noticed too late and flew in the complete opposite direction?

by Anonymousreply 6July 1, 2015 11:34 PM

9/11 was planned long before it happened by an international cabal whose US arm became the Neocons.

by Anonymousreply 7July 1, 2015 11:36 PM

No to the conspiracies. That's all nonsense.

9-11 was perfectly believable without making all this up.

by Anonymousreply 8July 1, 2015 11:40 PM

Chemtrails, Illuminati, Popular Mechanics

by Anonymousreply 9July 1, 2015 11:41 PM

About as conspiratorial as I get about 9/11 is that the Mossad knew about it ahead of time. They may or may not have told the U.S.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10July 1, 2015 11:49 PM

This is a troll warning.

DO NOT ENGAGE with the crazies in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 11July 1, 2015 11:52 PM

Did Bush plan 9/11? No he's no where smart enough. Do I think the US Gov, CIA, and military allowed or played a role in executing 9/11, yes.

by Anonymousreply 12July 1, 2015 11:53 PM

I blame the Illuminati and Im sure Jay Z was the mastermind behind this. With some strategy by Barbra Streisand. It's a zionist and illuminati master plan ya know.

by Anonymousreply 13July 1, 2015 11:56 PM

R10, do a teeny bit of googling,

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14July 1, 2015 11:59 PM

Cui bono?

by Anonymousreply 15July 2, 2015 12:00 AM

Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

by Anonymousreply 16July 2, 2015 12:07 AM

OP just shat out a troll post. He couldn't even bother to use capital letters.

by Anonymousreply 17July 2, 2015 12:08 AM

No. It was planned to destroy American democracy and legitimiize a president who was well aware he wasn't elected. It is a huge mistake to think that Republicans and neo-cons really care more about the national interest than their personal interests. I doubt a single one of them does.

by Anonymousreply 18July 2, 2015 12:10 AM

Are these the same people who believe the moon landing was faked, in flying saucers, being inhabited by aliens. You know the type.

by Anonymousreply 19July 2, 2015 12:32 AM

Fluoride in the water! That's why the bees and frogs are dying.

by Anonymousreply 20July 2, 2015 1:05 AM

Only if you also believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they often sound plausibe AFTER the fact when we know which specific pieces of information are relevant. At the time events occur in history, it's virtually impossible to gauge what will actually happen.

Who would have thought the assassination of an Austrian Duke would have led to WWI. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that we can link all of the simmering issues which made the assassination the fuse on that powder keg.

Contemporaneous actors would have a very difficult time in calculating the possible outcomes and unintended consequences. The original bombing of the World Trade Center garage didn't lead to anything near as momentus as a full scale war.

by Anonymousreply 21July 2, 2015 1:05 AM

[quote]You know the type.

They type who believe in science rather than propaganda?

The type who think for themselves rather than fall in line behind Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck?

The type who know that those with the power to start wars don't care if they kill 3,000 nameless peons?

The type who are already worried that there is dirty work afoot this weekend with some new false flag attack about to occur in some major city in Texas or wherever the security types just happen to be "drilling?"

by Anonymousreply 22July 2, 2015 2:51 AM

Bush? BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAH!

by Anonymousreply 23July 2, 2015 3:11 AM

Read the Project for the New American Century and tell me it is more than a mere coincidence it all came true.

by Anonymousreply 24July 2, 2015 3:42 AM

[quote]Read the Project for the New American Century and tell me it is more than a mere coincidence it all came true

There are two separate issues.

1. If you were to develop a "plan" to accomplish those goals, what would it include. It would have to have several of the same high-level types of targets. For example, look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax. One of the reasons it seemed to plausible was that it included specific plans which logically would have to be part of a master world domination plan. The fact that Jewish people controlled banks, media, and other key sectors seemed to corroborate it. But, you can always retrofit. Think of the constellations in the sky - you can see the shapes because you're looking for them.

2. Conspiracies of the size you're talking about would encompass hundreds of people, if not thousands. How are people keeping it so secret for so long? Also, as I noted previously, it's impossible to predit how the dominoes will fall in real life. The US could have just as easily gone the full isolationist route in public sentiment. You only see the events as inevitable after the fact. At the time things happened, nothing was all that clear.

Which is not to say that there haven't been huge conspiracies in the past from MK-Ultra to the Tuskegee study. Certainly, without the Snowden wikileaks, we wouldn't know half of what the NSA has been doing in the name of liberty and freedom.

by Anonymousreply 25July 2, 2015 4:48 AM

Cheney, not Bush.

by Anonymousreply 26July 2, 2015 12:13 PM

I hated the shrub as President, but I can't imagine that if your theory was true that no one who was approached about making it happen, would say Hell No. It would be impossible to keep secret. You just can't give credence to every hair brained conspiracy theory you hear. Do I believe that the shrub and Cheney took advantage of the situation to grab more power, to wage wars that they already wanted to wage, very likely. Where do you think Rob Emanuel got the idea of "never let a tragedy go to waste".

by Anonymousreply 27July 2, 2015 3:27 PM

Planned by Halliburton and Cheney.

by Anonymousreply 28July 2, 2015 3:32 PM

Obviously r19 is an unwitting fool.

by Anonymousreply 29July 2, 2015 3:36 PM

Honestly, if you don't know our shadow government is up to a lot of dirty tricks, you are either foolish or very young.

by Anonymousreply 30July 2, 2015 3:41 PM

Honestly, 9/11 came at a rather convenient time--the US was starting to dip into recession and Bush was incredibly unpopular.

by Anonymousreply 31July 2, 2015 3:45 PM

Of course not, OP

Don't be ridiculous.

It was planned by Cheney.

by Anonymousreply 32July 2, 2015 3:57 PM

If anyone is looking for a real, proven, conspiracy, you should look at the Muslim Brotherhood's "The Project".

A document was found in 2001 by Swiss law enforcement during a raid on the house of Youssef Nada, a Muslim Brotherhood member. It was dated 1982 and included main strategy points for the Muslim Brotherhood. Among those -

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations; Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”; Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law; Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims; Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers; Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”; Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements; Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world; Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant; Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions; Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam; Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation; Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution; Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals; Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West; Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”; Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support; Making the Plstinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims; Adopting the total liberation of Plstine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination; Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against J ews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them; Actively creating jihad terror cells within Plstine; Linking the terrorist activities in Plstine with the global terror movement; Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world"

The Muslim Brotherhood were responsible for Al-Qaeda which gave birth to ISIS. Their main political activity around the world has been to take over governments once they can get rid of a secular dictator, if necessary. Two countries where this didn't work are Tunisia and Egypt, which you can work out for yourself why they are targeted the way they are.

Links and info are out there, proceed if you dare, since the picture gets uglier once you check your local country. Hysterical documentary at link, but the Project is a real document reflecting a real and very successful organization and ideology.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33July 2, 2015 6:49 PM

Sorry about the bad formatting, don't know what happened.

by Anonymousreply 34July 2, 2015 6:50 PM

Oh, R33, you're cute.

Does being a Muslim give a flight school dropout the magical power to pilot a passenger jet doing stunt maneuvers that even professional pilots could not perform?

The official story of 9/11 is a steaming crock of shit and easy to disprove.

by Anonymousreply 35July 2, 2015 8:17 PM

Wait...if professional pilots couldn't fly like that how do you think the planes were controlled?

It would really help if you conspiracy theorists spelled out your whole theory, since no two agree.

by Anonymousreply 36July 2, 2015 8:30 PM

Al Qaeda did not give birth to ISIS.

by Anonymousreply 37July 2, 2015 9:41 PM

Mossad certainly knew about it. 5 of them were dancing for joy at the scene.

by Anonymousreply 38July 2, 2015 9:43 PM

Who ended up making the most money after 9/11? Halliburton.

by Anonymousreply 39July 2, 2015 9:44 PM

The plains were remote controlled from Tel Aviv by Mossad who hired the best North Korean programmers and hackers for the mission.

by Anonymousreply 40July 2, 2015 10:05 PM

planes, too

by Anonymousreply 41July 2, 2015 10:05 PM

Why won't a respectable news organization, report the truth about 9/11? Americans should be up in arms about all the bullshit our government ask us to swallow.

by Anonymousreply 42July 2, 2015 10:11 PM

R42. The news organisations and Americans have been drugged into acquiescence by the pharmaceuticals raining down from the chem trails, duh.

by Anonymousreply 43July 2, 2015 10:14 PM

Why don't Americans question the building 7 story? It doesn't make any sense.

A Canadian

by Anonymousreply 44July 2, 2015 10:21 PM

R44 - see Chem trails. You get different drugs up in Canada.

by Anonymousreply 45July 2, 2015 10:23 PM

To this day nobody found out who killed JFK, who killed Marilyn Monroe.

by Anonymousreply 46July 2, 2015 10:50 PM

R45 why are you talking about Chem trails? A building just fell down it doesn't make any sense.

by Anonymousreply 47July 2, 2015 10:54 PM

R47 Yes it does, but you refuse to see the connections! This is why Princess Diana had to go.... The Saudi's are heavily invested in Swiss Big Pharma and she was digging.....

by Anonymousreply 48July 2, 2015 11:08 PM

Popular Mechanics? Dafuq?

by Anonymousreply 49July 2, 2015 11:20 PM

For the dumbass at R8, maybe you should read this again:

[quote]They considered doing something like 9/11 as early as the 1960's. (The documents were recently declassified).

by Anonymousreply 50July 2, 2015 11:24 PM

Swiss Pharma supplies the drugs to governments for their chem trails. The minerals for the drugs all come from dirty african mines owned by the Illuminati including Naomi Campbell and some Black Hollywood elites.

by Anonymousreply 51July 2, 2015 11:27 PM

Yes, but Cheney was the brains behind it. Is there anyone who thinks these two would not kill a few thousands or more for all the trillions and power they got from 9/11. W was not a good enough actor to even pretend to be shocked when told on camera about 9/11.

Follow the money and power to know who is behind 9/11. What did Bin Laden get out of it? What did anyone besides W/Cheney and their billionaire buddies get out of it?

by Anonymousreply 52July 2, 2015 11:27 PM

The Muslim Brotherhood was established in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, who admired Hitler and wrote to him expressing his desire to collaborate with the Nazi Party. During World War II the MB members in the Middle East formed two Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar Divisions to fight for the Nazis. Due to the large number of Muslim volunteers, the Handschar Divisions were the largest of Hitler's 38 Waffen-SS divisions.

ISIS was formed out of Al-Qaeda. Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi used to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is the real conspiracy.

by Anonymousreply 53July 2, 2015 11:30 PM

I'm not saying this is true but it wouldn't surprise me if the Twin Towers were built just for that purpose.

Yes, too I ask why no one looked into WTH happened with Building 7 and who both towers imploded rather than exploded.

Nothing about 9/11 matches the official story.

I think even Reagan might not have had it in him to do this but W and especially Cheney, they'd have done much worse if that's what it took. They would have gotten rid of half of NY (more uptown though or exploded the tunnels and bridges if this alone had not given them the power and money they longed for in their greedy, evil minds.

But this was all it took. Stupid Americans could not wait to hand over their freedom and money to "keep America safe."

by Anonymousreply 54July 2, 2015 11:37 PM

I believe it was bare minimum case of "letting it happen." I know people don't want to be a tin foil hat person, but actually read up on the oddities of that day and the weird behavior by top officials. And the number of drills going on in the air- which provided a good distraction for the air traffic controllers-- who weren't in on the scheme. And the FBI wasn't allowed into Manhattan(probably weren't in on it either). This looks like a CIA and air force operation. Please read the official reports and see if it makes any sense.

by Anonymousreply 55July 2, 2015 11:51 PM

I've read the mission statement. It was in a diplomatic pouch from the Vatican. When I fucked the son of the Egyptian consul general to UN at the Hotel President Wilson in Geneva, we needed coke money so he opened the pouch and there it all was in black and white. (Alas no dollars.)

by Anonymousreply 56July 2, 2015 11:59 PM

It's absolutely true...Cheney is a sociopath and there is no collateral damage that would have stopped him.

by Anonymousreply 57July 3, 2015 2:56 AM

There are all kinds of plans like 9.11 at war college waiting to be picked up. Nobody "thought of it, " it had been sitting around for years in a condition of latency.

by Anonymousreply 58July 3, 2015 3:19 AM

R36 is apparently unaware that Rumsfeld assistant Dov Zakheim was CEO of a company that specialized in Flight Termination Software for the remote control of aircraft. He also arranged a deal to leas 767s to the Pentagon as fuel tankers.

by Anonymousreply 59July 3, 2015 3:25 AM

And the Pentagon...what are the chances that a barely populated area of the building would have been bombed? That was crazy. Supposedly a bunch of kids on the flight and we never heard about parents suing?

There were reports of the right wing, bitch being on that flight, except some say she was seen in Paris, sometime later.

More than likely the poor people who were actually killed at the pentagon were people Cheney wanted to get rid of.

by Anonymousreply 60July 3, 2015 10:28 PM

R60, one day before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld announced at a press conference that 2.3 TRILLION dollars had gone "missing" from the Pentagon's budget.

One day later a plane (or maybe a Tomahawk missile) struck the Pentagon in the ACCOUNTING department which had recently been re-built and presumably strengthened. What are the odds?

by Anonymousreply 61July 3, 2015 10:46 PM

R14, way to point to a page that refutes nothing I wrote! It seems the writers of that page try to put you to sleep, in the hopes that when you wake up again you may think they're disproven the dancing Israelis.

by Anonymousreply 62July 3, 2015 10:53 PM

I saw a documentary on TV that I can't link too, but it debunked many of these theories. I believe the documentary. I watched the towers fall and the events unfold. There is no way it was staged. Clearly one of the thousands involved with a staging of it would be horrified by the US reaction to it, and would have revealed the truth.

Also, if staged, I think the Republicans would have claimed the killing of Osama bin Laden. They wouln't have left him to Obama. In fact, it might have flipped the election to McCain.

by Anonymousreply 63July 3, 2015 11:43 PM

Whatever, r62.

by Anonymousreply 64July 3, 2015 11:52 PM

Did you see the coverage of Building 7 collapsing?

by Anonymousreply 65July 3, 2015 11:54 PM

Were the killings in Tunisia, France and Kuwait staged? Was the attack on the WTC in 1993, the massacre at Luxor in 1997, the Nairobi Embassy in 1988 and USS Cole in 2000 staged too? What about the Bail bombings in 2002, the train bombings in Spain in 2004 and the underground bombings in London in 2005 and the attacks on the Canadian Parliament and in Sydney last year, were they staged?

by Anonymousreply 66July 3, 2015 11:58 PM

What's your point, r66?

by Anonymousreply 67July 4, 2015 12:02 AM

R64, I do not recall. They debunked a lot of assertions. I think it was 2 hours long. They consulted with various engineers. I'm an an engineer myself (my spell check keeps wanting to change "engineer" to "ginger". How cute!), and what they presented seemed reasonable.

by Anonymousreply 68July 4, 2015 12:04 AM

Well there was the Project for a New American Century or PNAC for short. Plus the fact that 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, not Iraqi or Afghani. So tell me whey we didn't invade Saudi Arabia.

by Anonymousreply 69July 4, 2015 12:08 AM

R66 The point is radical Islam has been a growing problem for the last few decades, 9/11 was just its worst and most visible atrocity

R69 The attacks were co-ordinated from Afghanistan

by Anonymousreply 70July 4, 2015 12:10 AM

Got it, r70. Carry on.

by Anonymousreply 71July 4, 2015 12:13 AM

R71 Not really any more to be said the challenge of the next few decades is how we contain the most radical and extreme elements within Islam

by Anonymousreply 72July 4, 2015 12:17 AM

HYFUD

Please go back to Stormfront or Freeperville.

by Anonymousreply 73July 4, 2015 12:18 AM

R71 Not really any more to be said the challenge of the next few decades is how we contain the most radical and extreme elements within Islam

by Anonymousreply 74July 4, 2015 12:20 AM

What exactly makes you think HYFUD belongs at Stormfront or Freeperville?

by Anonymousreply 75July 4, 2015 12:21 AM

R75 37 Britons were massacred on a beach in Tunisia last week by a radical Islamist, a man was beheaded in France by a radical Islamist and there was a massacre in Kuwait by a radical Islamist on the same day. If you think pointing out that fact means you belong in Stormfront or Freeperville we have not even got beyond step 1 in containing it

R75 Who knows!

by Anonymousreply 76July 4, 2015 12:27 AM

R69, The Saudi individuals weren't sent by the Saudi government. I don't think advanced countries have gone to war because of individual terrorist acts since WWI, and that didn't turn out so well. The terrorists were given sanctuary by the Afgani government, who refused to turn them over, so that's why we went to war there.

I wish people stopped asking about why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia. It's like they're incapable of learning anything.

There was no legit 9-11 based reason to invade Iraq, that I have heard.

by Anonymousreply 77July 4, 2015 12:30 AM

R77 Agree

by Anonymousreply 78July 4, 2015 12:36 AM

Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11...except for Halliburton's need for our tax dollars.

by Anonymousreply 79July 4, 2015 4:06 AM

Let's explore the impossibilities/improbabilities one at a time... How about the hijackers' passports that somehow miraculously survived the fires caused by the planes (hot enough to melt steel!) and the incinerating crush when the buildings collapsed.

by Anonymousreply 80July 4, 2015 4:40 AM

How about the fact that with the North Tower, the undamaged 90 stories (plus six underground floors sunk into bedrock) made of steel beams four feet thick, heavily cross-braced and encased in concrete, provided a mere two seconds' worth of resistance more to the fall of the top twenty floors above them than it would take for those same top twenty floors to fall through thin air. There was nearly five times as much undamaged building below the fire as there was above the fire. How could such a relatively small amount of mass plow through, and completely destroy, a much larger amount of mass in only two seconds more than it would take the smaller mass to drop through nothing?

When an object in motion hits a stationary object, the object in motion transfers a portion of its momentum to the stationary object, slowing down the moving object. The floors below are visibly being exploded away before the top mass falls on them. That alone could account for the mere eleven seconds it took the roof to hit the pavement level, rather than the nine it would have taken the roof to fall through thin air.

by Anonymousreply 81July 4, 2015 5:32 AM

R81 idiots do not want real science, they will scream debunked debunked and go on with their make believe world.

by Anonymousreply 82July 4, 2015 10:44 AM

R82

Your post sounds incredibly scientific, LOL

by Anonymousreply 83July 5, 2015 10:44 PM

One thing I know for sure, it's not the way they tell us it happened. Best case scenario Bush knew of the impending terrorist attacks and took a stand down approach.

by Anonymousreply 84July 5, 2015 10:55 PM

" The Saudi individuals weren't sent by the Saudi government."

Idiot. Or NSA/CIA shill.

by Anonymousreply 85July 5, 2015 10:59 PM

R80

Our government would NEVER lie like that!!!

Only crazy libertarians and government hating rednecks and poor blacks killed by the police and...well, only CRAZY people believe you.

NyahNYAHNyah I can't hear you!!!!

by Anonymousreply 86July 5, 2015 11:02 PM

People forget that there never would have been any federal investigation into the events of 9/11 at all only the victims' families lobbied Congress for eighteen months effectively shaming them into impaneling an investigatory commission. Even then, Dick Cheney and others lobbied Congress behind the scenes to prevent it from happening.

There is no innocent reason for that. Any commercial plane crash with massive loss of life is immediately investigated by the Federal government. The Bush administration and the Congress did not drag their heels in the first place, then low-ball the Commission's budget and impose an abrupt deadline on the investigation just to protect Muslim terrorists. The Commission's "Final Report" on 9/11 doesn't even examine the destruction of WTC 7, which is the Achilles Heel of the official story. Do you really wonder why?

by Anonymousreply 87July 6, 2015 5:11 AM

It was planned by Courtney Love, to take the attention off the fact that she killed Kurt, no????

by Anonymousreply 88July 6, 2015 5:36 AM

R84

I think he knew "something" was up, but wanted to be kept away from the specifics for denial reasons later, act surprised, etc.

For you true believers in the official story, American confirmed there were NO (working) Airphones on their planes, and mobile signals from towers don't work at those altitudes. Recipients of this calls reported that everything in the background sounded very calm, more like a corporate budget meeting than a hijack in progress.

by Anonymousreply 89July 6, 2015 5:53 AM

Those calls were all bullshit...so much bullshit, yet never a serious investigation, same as usual. how can we have any respect for our government?

by Anonymousreply 90July 6, 2015 6:22 AM

WTC 7 had minimal fire damage, had no real structural damage, and could not have been brought down by the same pancaking explanation used for WTC I and WTC II. It was brought down on purpose by implosion.

by Anonymousreply 91July 6, 2015 11:49 AM

Same ol' same ol'

by Anonymousreply 92July 6, 2015 11:54 AM

Of course he didn't (couldn't you find another more interesting conspiracy theory to go with?)

However Bush did successfully f up Iraq and turned Afghanistan to an even bigger mess than it already was. His actions also led to the rise of Isis. More fascinating than any lame conspiracy theory if it wasn't so depressing.

by Anonymousreply 93July 6, 2015 2:28 PM

This is a conspiracy theory that is very easy to prove...even if you have an IQ of 90. I sometimes wonder, do most countries look at Americans as if we are the dumbest people in the world? Americans are like the Germans in 1938 and if you recall what happened to the Germans...misery.

by Anonymousreply 94July 6, 2015 4:19 PM

I am so proud of the minds contributing to this thread

by Anonymousreply 95July 8, 2015 3:40 PM

And R63 ' There is no way it was staged. Clearly one of the thousands involved with a staging of it would be horrified by the US reaction to it, and would have revealed the truth' EDUCATE YOURSELF!! SUSAN LINDAUER-CIA WHISTLEBLOWER

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96July 8, 2015 3:57 PM

I always thought it rather odd that he continued reading to those young children after he was just informed that the U.S. was under attack.

Then I realized that he was just a dolt who wasn't going anywhere until he found out how the story ended.

by Anonymousreply 97July 8, 2015 4:10 PM

Bush reported that he didn't leave the kid's reading session early, when he heard that we were under attack, because he "didn't want to frighten the kiddies". Can you imagine that this was the best explanation they could offer? As if he couldn't just stand and say "I'm so sorry kiddies, but duty calls. Being President means being pulled in all directions at the same time, and there's always something that needs my attention."

Bush was in shock, and didn't know what to do. President Obama would have just excused himself to deal with the matter. Likewise, if Bush was really concerned with the kiddies, he wouldn't have sent their parents off to war so unprepared and with no exit strategy. And of course, Bush didn't seem too concerned with the kiddies of Afganistan and Iraq. Worst president ever.

by Anonymousreply 98July 8, 2015 4:42 PM

R98, not to mention that there were over 100 adults in the room and only about 15 kids. Like that many adults couldn't console a few "frightened" children who just saw the President get whisked away?

Speaking of which, isn't it peculiar that although the President's location at the school was announced well in advance, and although terrorists were plowing hijacked planes into high-profile targets, the President's own Secret Service detail had no fear that he (and they) could have been the next target on another plane. They let him stay in a publicized public place, as if they knew he was in no danger despite the obvious fact that the USA was under attack. That is beyond fishy.

by Anonymousreply 99July 8, 2015 4:48 PM

Bush was probably afraid it would FUBAR, and that's why he was in Florida where his bro had a martial law order ready to go if need be. He flew to Omaha first (where Warren Buffet was holding a "charity" function at Strategic Air Command including attendees such as the head of the SEC, Fidelity Trust, NetJets, Flight Safety International, etc.) Only after it was clear Congress and the army and navy were going along with everything did he return to DC.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100July 8, 2015 4:56 PM

The libertarians have invaded!!!!

How will we ever defend 9/11 with logic!

Help us Oba-ma-me-too! Where is Darth Cheney!

by Anonymousreply 101July 9, 2015 1:28 AM

I cannot decipher the meaning of your post, R101.

We live in such times as defy parody.

You aren't suggesting that the immutable laws of physics have a political bias, are you?

by Anonymousreply 102July 9, 2015 2:33 AM

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday, August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

And Bush ignored it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 103July 9, 2015 3:09 AM

R102

Shockingly, the laws of physics and economics are putty in the hands of people who believe in government power.

by Anonymousreply 104July 11, 2015 2:22 AM

A government doing that to it's OWN people, sending them off to fight a false war? And bombing buildings,disguising it as just another terrorist attack letting thousands of its own innocent citizens die just for power????????? PLEASE!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105July 16, 2015 9:57 AM

has "dancing Israelis" being mentioned yet?

by Anonymousreply 106July 16, 2015 10:45 AM

For whoever it was who claimed the inflight calls were pre-recorded or otherwise faked: BULLSHIT. My sister in law was a F/A on the UA aircraft and she phoned her husband who is a captain. It was real. It happened. Those who think it didn't are dunderheaded conspiracy theorists who never use logic or do objective vetting of the facts. You hear some loon on a YouTube site hawking his own theory and you decide then and there that somehow they have all the answers. I have watched several documentaries done with top notch scientists and physics professors who debunk the theories about the twin towers being a planned inside job, and it's easy to understand how and what happened. I bet you also think that Sandy Hook was a hoax as well dontcha?

by Anonymousreply 107July 16, 2015 10:55 AM

R107, link us to these videos where top scientists prove that a 110 story steel and concrete building can come down in eleven seconds without explosives.

I say you are either misguided or lying. You are either a dupe or a tool. Time and truth are not on the side of the"Official Story" (story indeed!) of 9/11.

If it's all so cut-and-dried, why did the 9/11 Commission (which was not even created until the victims' families petitioned Congress for eighteen months!) ignore the collapse of WTC 7 altogether? And why did it take NIST years to invent a "new phenomenon of thermal expansion" to try to explain it away? And why is it that NIST's own computer-generated illustrations of that "new phenomenon" don't look a thing like the real collapse? If it's all so simple, why all the heel-dragging and dubious theories and failed computer models from the so-called experts?

by Anonymousreply 108July 16, 2015 4:45 PM

You GO R108. Now there's a man who has done his research ! Makes you PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109July 16, 2015 5:07 PM

R108

Most people trust the government. Fools.

by Anonymousreply 110July 17, 2015 1:39 AM

Yeah, a bunch of conspiracy minded anonymous strangers with tinfoil hats on the Internet are much more trustworthy.

by Anonymousreply 111July 17, 2015 3:03 AM

9/11 wasn't planned BY Bush, it was planned by the people who OWN Bush.

Compared to putting him in the White House [twice] without him being elected [no, he didn't win in 2004 either], killing a few thousand 'useless eaters' was a piece of cake...

by Anonymousreply 112July 17, 2015 3:14 AM

R112

Do you think the same applies to Obama?

If not, why?

by Anonymousreply 113July 17, 2015 3:30 AM

When all video tapes are secured away from the public and the government pays out millions to the victims' families if they don't pursue any more investigations, then you have to wonder why. I don't recall the Oklahoma City bomb families being compensated like that.

The plane crash in Pennsylvania had often been described as not looking like a plane crash at all - hardly any belongings or personal effects around the crash site. There were plenty of those when the KLF plane went down.

The towers were made to withstand a hit by a plane. None of it makes any sense - the quick implosion on top of itself, WTC 7, the plane crash in Pennsylvania, the airphone calls, etc. Just too much unanswered and unexplained phenomena.

by Anonymousreply 114July 17, 2015 3:43 AM

[R113], President Obama was *legitimately* elected twice.

George W. Bush was APPOINTED by the Supreme Court in 2000 [a corrupt decision].

In 2004, the manipulation of electronic voting machines in Ohio gave Bush enough electoral votes to 'win'. 'They' were able to change the vote count, but they couldn't alter the exit poll results -- [oops!]

Educate yourself.

The people who own(ed) Bush do NOT own President Obama. That's why he won't give them any more wars!

by Anonymousreply 115July 17, 2015 5:48 AM

The Israelis got their war in Iraq. They hate Obama because he won't bomb Iran.

by Anonymousreply 116July 17, 2015 6:41 AM

R109 From the start it didn't make sense to me from a physics perspective that a plane would be able to fly intact into a structure made of much stronger steel. The plane should have been crushed and exploding at the point of impact of the building. The fact they they flew into the buildings like a knife into butter always bothered me. The WTC was not made of tin foil. It's good to know there are specialists who question this as well.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117July 17, 2015 10:32 AM

^R117--AMAZING. I'VE HEARD OF THE THEORY BU THAT WAS THE BEST VIDEO I'VE SEEN.THANKS!!!!!! ANYTHING ELSE YA GOT?

by Anonymousreply 118July 17, 2015 4:55 PM

MORE ON PLANES. And before you call for your tin hats... DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119July 17, 2015 5:38 PM

ALL THE WORLD'S A STAGE---JUST FUCKIN AMAZING!!

by Anonymousreply 120July 17, 2015 5:41 PM

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak.

Waterboard the four of them and the truth will be known.

by Anonymousreply 121July 17, 2015 8:18 PM

"The plane should have been crushed and exploding at the point of impact of the building."

This is the stupidest thing I've yet read on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 122July 17, 2015 8:21 PM

^do your homework--and watch a few of those youtubies and get back to us

by Anonymousreply 123July 17, 2015 10:26 PM

It went through like buttah---Not possible

by Anonymousreply 124July 17, 2015 10:27 PM

Yes, jet plane wings are essentially hollow and filled with jet fuel. Yet when the second plane struck the second tower, it seemed to plow a Wile E. Coyote style plane-shaped hole in the outside wall of the tower.

Meanwhile, in DC, we are supposed to believe that when a similar jet plane struck the concrete wall of the Pentagon (after incredibly flying just just five or six feet off the ground at over 300 mph for several thousand yards), it supposedly snapped shut like a lady's fan and disappeared, wings, tail, engines, and all into a hole merely sixteen feet in diameter, leaving only trace evidence of aircraft parts on the un-scorched lawn outside the point of impact.

The Pentagon was more likely hit by a Tomahawk missile while a dummy military plane did a fly-by and sudden ascent, leaving witnesses who swore they saw a plane (they did) while the real damage was done by the missile, including the tell-tale circular hole of sixteen feet in diameter. Months later, Rumsfeld slipped up and bluntly stated at a live press conference that a missile hit the Pentagon. His team had to scramble to clarify that he meant to say the "plane-as-missile." But who calls a jet plane a missile? Wouldn't the Sec. of Defense instinctively know the difference?

by Anonymousreply 125July 17, 2015 10:44 PM

In fact, the plane at the Pentagon that witnesses swore they saw could likely have been the plane that fired the missile that actually hit the building. "Another" plane was seen flying off nearby after the fireball erupted outside the Pentagon. The planes in NYC were a magician's trick to cover up the controlled demolitions of the towers. The plane in DC may have been camouflage for a missile. A real jet plane hitting the concrete wall of the Pentagon should have left at least significant portions its tail and wings and on lawn outside the building. A CNN reporter live on the scene at the Pentagon said in the the immediate aftermath that outside the building there was virtually no sign at all of an airplane. All that was ever found outside were a few pieces of shattered metal. At least one identifiably large engine part removed from the scene looked far more like a part from a missile than from a jet plane. There was also a large piece of fuselage carted off in broad daylight by several men that was concealed under a blue tarp. Its not being a plane part was probably the reason they kept it hidden under the tarp.

by Anonymousreply 126July 17, 2015 11:06 PM

You really think a jet going that fast would pancake against a building rather than penetrate it?

Anything you have to say on the laws of physics just went out the window.

by Anonymousreply 127July 17, 2015 11:16 PM

R127, we think that more of the plane would have fallen outside the building rather than be swallowed up entirely by the building.

Don't defend the official story then lecture anyone else on their understanding of physics. You are playing a losing game.

by Anonymousreply 128July 17, 2015 11:30 PM

I'm glad people are raising these questions. I was skeptical until i did some research. I wonder if the downed plane might have been intended for WTC7. It just boggles me that people could watch it collapse and not think it was demolished. The network pundits even said so when it happened.

Most troubling to me is that firefighters waited for the jet fuel to burn itself out and then started sending more men up the towers. They know the risks of building collapse. They would not have sent up anyone if there was the remotest chance that those structures would fall. They were radioing down that the fires were under control when the towers came down. It does not add up. Ask any firefighter and he or she will tell you. Thousands of them have protested the official story and set up a website. I can't find a single one who is standing behind the official story. most are silent, and I've heard that was an order, so I can't blame them.

It's chilling how we have all be trained to be afraid to talk about it openly. Nobody here can deny that fact.

by Anonymousreply 129July 17, 2015 11:31 PM

No, you are still wrong. Why do you think more pieces should have fallen outside the building? Where do you think they went? Why and how did the conspiracists accomplish keeping the pieces from falling outside the building?

by Anonymousreply 130July 17, 2015 11:33 PM

Do your own homework, R130. Here is an article where a high school teacher of physics lays out what's wrong with the official story. Read it then come back here and tell us all in detail why the physics teacher is wrong. I bet you can't.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 131July 17, 2015 11:38 PM

No, you tell me what you think happened. Was it a real plane? Was it empty? If the impact site was faked how was it done?

Sell your theory.

by Anonymousreply 132July 17, 2015 11:41 PM

I think the point, r132 is: We don't know.

The only thing we know is that the official story we've been told cannot possibly be true.

You can look elsewhere for evidence. If the WTC towers 1,2 and 7 can fall after fires lasting a few hours at most, why do steel skyscrapers that burn for hours or days elsewhere not collapse? Since 9/11 there was one in China, one in Dubai, another in Spain, all the buildings survive. Why don't ours?

I know nothing about real planes or empty planes or fake impact sites, all i wonder is: why do our skyscrapers collapse so easily? And why can't we talk about it?

by Anonymousreply 133July 17, 2015 11:45 PM

R132, your unwillingness to even trey to debunk the physics teacher is all the evidence I need to know that you are full of hot air.

It would take me hours to type out all I believe and suspect about 9/11, and I am tired of doing that over and over. I saw the WTC explode with my own eyes. I have been calling the lie on 9/11 ever since 9/12. All the info any sincerely curious person wants to learn can easily be found on the Internet. You can start by browsing the same site I linked to at R131. If you prefer to live in a state of willful ignorance, I am powerless to stop you.

by Anonymousreply 134July 17, 2015 11:47 PM

All of your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers. For example, buildings burn differently when they burn alone or fueled by jet fuel.

And this is where you all always lose me. You reject answers, but provide none. And then you claim someone is trying to silence you as if there weren't thousands of books and sites dedicated to this subject.

And, just for you r124, I googled and found why the high school teacher was wrong. You can too. But you won't, because.

by Anonymousreply 135July 17, 2015 11:50 PM

Oh, come now, R135, I don't believe you for one second. If you cannot tell me why he is wrong yourself then you might just as well wear a dunce cap. If you are too lazy or dishonest to provide a link, the most likely reason is that you do not have one.

by Anonymousreply 136July 17, 2015 11:53 PM

You sweet-talker, you. You might gain a few more followers if you (A) offered an actual theory and (B) didn't act like an ass to anyone who actually tries to hear you out.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 137July 17, 2015 11:57 PM

Tell us, R135, who has successfully "debunked" the principles established by Isaac Newton regarding the laws of motion?

This is an earth-shaking revelation. You must either put up or shut up.

by Anonymousreply 138July 17, 2015 11:57 PM

R137, I am not trying to gain followers. The truth attracts followers among honest people all by itself.

by Anonymousreply 139July 17, 2015 11:58 PM

There is a link above that explains the high school teacher's error. None of the immutable laws of physics were broken.

by Anonymousreply 140July 17, 2015 11:59 PM

You have to do better than that, R140.

by Anonymousreply 141July 18, 2015 12:01 AM

Step 1: Demand answers

Step 2: Reject answers without saying why they are wrong.

Step 3: Feel superior to everyone

by Anonymousreply 142July 18, 2015 12:02 AM

R142 must be looking into a mirror.

If the info at this link doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 143July 18, 2015 12:13 AM

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

… An outline in simple talking points …

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 144July 18, 2015 12:15 AM

What you don't seem to get is that there is another option other than either believing the official story OR believing your particular conspiracy.

So continuing to talk about the supposed flaws in the official story really doesn't help prove your particular conspiracy theory about explosives and planes that dont hit buildings the way you think they should.

And you are now on ignored.

by Anonymousreply 145July 18, 2015 12:19 AM

You can't push an "ignore" button and make the truth vanish forever.

Truth will out.

by Anonymousreply 146July 18, 2015 12:24 AM

r145 surely you can see that in a building where damage is not symmetrical, it's highly unlikely for the building to fall in perfect symmetry. Yet that is what happened to three buildings in one day.

It simply never happens. It is not possible. Deny it if you must.

by Anonymousreply 147July 18, 2015 12:25 AM

It is interesting to me that they did a poorly executed con job, where it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80 that it was an inside job who bothers to investigate it, and now they spend millions every year on the coverup under the term "PsyOPs." So all the millions that could have gone towards, say, encouraging and developing non-fundie opposition groups in Muslim countries, instead goes to spamming the internet to keep the lid on a conspiracy SO OBVIOUS, SHODDY, and PAINFULLY AMATEUR you have to be a literal nitwit to believe the government.

by Anonymousreply 148July 18, 2015 12:26 AM

Nice try, R147.

But R145 does not believe in simple truths. He dances and deflects and finger-points and name-calls to avoid having to explain how a falling object can ACCELERATE when it hits a stationary object that has ten times the mass of the object in motion.

by Anonymousreply 149July 18, 2015 12:30 AM

It's amazing to me how many simply cannot or will not believe that our own president and VP could do this. Yes, it's a horrifying realization but look at the kind of people W and Cheney are, especially Cheney. Look who profited the most in terms of huge, HUGE financial gain and power, the kind of power over this country no president ever had before. What did Bin Laden really gain?

And don't forget the Bush family were thisclose to the Bin Laden family and Bush never tried to actually hunt this man down. Instead lies were told to get us into Iraq and those trillions went right into the pockets of W and Cheney.

I saw it happen live and when the second tower was hit I immediately thought W and Cheney did this. Nothing else ever occurred to me and to this day I believe 100% it was W/Cheney and Co. who did 9/11. Thousands of lives, millions of lives mean nothing to them. That they proved over and over and over again.

by Anonymousreply 150July 18, 2015 12:54 AM

None of the 'hijackers' knew how to pilot a 757 or a 767, so they obviously weren't flying the planes.

Can someone who believes the official version of the events of 9/11 please explain this?

by Anonymousreply 151July 18, 2015 2:26 AM

Dov Zakheim knows a thing or two about remote-controlled aircraft.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 152July 18, 2015 2:34 AM

R115

Only a willfully ignorant person would post such shit.

If you admit Bush was "owned" by big corporations, and then compare the corporate support for Obama, you have to admit that both of them are owned by special interests, and people like you and me are just pawns to be used by whichever arm of the Officially Recognized Political Parties convinces enough suckers to vote for them, or against their opponent.

by Anonymousreply 153July 18, 2015 2:36 AM

R125

While I disagree with your conjecture about what happened, the damage to the Pentagon does not resemble the damage done to the towers on impact.

The Pentagon is probably 90% concrete, but none of the photos at the time looked like a plane hit it.

The other short tower and the Pentagon have always made me skeptical of the official story.

by Anonymousreply 154July 18, 2015 2:42 AM

[R153], the people who owned Bush do not own Obama.

The want a war with Iran. He won't give it to them.

They want him to say that MUSLIMS ARE THE ENEMY. He won't say this.

They wanted to BANKRUPT the USA [huge tax cuts for the wealthiest COMBINED with ever-increasing military expenditures].

Obama wouldn't do that.

These are SOME of the reasons why they HATE President Obama.

by Anonymousreply 155July 18, 2015 2:49 AM

The flight path that Hanni Hanjour allegedly took to fly a plane into the Pentagon is damn near impossible. Especially the last minutes when the flight school dropout is supposed to have flown a full-sized passenger jet at over 300 mph for thousands of yards just a few feet off the ground across uneven terrain, not only not dumping it, but lining it up perfectly with the accounting department of the Pentagon, which just happened to report $2.3 trillion missing the day before.

The best stunt pilots would be hard-pressed to perform such an amazing feat. The idea that a man who couldn't land a Cessna could handle a passenger jet with such skill is absurd on the face of it.

by Anonymousreply 156July 18, 2015 2:52 AM

R155

So, who owned Bush?

If you look at his major donors it looks a lot like Obama's donor list. And Romney's. And Clinton's (Bill and Hilary).

So, who is this nefarious group that is powerful enough to "own" one president, but is too weak to influence the noble Obama? Or is Obama just owned by a different wing?

Please, explain.

If you are going to continue to believe your fairy tale, you need to spin some more yarn.

by Anonymousreply 157July 18, 2015 3:06 AM

[quote]So, who owned Bush?

The Likud Party. What do you think separates the Neocons from Old School Republicans?

by Anonymousreply 158July 18, 2015 3:10 AM

What really stood out was the description of Clinton during his first year. You could read between the lines and understand that Stone feels extreme sympathy for him. He skirts around revealing classified information, but you can tell he knows what Clinton knows about how impossible "doing the RIGHT thing" is.

The powerful grip of the bureaucracy, the contrary needs and goals, the recognition of the invisible power of the "deep state", the intra-governmental and extra-governmental "super-powers" that only exist in the minds of anti-government conspiracy theorists- yeah, NSFW if you work for Goldman Sachs. Or Haliburton. Or Tesla. Or any government contract business.

by Anonymousreply 159July 18, 2015 4:17 AM

R158

Both parties are ardent supporters of Likud.

by Anonymousreply 160July 18, 2015 4:18 AM

Likud is fuming over the Iran deal. Mitt Romney would not have made the Iran deal. George H. W. Bush was not a Neocon, which may have been a deciding factor in his loss to Clinton. H. W. was the last Old School Republican dating back to Taft.

by Anonymousreply 161July 18, 2015 4:41 AM

R161 is mega stupid

GHWBush was CIA Director.

Begone, freeper troll. Or daily Kos troll. Or Gawker troll.

by Anonymousreply 162July 18, 2015 5:01 AM

R162, Old School Republicans believed in the covert overthrow of democratically elected leaders, as happened in Chile Neocons march right in and take. The Republican Party was officially Non-interventionist in the 20th century. The GOP was not then as fanatically devoted to Isra el as it is today. W. Bush and his Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War represent a Neocon departure from the way they used to do these things. Think of Nixon and Kissinger and their "secret wars."

by Anonymousreply 163July 18, 2015 5:17 AM

I had no idea that DL was populated by such a large number of whackos. I have no links to YT conspiracy videos or bizarre Alex Jones type websites to post, but I will say this: I work for the largest airline in the world, which was not involved in any of the tragic events of 9/11, and I am married to a 777 captain who is in his 27th year of flying commercially after a Naval career which included being a member of The Blue Angels. His knowledge of aeronautics and physics is vast, and I would imagine it exceeds that of anyone posting within this thread(unless we have any college professors in this group.) Neither he, nor any of his fellow captains or any ALPA members he associates with have any doubts whatsoever concerning the events of 9/11. He has been privvy to the CVR tapes as well. The idea that the Egyptians et al could not have flown those aircraft given the hours of instruction they had is absurd. Shit, I could fly a 76 or a 75 once it is at cruising altitude, and I have only trained on single engine equipment. Those airplanes are nearly idiot proof once aloft, and remember, there WERE a few boneheaded mistakes made concerning the PA system and the radio to ATC.

I get it. When something so horrible happens, we WANT to think that there is an answer and a reason.. Or our small minds find it difficult to believe the simplicity of evil intent. This is magnified ten fold when one is a natural cynic who tends to distrust the government's motives in general. I think it's fair to say that those who are beating the conspiracy drum the loudest here, likely see conspiracies in quite a few historical events. I understand that my words won't change any minds, but for you to imply that no one with a good working brain could possibly buy the official story of 9/11 is just patently false.

by Anonymousreply 164July 18, 2015 5:21 AM

R164, you don't get it. There are a thousand other inconsistencies in the official story of 9/11. Nothing you say about planes puts a dent in that.

by Anonymousreply 165July 18, 2015 5:22 AM

As R165 said " you don't get it. There are a thousand other inconsistencies in the official story of 9/11. Nothing you say about planes puts a dent in that."

EXACTLY!

And to you, R164 saying "When something so horrible happens, we WANT to think that there is an answer and a reason.. Or our small minds find it difficult to believe the simplicity of evil intent." That's because our LARGER minds know there is nothing SIMPLE about evil in it's intent OR practice. It is born from a vast, interconnecting web of hasty actions returning as karmic events that DO have a both an answer and a reason and so we must NEVER STOP SEARCHING FOR THEM! And on some level, we are ALL responsible for what happened that day ESPECIALLY if we stop asking questions and finding real answers! And it might be wise to do more research beyond what your pilot have said.

And as for your comment about 'whakos' on this thread -I have never been prouder of this site than now. GREAT minds-CARING, INQUISITIVE and SEARCHING for the complete truth till it is known. And until it is, let's keep studying and sharing. GREAT DISCUSSION!

by Anonymousreply 166July 18, 2015 6:58 AM

Defenders of the official story need to explain what generated enough heat to create the pyroclastic flow of pulverized concrete dust and debris that rolled through the streets of lower Manhattan. The debris flow was so intensely hot it carried solid material over the water and deposited it on land across the harbor.

Pyroclastic flow is associated with volcanic eruptions and atomic bombs. It's what buried Pompeii and Herculaeum in ash. It takes a vast amount of super high heat to generate a pyroclastic flow. Burning jet fuel can't begin do it. It burns at far too low a heat to create a volcanic effect of any kind. Carbon-based office materials, ignited by jet fuel will burn at an even lower temperature. Something at the WTC created enough heat to replicate a volcano or an atomic bomb. We all saw the unforgettable image of pyroclastic flow overwhelming the streets of lower Manhattan three times that day. So what created it? What was the source of that extraordinarily high heat?

by Anonymousreply 167July 18, 2015 7:16 AM

See what I mean about the minds on this thread?!? THANK YOU ^R167

by Anonymousreply 168July 18, 2015 7:22 AM

The crazy is off the charts here. Who's your source? Rosie O'Donnell or Charlie Sheen?

by Anonymousreply 169July 18, 2015 8:19 AM

[R169], what is off the charts here is the lack of GULIBILITY!

Could you please answer ONE very simple question for me:

How many of the 'hijackers' knew how to fly commercial jetliners? [Hint: NOBOBY could become proficient at flying a 757 or a 767 *solely* by training on a flight simulator].

I was about 200 miles away from NYC on the morning of 9-11-01, and from the moment that I first learned of the attacks -- before the first tower 'fell' -- I felt that the whole thing was a SCRIPTED event!

by Anonymousreply 170July 18, 2015 8:36 AM

Oops! GULLIBILITY

by Anonymousreply 171July 18, 2015 8:38 AM

R170 They weren't proficient.

by Anonymousreply 172July 18, 2015 8:51 AM

{R172} they certainly weren't! And yet we're supposed to believe that these 'hijackers' were able to fly three of these airplanes [two planes were flown for about 200 miles] AND strike their targets with PINPOINT ACCURACY!

If you believe that this is what happened, then YOU are gullible!

by Anonymousreply 173July 18, 2015 9:07 AM

R173 Calm your tits Mary. i'm telling you that flying a 767 from LAX to EWR is a piece of cake that I could easily accomplish. Could I land? No. Could I take off? Maybe, but I wouldn't care to chance it. I get the feeling that you know very little about flying.

by Anonymousreply 174July 18, 2015 9:18 AM

[R174], please don't avoid the REAL issue here: untrained 'pilots' striking their targets with *pinpoint accuracy* THREE TIMES IN ONE MORNING! If you can give me a reasonable explanation for this, I *promise* that I'll calm my tits!

by Anonymousreply 175July 18, 2015 9:25 AM

"The Pentagon is probably 90% concrete, but none of the photos at the time looked like a plane hit it."

Because that plane didn't hit the Pentagon directly, but slammed into the ground in front of it. So much for "pinpoint accuracy."

by Anonymousreply 176July 18, 2015 11:02 AM

The JFK assassination was the big game changer in US history. It was a coup d'etat. The fact that they were able to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone wolf, make him the patsy, to contort all logic to prove their single bullet theory, and for the public to believe it without starting a revolt, means those responsible can basically do anything. If RFK was elected president, he would have not only ended the Vietnam War but would have investigated his brother's death in order to prove the real truth to the nation, so he had to be silenced. Ronald Reagan assassination attempt was to put George H W Bush in as the president. It failed. The Bush v. Gore was another coup d'etat. That enable the gears to shirt for the events on 9/11/11, in order to begin an endless war against terrorism, passing the USA Patriot Act that will infringe on our privacy and civil rights in the guise of protection against enemies of the state. It will be difficult if not impossible to know all the nitty gritty of how and why things happened on that day, mainly because all the real evidence was destroyed. The Bushes are behind each of these incidents. Mind you they are part of a machine, not the actual leaders.

by Anonymousreply 177July 18, 2015 12:46 PM

The House -- our elected representatives -- did an investigation on the JFK murder and decided there was a conspiracy, that Oswald did not act alone. Most Americans seem to be unaware of this fact.

The majority of Americans do not believe the official 9/11. So r164, you are your pilot husband are in a distinct minority. You can continue to parrot what you've been told about 'conspiracy theorists' if it makes you feel better.

by Anonymousreply 178July 18, 2015 5:03 PM

Yes, the documents have been found. They will be released but the lawyers at The Hague are working to make sure the indictment is bullet proof. Heir Cheney, too! It will all come out within the next 12 months. Thank Anonymous for that!

by Anonymousreply 179July 18, 2015 5:48 PM

R164 is correct. There are so many awful things in the world, I have no idea why people have to make stuff up to make it sound worse.

by Anonymousreply 180July 18, 2015 5:53 PM

[quote]Because that plane didn't hit the Pentagon directly, but slammed into the ground in front of it. So much for "pinpoint accuracy."

Too funny! You exposed your ignorance far more than you think. The "plane" disappeared into a hole 16 feet in diameter leaving nothing but a few shards of shredded metal outside on the lawn. Later, the area of the wall above the hole crumbled, leaving a gap that went all the way up to the roof line. That you don't know these rudimentary facts pretty much discredits your opinion on the subject.

Research the claim by officials of the complicated aerial maneuvers that flight school dropout Hanni Hanjour is supposed to have done to fly the plane into the Pentagon and you will see how far-fetched it is that he or any completely incompetent pilot could have succeeded. The one flight instructor who is known to have taught Hanjour briefly later said of him, "he could not fly at all."

The Neocons and their peers count on fools and boobs like you to sell their ever-so-profitable wars.

by Anonymousreply 181July 18, 2015 6:07 PM

"There are so many awful things in the world, I have no idea why people have to make stuff up to make it sound worse. " THEN ASK THE GOV!

by Anonymousreply 182July 18, 2015 6:09 PM

The Neocons and their peers count on fools and boobs like you to sell their ever-so-profitable wars.

by Anonymousreply 183July 18, 2015 6:10 PM

Please note that not only is R176 making up his own set of "facts" on this thread, he is very busy on the Geithner/Gawker thread Part II calling us all "U stupid fags" and other words to that effect in multiple posts.

by Anonymousreply 184July 18, 2015 6:12 PM

THAT'S NOT NICE

by Anonymousreply 185July 18, 2015 6:18 PM

I'm r176 and I did no such thing. I have never even looked into that thread.

And in response to r181, nothing I said about the plane is untrue. It was a plane and it did slam into the ground short of its target. All you do is deny without evidence and slander those who oppose you.

And the committee concluded there was a PROBABLE conspiracy based on faulty acoustics information and that their PROBABLE conspiracy consisted of a total of two people. Take out the faulty acoustics and you are back to one person, no conspiracy. AND the committee specifically stated that their PROBABLE conspiracy did not include the USSR, Cuba, the mob, anti-Castroites, the FBI, the CIA, or the Secret Service.

I guess the point of being a conspiracy theorist is to make yourself feel better about yourself by deluding yourself about your intellectual superiority.

by Anonymousreply 186July 18, 2015 6:42 PM

My bad, R186. I fucked up on the "new trolldar" and wrongly accused you of being a homophobic poster. I was wrong and I apologize.

But you are still foolishly wrong to claim that the plane hit the ground in front of the Pentagon. It did no such thing. Your claim that it did proves your very basic ignorance of the subject which seriously reduces your ability to discuss the subject. The pane that allegedly hit the Pentagon also allegedly crumpled up and disappeared almost entirely inside the building. That you state otherwise shows us all that you are just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Sorry to have wrongly smeared you. This site is full of trolls. You are not a homophobic troll and I was mistaken when I said you were. But you are a fool to believe the official story when a mountain of solid evidence contradicts it.

by Anonymousreply 187July 18, 2015 6:50 PM

Show me evidence of what you are asserting. All you are doing is saying I am wrong. Was there no plane? If there was a plane what happened to it? I cannot evaluate your argument if all you are going to do is tell me I am wrong and then tell me what an ignorant fuck I am.

by Anonymousreply 188July 18, 2015 6:53 PM

This was aired only once on CNN, it is a houror so after the plane allegely hit. The smaller hole that was made by the plane or missile is nor much bigger as the roofline collpased, creating a bigger gap in the building. What is telling about this video is that the reporter states clearly that there is no sign of a plane having hit the building to be seen on the outside of the building.

The official story is that the whole plane just sort folded up and entered the original hole that was created at the point of impact. That is absurd as the wings and tail and engines all would have to pull themselves inward like a collapsible fan. What should have happened is that parts and pieces of the wings, tail and engine parts should have been scattered all over the lawn and roof. The outside walls of the Pentagon should have shown damage from where wings, tail, and most especially the titanium engines should have struck. Titanium is stronger than concrete, therefore the engines should have left conspicuous damage on the building where they allegedly hit it. But there isn't any. A jet plane is much wider than the original hole created, and it is wider too than the gap you see on this video, which was caused by the area around the original hole crumbling in a short while later.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 189July 18, 2015 7:07 PM

This is a very thorough examination of the flaws in the Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon story. Even if you don't want to read a lot and watch all the videos, it is worth a minute of your time to scroll down and see a few of the pictures that illustrate the flaws in the official story. Namely, the actual damage that we do see is too small to have been made by an object as large as a passenger jet, which should have created a much wider field of damage.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 190July 18, 2015 7:15 PM

Except that isn't the official story at all. The official story is it plowed into the ground in front of the Pentagon. According to the official story the hole in the Pentagon was caused by debris from the plane not the plane itself. If you get rebutting the plane hitting the Pentagon full on, which no one argues, then we have nothing more to discuss.

There is eyewitness and video evidence of this plane coming across the ground and hitting before the Pentagon. Is your argument really that there was no plane involved here?

by Anonymousreply 191July 18, 2015 7:20 PM

R191 - I believe what he's arguing is that it was a missile. All tapes have been confiscated.

by Anonymousreply 192July 18, 2015 7:25 PM

Eyewitnesses saw a plane. Easily available videos show plane.

by Anonymousreply 193July 18, 2015 7:30 PM

What tapes were confiscated?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 194July 18, 2015 7:34 PM

[quote]Except that isn't the official story at all. The official story is it plowed into the ground in front of the Pentagon.

Bullshit. Link to that false claim. Put up or shut up.

by Anonymousreply 195July 18, 2015 7:49 PM

The videos do not show a plane. They published a video and told us it was a plane but you could not see any plane in it.

by Anonymousreply 196July 18, 2015 7:52 PM

I have posted several links, the most helpful would be the 911myths site. There are a whole bunch of eyewitness sightings of the plane linked there.

And you may not be able to see a plane in the Pentagon video, but you can see that whatever it was struck the ground before hitting the wall of the Pentagon.

So, I have put up and have not delivered bullshit. I still await your theory and your evidence in your own words.

by Anonymousreply 197July 18, 2015 7:54 PM

One of the interesting tidbits from Clinton's autobiography is she claims when she went to move into the White House, she found a note from Rush Limbaugh on her pillow, a kind of "I can get to you here" kind of implication. Her view of a "vast right wing conspiracy" was only the facts, Jack.

by Anonymousreply 198July 18, 2015 7:56 PM

[quote]And you may not be able to see a plane in the Pentagon video, but you can see that whatever it was struck the ground before hitting the wall of the Pentagon.

You are misinformed.

by Anonymousreply 199July 18, 2015 8:11 PM

"You are misinformed."

OK. Enough with this. If that's the entirety of your response, there is nothing left to say.

by Anonymousreply 200July 18, 2015 8:14 PM

I think the people who think it aren't possible do not understand how long the US has had this technology. This was not cutting edge stuff. They've been imploding buildings with a few hundred pounds of explosives for years. They've been remote flying passenger jets since 1984 that we know of. We aren't talking cutting edge here.

by Anonymousreply 201July 18, 2015 8:16 PM

If the CIA can test germ warfare on us - and we don't learn about it until 20 years later - then be assured other shit happens without us knowing about it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 202July 18, 2015 8:21 PM

If they were going to demolish the buildings with explosives, then why use planes at all? They could have just gotten video footage of Middle Eastern guys going into all the buildings with duffle bags of explosives.

by Anonymousreply 203July 18, 2015 8:24 PM

[quote]OK. Enough with this. If that's the entirety of your response, there is nothing left to say

I have been reading in detail about all the events of 9/11 for almost fourteen years now. Your claim that the plane crashed on the lawn outside the Pentagon and that the damage was caused by flying parts bouncing into the Pentagon is the first of its kind I have ever read anywhere in fourteen years.

I don't know where you got it but I assure you it is not to be found even in the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission. The official story is that the plane flew directly into the Pentagon and crumpled up, disappearing entirely within the building. If you doubt that, do your own research. It's not my fault you don't even know the details of the very version you are attempting to defend.

by Anonymousreply 204July 18, 2015 8:25 PM

[quote]If they were going to demolish the buildings with explosives, then why use planes at all?

To make people think that explosives had not been used. They fooled you , didn't they?

by Anonymousreply 205July 18, 2015 8:27 PM

Not sure if you're serious or being sarcastic, r205.

by Anonymousreply 206July 18, 2015 8:29 PM

I am being serious, R206. They used planes full of jet fuel to make you think that structural damage and fire brought down the towers, not the high-powered explosives that really did the deed.

by Anonymousreply 207July 18, 2015 8:31 PM

He is being serious.

And in all his 14 years of research he must never have come across this:

"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, ONE WING HIT THE GROUND; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."" [emphasis added]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 208July 18, 2015 8:32 PM

And r203's point is your theory is ridiculously complicated. If they were going to set it up to look like Middle-Eastern terrorists did it while I actually doing it themselves, why not just make it look like Middle-Easterners planted bombs? Why go to all the complication of faking planes?

by Anonymousreply 209July 18, 2015 8:33 PM

The Popular Mechanics article is disinformation. There was no sign anywhere outside the Pentagon of a plane wing having sheared off.

by Anonymousreply 210July 18, 2015 8:36 PM

Yep. Just brush it aside. Eyewitnesses don't count. Everything is disinformation.

by Anonymousreply 211July 18, 2015 8:39 PM

Here's a picture. Where are the plane parts?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 212July 18, 2015 8:40 PM

Here is another picture. Where is the wing that sheared off?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 213July 18, 2015 8:41 PM

Here's another picture. Where is the plane?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 214July 18, 2015 8:41 PM

Look how green and unscathed the lawn is outside the Pentagon right where the plane supposedly hit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215July 18, 2015 8:42 PM

We can play this game all day. Where is the plane or any sign of it outside the Pentagon?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 216July 18, 2015 8:43 PM

R176

If the plane crashed before it hit the Pentagon then the story makes less sense.

by Anonymousreply 217July 18, 2015 8:50 PM

Never mind. You have completely convinced me it was a missile. All the eyewitnesses are wrong. Popular Mechanics is in the bag for the conspirators.

by Anonymousreply 218July 18, 2015 8:53 PM

[quote]And [R203]'s point is your theory is ridiculously complicated. If they were going to set it up to look like Middle-Eastern terrorists did it while I actually doing it themselves, why not just make it look like Middle-Easterners planted bombs? Why go to all the complication of faking planes?

Because they then had the excuse to push the TSA security theater, [R209]

by Anonymousreply 219July 18, 2015 8:54 PM

In response to an initial claim that Flight 77 had crashed short if its target, here is what the eye-witness CNN reporter on the scene had to say:

"You know, it might have appeared that way but from my close inspection, there's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. The only sight is the actual side of the building that has crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are... are small enough that you could pick up with your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, uh, fuselage - nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.. uh, and then caused the side to collapse. Now even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately, it wasn't until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened ...."

They never repeated this report for some reason. How do you "debunk" this guy's testimony when he is on camera at the scene looking directly at it and describing exactly what the naked eye can see, while on live television?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 220July 18, 2015 8:58 PM

R177

I agree. Did you know that Obama's mother, father and stepfather all worked for CIA front companies?

I'm sure there are a few dozen others in DC and governorships around the country that have similar ties and are groomed for Prez, not to mention many corporate executives. The latter I know for a fact. Every large corporation in the U.S. (and many worldwide) has at least one with deep ties to the Company.

by Anonymousreply 221July 18, 2015 8:59 PM

[quote]why not just make it look like Middle-Easterners planted bombs?

How were Middle Eastern terrorists supposed to gain access to Larry Silverstein's newly purchased towers, far enough inside and long enough to wire the buildings from basement to near rooftop with demolition materials? They were not randomly placed bombs but meticulously placed demolition charges that had to have been used to make the towers fall neatly into their own footprints at near free-fall speed.

by Anonymousreply 222July 18, 2015 9:02 PM

R179

I so wish you were right.

Seeing Bush, Cheney, Rice, Obama and Clinton tried for crimes against humanity would warm my heart.

It ain't happenin'.

by Anonymousreply 223July 18, 2015 9:02 PM

"Clinton's autobiography is she claims when she went to move into the White House, she found a note from Rush Limbaugh on her pillow"

No way. Did she really write that?

That's laughable. The woman lies as easily as she breathes.

by Anonymousreply 224July 18, 2015 9:09 PM

R202

That deserves its own thread.

by Anonymousreply 225July 18, 2015 9:11 PM

Benjamin Chertoff, who wrote the Popular Mechanics cover-up article that Neocon supporters always link to, was a writer for glossy bodybuilding magazines before cranking out that bit of disinformation. His "expertise" as a writer was limited to "how you can get that buff beach body for summer." He is a relative of Michael Chertoff, the high-ranking Neocon who later became head of Homeland Security. It wad Michael Chertoff who made millions after leaving the DHS by selling the X-ray machines that are giving air travelers radiation exposure in airports all over the USA.

Look who got rich off 9/11 - Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Chertoff, Silverstein... they are the ones who made it happen and they have exploited it for personal profit ever since.

by Anonymousreply 226July 18, 2015 9:25 PM

R226

Didn't even look at the author name.

Chertoff made hundreds of millions off TSA contracts.

How is the fact that the most mainstream "scientific report" on this shit written by a government insider?

I know that the full details of 9/11 are still classified, but shit like this makes me more skeptical.

by Anonymousreply 227July 18, 2015 9:54 PM

r117 I am glad you mentioned the botched assassination attempt on Reagan. It is amazing more people don't talk about it. It is so obvious that Bush I was involved. I hate Reagan, but I am glad he survived. And I am even more glad that Bush I only had one term. The man is connected to both the JFK assassination (he was in the CIA at the time) and the Reagan assassination. What are the odds.

by Anonymousreply 228July 18, 2015 10:06 PM

Why are we so sure nobody will ever be brought to justice. That implies the technology to control all the people all the time already exists and is being used. And yet surely that is not the case.

People just assume that to arrest former presidents and charge them with treason would make the USA ungovernable or trigger a military coup. I say it's the only way to get our country back and make it work.

by Anonymousreply 229July 18, 2015 10:11 PM

R228

So, the Clinton and Obama ties to the CIA are okay?

by Anonymousreply 230July 18, 2015 10:31 PM

I often wonder if Reagan suspected or knew Bush Sr. was behind the failed assassination attempt, and if so why he kept him on the ticket in '84.

by Anonymousreply 231July 18, 2015 10:42 PM

R229

Unless you are an anarcho-libertarian (Rothbardian) then your tacit support of the government is a big part of the problem.

As long as the trains run on time, and they can eat at McDonald's and Outback Steakhouse once in a while, and their government job is secure (directly as a "public servant" or indirectly as a private employee that does "government compliance" or works for a bank/corporation that survives on taxpayer funded contracts) the majority will remain complicit. So what if everyone else suffers, they still have a good job at the IRS or TSA or DMV.

When all of these Keynesian fantasies (more government spending and debt will help us all!) collapse these zombies will be dangerous.

9/11 will be a distant memory.

by Anonymousreply 232July 18, 2015 10:42 PM

R231

Reagan and Bush hated each other. Reagan was "enticed" to select him as VP. The Bush and Reagan families never spoke of each other after the assassination attempt.

Curiously, the Bush family had dinner with the Hinckley family the night before the assassination attempt.

Just an odd coincidence I'm sure.

by Anonymousreply 233July 18, 2015 10:45 PM

R231 - I don't think he really knew or thought it out. He was a pretty gullible man - I don't think he thought badly about people. Simple person.

What CIA links do Clinton and Obama have? We do know George Bush was the DIRECTOR OF THE CIA for a couple of years - just prior to the 1980 election.

I can't think they just randomly appoint any politico as the head of the CIA. It underlines his "cover" career in the 50's and 60's as a supposed oil man. But he was really a CIA operative. Very shady family.

by Anonymousreply 234July 18, 2015 10:51 PM

But r234 there must have been people in his administration who suspected it. Didn't anyone have a private conversation with him about it?

by Anonymousreply 235July 18, 2015 10:54 PM

R235-

In his autobiography, Dreams From My Fathers, Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer".

Oddly, Obama doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of October 30, 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960.10

The British journal, Lobster — which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters — has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji.11

In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls.12

After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington's nuclear desires, was reinstated to power — R.S.K. Mara was Prime Minister or President of Fiji from 1970 to 2000, except for the one-month break in 1987.

In his book, not only doesn't Obama mention his employer's name; he fails to say exactly when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left — including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)13 — it's reasonable to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world.

by Anonymousreply 236July 18, 2015 11:07 PM

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has discovered CIA files that document the agency's connections to institutions and individuals figuring prominently in the lives of Barack Obama and his mother, father, grandmother, and stepfather. The first part of his report highlights the connections between Barack Obama, Sr. and the CIA-sponsored operations in Kenya to counter rising Soviet and Chinese influence among student circles and, beyond, to create conditions obstructing the emergence of independent African leaders.

----

own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world's most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro, Obama's stepfather, at the East-West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno.

Barack Obama, Sr., who met Dunham in 1959 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii, had been part of what was described as an airlift of 280 East African students to the United States to attend various colleges – merely u201Caidedu201D by a grant from the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation, according to a September 12, 1960, Reuters report from London. The airlift was a CIA operation to train and indoctrinate future agents of influence in Africa, which was becoming a battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union and China for influence among newly-independent and soon-to-be independent countries on the continent.

The airlift was condemned by the deputy leader of the opposition Kenyan African Democratic Union (KADU) as favoring certain tribes – the majority Kikuyus and minority Luos – over other tribes to favor the Kenyan African National Union (KANU), whose leader was Tom Mboya, the Kenyan nationalist and labor leader who selected Obama, Sr. for a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Obama, Sr., who was already married with an infant son and pregnant wife in Kenya, married Dunham on Maui on February 2, 1961 and was also the university's first African student. Dunham was three month's pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr. at the time of her marriage to Obama, Sr.

by Anonymousreply 237July 18, 2015 11:09 PM

FWIW, the CIA is known as "The Company" in many official and unofficial documents.

Analysts of the "Deep State" have been using that unique signifier as a way of helping sort information.

by Anonymousreply 238July 18, 2015 11:15 PM

[quote]And the committee concluded there was a PROBABLE conspiracy based on faulty acoustics information and that their PROBABLE conspiracy consisted of a total of two people. Take out the faulty acoustics and you are back to one person, no conspiracy.

Only problem, r186, is that the last sentence is entirely yours. The House Committee still concluded the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy even after questions were raised about acoustic evidence (which IIRC was raised by the FBI who had their own agenda in this case).

Again, the 'one person, no conspiracy' is your opinion, deftly used to try to turn the House committee's conclusions inside out or discredit them.

Maybe we'll know more in a few years when more documents are released. (Which begs the question: why is evidence hidden for decades to begin with? Why can't we know all there is to know now?)

by Anonymousreply 239July 18, 2015 11:16 PM

Clinton and "The Company".

---

In part one of this article, we examined a CIA-supervised cocaine smuggling operation based during the '80s in Mena, Arkansas.

We also detailed evidence of then-Governor Clinton's role in supressing evidnce, mishandling federal funds, even blocking a congressional level investigation into the affair. While Clinton's at-least tacit role in the Mena cover-up continues to this day (he has yet to authorize any investigation into the charges), behind the scenes are highly secretive, quasi-independent elements within the US intelligence community who are handling the actual machinery. In a high level deal between the National Security Council and the Medellin cartel, millions of dollars were paid to Felix Rodriguez, the CIA's commander at El Salvador's Ilopango Air Base, and others (including Manuel Noriega) in exchange for access to the CIA pipeline for Medellin cocaine. In this conclusion, we examine the secret network which laundered the Mena drug money. We also find that these same covert bankers, with close ties to BCCI, financed Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. [It should be noted that since the publication of part one, this writer has learned that Buddy Young was appointed by Pres. Clinton to head the Dallas Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Young was Governor Clinton's chief of security, and the man who framed Terry Reed for trying to quit the Mena operation. FEMA, of course, is the agency empowered to sieze control of the country in the event of martial law.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 240July 18, 2015 11:17 PM

R239

If they had revealed biological weapons testing as it happened in the 1950s then people would care.

If it comes out 30-50 years later, like the truth about Korea and Vietnam, then nobody cares- they just think it is normal and okay for the government to do these things.

by Anonymousreply 241July 18, 2015 11:21 PM

r230 No Obama's and Clinton's ties to the CIA are bad. But they are less evil than Bush I. This is why the media hates Bernie Sanders. He has no CIA ties.

by Anonymousreply 242July 18, 2015 11:25 PM

UNBELIEVABLY GREAT THREAD AND DIALOGUE!! LEARNING SO MUCH!

by Anonymousreply 243July 18, 2015 11:49 PM

"The Company" covers a lot of ground so saying that someone has CIA ties doesn't mean the same thing in every case. Obama's ties could only be connected to Africa in terms of promoting American interests ahead of those of the Chinese and Russians where Africa is concerned. It's far cry from assassinating foreign leaders or overthrowing a government. Not that those things couldn't be involved but in his case it's not likely. It does mean that as far as being a candidate and being vetted the CIA would have all the information on him they need to determine whether he will be suitable to hold the Presidency as far as THEIR agendas go.

by Anonymousreply 244July 18, 2015 11:54 PM

[quote]This is why the media hates Bernie Sanders. He has no CIA ties.

Please explain what you mean by this.

by Anonymousreply 245July 19, 2015 12:13 AM

R242

How so?

The CIA ties for Clinton and Obama are less serious because they are...what?

by Anonymousreply 246July 19, 2015 12:32 AM

R244

Are you stupid?

Denial of the facts doesn't change the facts.

by Anonymousreply 247July 19, 2015 12:33 AM

No I'm not stupid.

But clearly YOU are an asshole and apparently illiterate.

by Anonymousreply 248July 19, 2015 12:48 AM

[quote]I often wonder if Reagan suspected or knew Bush Sr. was behind the failed assassination attempt, and if so why he kept him on the ticket in '84.

Nancy Reagan smelled a rat, sure as shit. They assigned her top have lunch with Barbara Bush during the failed coup. All of a sudden, quiet chaos broke out around the two ladies and Nancy knew that something was terribly wrong. Imagine the Bush's surprise when Reagan recovered. Babs may have been ignorant but I'd bet good money George went to bed that night disappointed that he wasn't President the way he was supposed to have been.

by Anonymousreply 249July 19, 2015 2:36 AM

This video is most interesting

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 250July 19, 2015 2:45 AM

Here is an interesting video. The Today Show one hour before the attacks. They had Tom Brokaw announcing that tonight on the news they would be doing a special about "three numbers that could save your life: 9-1-1." EIther a weird coincidence or maybe, just maybe - and yes, I know this sounds tinhat - they are using the broadcast to send coded messages to those in the know - like "the game is on." Tom Brokaw is a member of the CFR, and they are the Globalist, New World Order, One World Government people. I bet Brokaw knew at least a little more than he let on in advance.

Funny to see Gary Condit in the news. He and shark attacks were the summer fodder before the Mainstream Media rolled out their new product : America's New War, as they called it, on the week of 9/11.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 251July 19, 2015 3:00 AM

R248

It must be hard as shit to get F&F/blocked on a conspiracy thread.

You must be an uber-troll for that!!!

by Anonymousreply 252July 19, 2015 3:10 AM

Don't forget the power down.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 253July 19, 2015 4:39 AM

President Bush was our Chauncey Gardiner in BEING THERE come to life. He was planted down in Florida where martial law had already been declared the Friday before (presumably just in case things went wrong.) Cheney and H. W. Bush ran the White House on 9/11. W. was not allowed to fly back to DC. He had to fly around, circling the air over Florida uselessly for hours before being allowed to fly to Nebraska to a meeting of billionaires.

Before noon during the network coverage, people with FBI credentials detailed a threat to Camp David (including initially reporting that Flight 93 had gone down there.) I am guessing that these were a false alarm of sorts to prevent President Bush from returning to DC and - Heaven forbid! - taking charge of operations. He was no doubt kept as far out of the loop as possible.

I get the feeling we had a real Ted Baxter, empty-headed hairdo of a man sitting in the White House for eight years while competent people pulled his strings from just out of sight. Bush was a coke-addled alcoholic and you could tell he fell off the wagon at times. His handlers fed him answers through ear-pieces at interviews and debates. You could hear the pause he had to take to listen carefully before repeating the things people were telling him to say. He was as phony as his War on Terror.

by Anonymousreply 254July 19, 2015 5:00 AM

This is THE discussion thread I have ever come across! Unbelievably informative. Please do not delete webbie. Please guys, continue!

by Anonymousreply 255July 19, 2015 5:33 AM

totally with you, R255. I'm so loving us right now!! BEST THREAD I EVER READ AND AM COPYING IT AS WE SPEAK!

by Anonymousreply 256July 19, 2015 6:07 AM

and if it gets deleted, we'll start another. This beats talking about almost anything else!!

by Anonymousreply 257July 19, 2015 6:11 AM

I have NEVER used Youtube to better effect!

by Anonymousreply 258July 19, 2015 6:12 AM

To see the fundamental flaw in the explanation that fire and structural damage done by falling debris from the North Tower caused WTC 7 to collapse, imagine the building is a four-legged wooden stool. Each of the four legs represents one corner of the building and the seat is its roof. The stool is forty-seven inches high, one inch for every floor in the building. The four legs are connected by four horizontal rods seven inches up off the floor, and also connected by another four horizontal rods twelve inches off the floor. These rods represent the seventh floor and the twelfth floor.

Now let's replicate the damage done to the one corner of the building that bore the brunt of the falling debris. Chunk away and chip away at that stool leg. Don't hold back. The more damage you do, the better you will help make the point. We now have a four-cornered building/stool with one badly damaged corner/leg.

Now light fires to the rods that represent the seventh and twelfth floors. Start the rods on fire at the damaged leg of the stool but let the fires burn as far and as hard as you want. We weren't inside the building and we don't know exactly how far the fires traveled but we don't need to know. One broad face of the building and one narrow face of the building showed unmistakable signs of fire shooting out banks of windows on the seventh and twelfth floors. The other broad face and narrow face of the building showed no signs of fire shooting out any windows. So we don't need to know exactly how far the fires traveled. Photos and videos tell us that the fire was unevenly spread through the building. That's all we need to know, and the evidence supports it.

So the four-legged stool has one leg chunked to a state of fragility and fires burning fiercely but distributed unevenly on the connecting rods.

Now sit on the stool. You are gravity. You represent the loss of the stool's structural integrity. It can no longer hold itself up, so it must come down. If you sat on a stool in such a condition, how would it (and you) topple? Note, I am not suggesting that a giant sat on WTC 7, only that you are an invisible giant whose sitting down is the force known as gravity. The official explanation is that this was a gravitational-based collapse.

From where I sit, gravity will make the building/stool topple in the direction of the badly damaged leg. That is where failure ought to occur first and foremost. The other three corners are intact. The building will topple conspicuously to one side, the side of most damage. It will take what is known as the Path of Least Resistance.

But if you sit among the defenders of the official story, you believe that the stool will telescope straight down into its own path. You believe that the three undamaged legs will fail at precisely the same second and to precisely the same degree as the badly damaged leg. You ride the seat/roof of your stool straight down and neither the damaged corner nor the random path of the fires causes any major deviation in your rapid vertical descent. The descent is so rapid, that if your ass were the roof of the building, then when you sat on the asymmetrically-damaged stool, your ass would hit the floor just as fast as if you sat down on nothing but thin air forty-seven inches off the floor. That is how fast your wooden stool with its three undamaged corner/legs would destroy itself in its remarkably expedient descent through the Path of Most Resistance.

Now go ahead and tell me that a stool is a bad illustration for a steel and concrete skyscraper. So it is. Every beam and column you add, every floor, every block of concrete you add to my metaphorical stool to make it more like a skyscraper and less like a stool strengthens the argument that I made about the stool in the first place. Something more powerful and more well-controlled than unevenly distributed damage and fire combined with gravity brought that building down into its own footprint at virtual free-fall speed.

by Anonymousreply 259July 19, 2015 7:19 AM

R178 The majority of Americans do not buy the official story re:9/11? I will agree that the majority of Americans who follow Alex Jones and his ilk do not buy it, and coincidentally it is only on marginal right wing nutso sites where I can find that particular data, Literally every site which came up in my search was a crackpot CT haven.

You show me a link to a reputable poll/site which states that the majority of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I will gladly apologize to you.

by Anonymousreply 260July 19, 2015 8:36 AM

"You show me a link to a reputable poll/site which states that the majority of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I will gladly apologize to you." You wanna wait for the masses to find the truth? GOOD LUCK!

by Anonymousreply 261July 19, 2015 12:50 PM

R259 with that stool analogy?

THANK YOU.!!! BRILLIANT!!

I hope you are using your powers well in this world and getting paid accordingly.

by Anonymousreply 262July 19, 2015 12:53 PM

I LOVE THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 263July 19, 2015 12:55 PM

r260 there is a difference between not believing the official story, and believing that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. You are conflating the two. Just because most people see holes in the official explanations does not mean the same people think the US government was behind it all.

by Anonymousreply 264July 19, 2015 2:35 PM

[quote]they would be doing a special about "three numbers that could save your life: 9-1-1." EIther a weird coincidence or maybe,

r251, don't you think that this was because the date was 9/11? That's the first thing that came to mind.

Suggesting that Brokaw was giving secret signals is just wacky. And it seems like more disinformation that can be used to discredit anyone who questions anything about the official narrative.

by Anonymousreply 265July 19, 2015 3:20 PM

R265 - Agreed - that's just going into whackjob lunacy. I don't think the media knew anything about this - believe it or not, there are still enough upstanding people in media that would call it out. Even just for the story. Now - AFTER 9/11, there was a total shout down of 9/11 truthers.

But I'll be honest - I didn't believe them either. It's only with YouTube are we able to see the video for ourselves without media editing it or locking it away.

There can be some whacky elements to the truther movement - but at the end of the day, no fire has ever collapsed a steel building and make it pancake on itself. Fires have burned for 18 or more hours in other steel buildings time and time again - no collapse.

Lastly - the 9/11 towers were BUILT TO WITHSTAND A JUMBO JET FLYING INTO THEM. That's right - look up interviews with the building's engineers.

by Anonymousreply 266July 19, 2015 3:36 PM

R264

I agree, but the lack of transparency by the government (similar to that of a crime witness who withholds evidence and doesn't tell the whole truth about what happened at the crime scene) means that using conspiracy to explain the obvious inconsistencies exerts a powerful pull on "truthers", and makes the "witness" seem guilty of some connection to the crime.

by Anonymousreply 267July 19, 2015 4:28 PM

Max Cleland and his time on the 9/11 commission.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 268July 19, 2015 4:45 PM

As I understand it, on a weekday morning after Labor Day, when business travel season had picked up again, all four flights were relatively empty? Anyone else wonder about that?

by Anonymousreply 269July 19, 2015 4:48 PM

wow r268. i had no idea.

by Anonymousreply 270July 19, 2015 4:49 PM

I read through many pieces of that Popular Mechanics story - all it does it restate the NIST findings in much of its rebuttals and claims them as facts. It's a really selective piece - just like the 9/11 commission and the NIST report that took FOUR YEARS to cobble together.

by Anonymousreply 271July 19, 2015 5:03 PM

The country was in recession R269, and video conferencing had begun to eliminate business travel.

by Anonymousreply 272July 19, 2015 5:19 PM

An average 25% passenger load on a business morning? I was traveling then and planes were still pretty full.

by Anonymousreply 273July 19, 2015 5:21 PM

R272 - true, and the economy had already slowed quite a bit that year. I remember layoffs in tech world starting in early 2001. Lastly, it was a Tuesday morning with cross-country flights. That would only give you Wed and Thursday for business mtgs if you intend to be back by Friday.

And some of the flights had over 200+ people - so they weren't exactly "empty" - just the United 77 with 50 or so people on it.

by Anonymousreply 274July 19, 2015 5:24 PM

R274, all four flights were about 3/4ths empty. Peculiar considering they were all cross-country flights.

by Anonymousreply 275July 19, 2015 5:43 PM

r275 what are you insinuating with this info that flights weren't full?

I flew to London a few weeks before 9/11 and enjoyed a plane that was probably only 2/3 full. It was heaven, I got a whole row of 3 seats so I enjoyed a window and an aisle (with one in the middle). I think software and reseller sites that bid on empty seats have made that a thing of the past. But then it wasn't as unusual.

by Anonymousreply 276July 19, 2015 5:49 PM

I, too, have been on nearly empty overseas flights, but domestic ones ... only at really off peak times.

I don't quite understand it myself, but at least one flight (number) is alleged to have been some sort of non-standard one rather than a normal everyday regularly scheduled operation.

by Anonymousreply 277July 19, 2015 5:56 PM

R276, there are all sorts of conflicting versions of how some of the jets allegedly used also made emergency landings in Cleveland. I personally think that all the planes that actually struck their targets were decoy military planes painted to look like passenger planes. While the real passenger planes were culled and evacuated, with the passengers all being herded into one plane that took off, allegedly for CA, but ended up being over-ridden and flown via remote control to be dumped in the ocean. It's also possible that some of those passengers never really existed but were invented for fraudulent insurance claims and government payoffs.

Here is the transcript of a news story out of Cleveland, broadcast the morning of 9/11:

Reported by 9News Staff Web produced by:Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

Hard to explain away this story but there it is. Some people believe that at least two of the actual passenger jets were re-commissioned and are still in service today. Once you start delving, you realize that even now there are still hundreds of unanswered questions. Here is a website that goes on at length about the Cleveland Airport Mystery. It's too big a topic to be neatly encapsulated in one post.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 278July 19, 2015 6:07 PM

Ok these theories of people being herded into remote controlled planes that were crashed in the ocean is just pure speculation.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that.

That's what gets lumped in with legit questions based on evidence.

by Anonymousreply 279July 19, 2015 6:58 PM

[quote]Ok these theories of people being herded into remote controlled planes that were crashed in the ocean is just pure speculation.

I agree - just speculation. Reject it out of hand, by all means.

But what you cannot reject out of hand is that Channel 9 in Cleveland quoted the city's Mayor reporting that a plane made an emergency landing in Cleveland, and United, the company that owned the plane identified it as the missing United Flight 93. That made the national news before it disappeared.

How could channel 9, the mayor of Cleveland, and United Airlines all have been mistaken about whether United Flight 93 did or did not land at the Cleveland airport, after they all publicly stated that it did?

Here is something funny about Flight 93, the supposed crash site showed no evidence whatever of plane parts, body parts, luggage, blood or anything. We are told to believe that when the plane crashed, it buried itself entirely in the ground. Can you really believe that?

What is more, apparently the large scar in the ground that we are told is where Flight 93 crashed (and buried itself as though the solid earth were quicksand) shows up on satellite imagery of that land that was taken years BEFORE 9/11.

We are so being lied to by our government and our media.

by Anonymousreply 280July 19, 2015 7:07 PM

Sometimes, the most obvious things are the truth.

Four planes were hijacked, two were crushed into the World trade center. In order for that to happen on the only day of the year the air force couldn't respond in time and when it did the planes were sent the other way, there had to be an information leak or share between the terrorists and someone from the inside.

That's the secret that is being guarded so strictly. Mohamed Elibiary, Arif Alikahn, Salam al-Marayati and many more. If you'll check these names and their titles, you will start to understand things.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 281July 19, 2015 7:11 PM

R281, you have to ignore a great deal of evidence,and I mean a very great deal of evidence in all areas of the event, to go on suggesting that 9/11 was really carried out by Arab hijackers.

by Anonymousreply 282July 19, 2015 7:51 PM

It's fascinating that no one cares

by Anonymousreply 283July 19, 2015 10:08 PM

[quote] Here is something funny about Flight 93, the supposed crash site showed no evidence whatever of plane parts, body parts, luggage, blood or anything. We are told to believe that when the plane crashed, it buried itself entirely in the ground. Can you really believe that?

Just not true.

by Anonymousreply 284July 19, 2015 10:24 PM

R284, here is a pic of the crash site. Where is the plane and where are its passengers?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 285July 19, 2015 11:33 PM

Here is another pic. Does that look like the site of a plane crash to you?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 286July 19, 2015 11:34 PM

This is what a plane crash looks like. Look - you can see a plane.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 287July 19, 2015 11:35 PM

Here is another real plane crash. Again, plenty of identifiable wreckage.

United Flight 93, which United Airlines and the Mayor of Cleveland announced on Channel 9 News before noon on 9/11 had made an emergency landing in Cleveland and that all the passengers were evacuated - was later claimed to have crashed in Shanksville PA - after FBI agents talking on CBS claimed that it had crashed near Camp David.

Clearly the story of what really happened to United Flight 93 is full of unanswered questions. But how silly do you have to be to think that a plane that was forced down out of the sky would bury itself, nose, fuselage, wings, tail and all under solid earth, leaving no identifiable trace of plane wreckage at the surface? Pennsylvania farmland is not the Everglades.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288July 19, 2015 11:39 PM

THis is the plane crash in France where the plane was driven into the terrain at 700 mph.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 289July 19, 2015 11:50 PM

Yet in Shanksville, at a lower speed, nothing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 290July 19, 2015 11:52 PM

I see plane parts, R289. Link to a pic of United Flight 93's crash site where you can see identifiable plane parts.

Then explain why the Mayor of Cleveland said that United airlines confirmed that Flight 93 had landed in Cleveland that morning. And while you're at it, explain why FBI spokesman claimed that a plane crashed near Camp David in Maryland, over a hundred miles from Shanksville PA.

by Anonymousreply 291July 19, 2015 11:53 PM

Sorry, R289, I assumed you were arguing for the legitimacy of the Shanksville crash, not against it. I am an eager beaver truther and I jumped the gun.

by Anonymousreply 292July 19, 2015 11:55 PM

Yawn. Your time would be better spent searching for the lost city of Atlantis or binge watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

by Anonymousreply 293July 20, 2015 12:10 AM

R293, if the topic bores you, by all means find another thread.

Millions of people are interested in this subject. Plenty of people go from being skeptical to becoming Truthers. But no one ever goes from being a Truther to becoming a defender of the official story. Truth has the power to attract converts. Lies don't.

by Anonymousreply 294July 20, 2015 12:14 AM

"But no one ever goes from being a Truther to becoming a defender of the official story."

Right. I'm sure you have documentation of that "fact."

by Anonymousreply 295July 20, 2015 12:17 AM

It does bore me. All though now I'm interested - what the hell is a Truther? Do you get a secret decoder ring?

by Anonymousreply 296July 20, 2015 12:22 AM

R295, I wouldn't defend the official story then demand nothing but documented facts if I were you. The official story requires fuzzy-minded religious zeal to believe in, as it does not withstand rudimentary scientific scrutiny. Let's just say that every passing year brings more millions of people into the category of Truthers.

[quote]Do you get a secret decoder ring?

Yes. It spells out: I-S-R-A-E-L D-I-D I-T

by Anonymousreply 297July 20, 2015 12:24 AM

Weren't a number of high ranking officials warned in advance not to fly that day? Seems I remember Willie Brown was one.

by Anonymousreply 298July 20, 2015 12:26 AM

Yes, R298, Condoleeza Rice warned Willie Brown not to fly that day.

by Anonymousreply 299July 20, 2015 12:26 AM

R283 nailed it for most of America

"It's fascinating that no one cares "

by Anonymousreply 300July 20, 2015 12:26 AM

What's interesting is those who are defending the official story; just what they're defending. The same goes for the truthers. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT 9/11 by a LONG shot!!

by Anonymousreply 301July 20, 2015 12:29 AM

"I wouldn't defend the official story then demand nothing but documented facts if I were you."

And yet that's EXACTLY what Truthers demand.

Please do carry on talking about Israel-backed shadow organizations that run the entire world...yet need to fake a hijacking for some reason even with all that power.

by Anonymousreply 302July 20, 2015 12:31 AM

This is about a military which hasn't answered to ANYONE since 1945. Evil grows in secrecy.

by Anonymousreply 303July 20, 2015 12:32 AM

Was it the military or Israel? Were they missiles or planes loaded with dummies? I just can't keep all the conspiracies theories straight!!

by Anonymousreply 304July 20, 2015 12:33 AM

R304, dismissive and derisive comments dripping with sarcasm are not going to win you this argument.

You are a war-mongering Neocon apologist troll.

by Anonymousreply 305July 20, 2015 12:37 AM

Who is arguing? Where am I apologizing for anything?

You might convince more people of your argument (if you have one) if you just stuck to explaining it.

Otherwise your snotty attacks on other people for no real reason just expose how little you actually have to offer.

by Anonymousreply 306July 20, 2015 12:40 AM

"This is about a military which hasn't answered to ANYONE since 1945. Evil grows in secrecy. " R303 for the win! "EVIL GROWS IN SECRECY" Love ya!

by Anonymousreply 307July 20, 2015 12:45 AM

R304, You are the one who insists that the official story is that Flight 77 crashed in front of the Pentagon.

That assertion was debunked for all time the very morning of 9/11 by a CNN reporter who was live on the scene.

The video and a transcript of his testimony are to be found up-thread but let's look at the video one more time just to clarify that there was no plane crash in front of the Pentagon, as can be seen in all photos of the Pentagon and elucidated succinctly by this mainstream reporter on live TV:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 308July 20, 2015 12:53 AM

Let's just say that that is true. Tell me what DID happen.

by Anonymousreply 309July 20, 2015 12:55 AM

Israel was under Labor Government until March 2011, and Britain was under Labor government throughout. It seems rather unlikely that people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would stake their lives on plans concocted by labor governments.

by Anonymousreply 310July 20, 2015 1:06 AM

You are not yet in the right conspiracy mindset, r310. You have to believe that the nominal governments of Britain and Israel were in fact controlled by the shadow government that runs the entire world.

by Anonymousreply 311July 20, 2015 1:08 AM

What do you mean, R309. "let's just say that that is true?"

Are you implying that the eye-witness reporter on live TV with his camera pointed at the smoking crater in the Pentagon and NO CRASHED PLANE IN SIGHT is possibly mistaken and that maybe you are correct and maybe there really is a plane crash hiding somewhere on that front lawn???

Who knows what really happened? Ask Donald Rumsfeld or Ehud Barak. I am sure they could tell you.

My guess is that a military plane painted to look like Flight 77 buzzed the Pentagon and fired a Tomahawk missile at it. Then the plane, being a stealth jet, rose as instantly vertically as possible over the skies of DC while all eyes were focused on the fireball at the Pentagon. A plane was photographed and filmed flying over the skies of DC shortly after the Pentagon was hit.

he missile hit the accounting department where $2.3 trillion dollars was reported "missing" the day before by Rumsfeld himself. That wing of the Pentagon had recently been reinforced to withstand a missile strike. This was probably done with the foreknowledge that they were going to fire a missile at their own headquarters and they wanted to limit the damage.

I assure you this is just my theory, although it is shared in whole or in part by many others. People who said they saw a plane were correct. They were simply mistaken in thinking that the plane was the object that hit the Pentagon. It may have appeared to, but it was really a missile, either fired by the plane or by another source that hit the building while leaving the lawn out front green and untouched. Anyone who says the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon hasn't the evidence very carefully.

Correct me if I am wrong, R310, but wasn't Ariel Sharon PM of Israel on 9/11?Israeli involvement with the Neocons presumably would have been mainly from Likud Party members.

by Anonymousreply 312July 20, 2015 1:10 AM

Why do you trust the eyewitness account of one man, who saw the object, over dozens of others? Because it fits your theory, not because of the weight of evidence.

You can keep obsessing on whether part of the object hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon all you want. That's a convenient distraction. Because part of your argument points at the grounds OUTSIDE the Pentagon and demands debris. But if the object, be it plane or missile, didn't hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon why should there be any debris there at all? I just want as much scrutiny on your theory as you demand of others.

by Anonymousreply 313July 20, 2015 1:17 AM

R313, I see that you do not grasp the very details of the side you are defending. Behold, the official account of what the plane did at the Pentagon:

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, as Flight 77 was 5 miles (8.0 km) west-southwest of the Pentagon, it made a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet (670 m), pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. Hani Hanjour advanced the throttles to maximum power and dived toward the Pentagon. While level above the ground and seconds from the crash, the wings knocked over five street lampposts and the right wing struck a portable generator, creating a smoke trail seconds before smashing into the Pentagon. Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery, crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46, killing all 64 people on board: 59 victims (including six crew members) and the five perpetrators. The plane hit the Pentagon at the first-floor level, and at the moment of impact, the airplane was rolled slightly to the left, with the right wing elevated. The front part of the fuselage disintegrated on impact, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris penetrating furthest into the building. In all, the airplane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 feet (94 m) into the three outermost of the building's five rings and unleashed a fireball that rose 200 feet (61 m) above the building.

These are your side's facts and if you won't reconsider, then you must embrace the claim that the plane folded up in its entirety and vanished into a hole it plowed into the building. Apart from a few smallish shreds of shattered metal, the whole of the plane is alleged to have entered the Pentagon. That's what YOUR side says. You are fucking a chicken that was put to rest before twelve noon on 9/11 when you say the plane fell short of its target.

The debris field and the crater that we see at the Pentagon occupy a space that appears to many to be too small to have been created by a passenger jet. The initial hole was fairly circular and shorter in diameter than the dimensions of a full-sized jet. The trench-like crater that we see in pictures only happened forty-five minutes later when the roof and the remains of the upper floors caved in. Also, the 9/1 Commission itself says the plane was practically on the ground and flying almost parallel to the ground when it hit the first floor. The plane would have dumped itself had either of its wings titled just a few feet and touched the ground. That is a remarkable bit of flying for anyone. Some think it literally cannot be done. We're supposed to believe that a man who never commanded even a small plane could pull off the aerial acrobatics that Hanjour supposedly did his first time at the helm of a 757.

by Anonymousreply 314July 20, 2015 1:51 AM

Sharon only took over in March, not enough lead time to plan the op.

by Anonymousreply 315July 20, 2015 2:00 AM

R281

Excellent! Reminds me of this-

Hanlon's Razor "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice..."

The "military drill" aspect has always been used by truthers as proof of government collusion. A leak (either via "legit" spying or Shadow Government bullshit) is a MUCH better explanation than expecting all these military "super villains" to collude.

That said, there is a lot of bullshit and paranoid ranting on this thread, but I am beginning to fall into the "truther" camp. Like maybe a Kinsey 1 on the scale.

The shady shit around 9/11 should be investigated again, with real answers, even if they are embarrassing.

by Anonymousreply 316July 20, 2015 2:20 AM

R293

You can be a truther or a skeptic or whatthefuckever but don't you EVER slam Buffy, The Vampire Slayer!!!

If Shakespeare was alive today, he would put BTVS in the same category as "The Wire" and "Arrested Development".

by Anonymousreply 317July 20, 2015 2:27 AM

R316 - it's largely circumstantial evidence, but there's so much of it!

by Anonymousreply 318July 20, 2015 2:29 AM

R296

Truther is a pejorative for people who question the official story of 9/11.

Anyone who questions the government narrative is a truther.

by Anonymousreply 319July 20, 2015 2:30 AM

R316 - I don't think a leak would have allowed them to pull it off. You don't really need a ton of people in this 9/11 conspiracy. Maybe less than a hundred total - including the teams that did the work in WTC.

The Republicans avoided certain issues because it's bad for their brand -particularly that this happened on their watch. They don't need to much reason to distort the truth - they keep that party line going.

And remember, they were able to make anyone against the presidnet as being "unpatriotic" and "against our troops". You can't discount how shitty of a period that was for several years.

by Anonymousreply 320July 20, 2015 2:32 AM

"Yes, [R298], Condoleeza Rice warned Willie Brown not to fly that day."

No fucking way.

by Anonymousreply 321July 20, 2015 2:32 AM

[quote]"You have to believe that the nominal governments of Britain and Israel were in fact controlled by the shadow government that runs the entire world."

Apt description, r311!

I would have thought this to be madness a year ago. Now I fear it is all too real. It is all quite a lot to process.

More troubling is r313 and the rebuttals. It is difficult to figure out what is true and what is myth, or lie, or misremembered. I've become even more sceptical because of this thread! Madness.

A prior post talked about how believers never change, but sceptics sometimes do. I can sympathize!

by Anonymousreply 322July 20, 2015 2:54 AM

[quote]Sharon only took over in March, not enough lead time to plan the op.

9/11 was in the planning for many years before it happened.

by Anonymousreply 323July 20, 2015 2:55 AM

I do not believe 9-11 was planned, but I do believe the War in Iraq was planned years in advance, and was going to happen whether 9-11 occurred or not. The Heritage Foundation was laying the groundwork for the nation-building conquest of Iraq as soon as Operation Desert Storm ended.

by Anonymousreply 324July 20, 2015 3:02 AM

and why DON'T you believe 9/11 was planed?

by Anonymousreply 325July 20, 2015 3:09 AM

R324 - that's a really good point. I forgot about all of the plans that were written PRIOR to 9/11 to invade Iraq. To me, that makes it even more probable that 9/11 was planned.

I forgot - here's a cnn story about it. They planned it as soon as they got into the white house - although details were probably already drawn up prior to that.

That's ample time to setup an event like 9/11.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 326July 20, 2015 3:12 AM

^great link.

by Anonymousreply 327July 20, 2015 3:15 AM

The level of paranoia shown on this thread is amazing. Yo realize that there are meds for this sort of OCD/paranoia affliction, yes?

by Anonymousreply 328July 20, 2015 3:23 AM

The reason I do not believe the U.S. planned it is because Bin Laden and Al Qaeda committed attacks prior to 9-11 overseas, and continued to after. Remember the 93 Twin Tower car bomb, London bombings, U.S. Embassy Kenya bombings... Even Al Jazeera reported that Bin Laden was emboldened to attack the Twin Towers after Clinton nearly killed him in Kandahar. Now, I will admit that it is fishy that Bin Laden originally denied any involvement and said Al Qaeda were not responsible for the attacks but he later started to claim responsibility for the attacks.

by Anonymousreply 329July 20, 2015 3:25 AM

R326

Not denying government complicity in 9/11, but more likely is that the government used 9/11 to push the pre-planned invasion.

The PNAC plans were created in the 90s.

For fun, compare the foreign policy staff assistants of Bush, then with Clinton and then with Bush part "duh" and then Obama. It's funny how these "lower level" positions seem to transfer seamlessly between "polar opposite" administrations.

by Anonymousreply 330July 20, 2015 3:26 AM

R329 - Bin Laden initially denied it directly to Al-Jazeera. Then "tapes" came out where he took responsibility. Who knows if those tapes were true? They could have captured or killed Bin Laden and decided not to. Only until Obama did they get him.

I can't think of too many other items in history that don't "add up" like 9/11 - and with the gvt dragging their heels and redacting information. Besides the JFK assassination. Or RFK for that matter.

by Anonymousreply 331July 20, 2015 3:46 AM

Educate yourself R329. The WTC as target for bombing in 1993 was suggested to the Blind Sheikh's people by an FBI informant. he also helped build the bomb. The FBI was informed all along.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 332July 20, 2015 4:09 AM

[quote]The level of paranoia shown on this thread is amazing. Yo realize that there are meds for this sort of OCD/paranoia affliction, yes?

You realize that fewer and fewer people are falling for that strategy, don't you?

by Anonymousreply 333July 20, 2015 5:16 AM

You realize that fewer and fewer people are falling for that strategy, don't you?

Got THAT right, R333

by Anonymousreply 334July 20, 2015 6:22 AM

It makes no sense to stage the four attacks if you are a shadow government completely in charge of the entire world. What's the point? You want to take away civil liberties? Just do it. You control the world. You want to divert billions to a corporation? Just do it. You control the world.

All the conspiracy fantasies are the product of diseased minds that can't even follow the logic of their own arguments through.

by Anonymousreply 335July 20, 2015 12:47 PM

You want to take away civil liberties? Just do it" R335? Why work so hard all on your own when you can get help from the drugged masses themselves?! And a mind that questions for itself is not diseased but vibrant. Ask any of the geniuses or rebels of all time who bucked the system to create change in otherwise stagnant corrupt monopolies. "ALL the conspiracy fantasies?" You never believed or questioned ONE?

by Anonymousreply 336July 20, 2015 3:15 PM

And yet, r336, you failed to answer a single one of my objections. Why go through such a convoluted means to do what they already have the power to do much more simply?

Yes, all grand conspiracy theories are created and/or believed by people who feel out of control in a chaotic world and/or want to make themselves feel superior to other people. ALL.

by Anonymousreply 337July 20, 2015 4:04 PM

R337, you are standing at the shore with your plastic pail and shovel, railing at the tide for coming in. No matter how angry or insulting you get, the 9/11 Truth movement isn't going away in your lifetime, not if you live another ninety years. It will not be silenced or dispersed.

by Anonymousreply 338July 20, 2015 4:09 PM

It's not a real objection R335. Bush was certainly aware in 2001 that he had not in fact been elected and that he was considered not legitimate by most of the country. Anyway, the need for the WTC to be demolished to eliminate the necessity of a $5 billion remediation for asbestos and to prop up the New York property market as the internet began to eliminate the business services that filled Lower Manhattan and technology favored consolidation in banking, brokerae, and insurance gave three attractive targets.

by Anonymousreply 339July 20, 2015 4:09 PM

Again, no actual response to anything I said, r338. And I'm not angry, I have not insulted you, and I have made no attempt to silence you. You are in no way the vicitm you so desperately want to make yourself out to be...which is all part of the typical conspiracy theorist who fancies himself smarter and more clever than all of the rest of the world.

So continue on talking about how much smarter Truthers are and don't ever bother making any actual arguments or explaining the many details you all just ignore. No one is stopping you.

by Anonymousreply 340July 20, 2015 4:17 PM

R340, there is enough info on this thread alone to shatter the official story of 9/11 to pieces. And we have only scratched the surface.

Again and again we present hard proof that the official story is demonstrably false. Don't ask me for more proof when there is a pile of proof in this thread already. And much, much more to be found elsewhere on the Internet, just waiting for you. If you are honest and open-minded, it's all out there for the taking.

But it's just a cat-and-mouse game with you. You say we have no proof. We provide you proof. You dismiss it, then say we have no proof. We give you more proof. You dismiss that , then you say we have no proof. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We have time and truth on our side. We can play this game with you as long as you like. The more years go by, the stronger our case gets and the more followers it attracts. No one goes back to believing the official story once they have that Helen Keller at the pump moment where it finally dawns on them that the official story is not true because it is physically impossible. Don't demand of me that I back up that statement. That statement has been backed up a hundred times already in this thread alone. The truth is sitting there in plain sight for all honest people to see.

by Anonymousreply 341July 20, 2015 4:30 PM

I'm sorry you have such an inferiority complex R340, but since your IQ has nothing to do with whether or not there was an attack by our own government on 9.11, it seems a little odd that this is such an important consideration for you. Consider that we had spent more than $4 trillion on the United States Air Force from 1948 to 2001, and yet not a single plane was available to defend the USA from attack on September 11. What exactly was that money for?

by Anonymousreply 342July 20, 2015 4:32 PM

Proving the official story false is entirely different from proving anything else true, You continue to live in a binary world of yes or no, black or white, when it is actually chaos.

I'm not playing any games. I'm waiting for positive proof of a conspiracy. All you do is repeat accusations against you against your opponents. If it is all out there, present it. Present a positive, verifiable explanation of what actually happened that day.

I'd love it if you would stop making silly claims like more and more people are on your side each day. It, like your other claims, are entirely made up and unverifiable. But I can't stop you from making them. And of course, this thread, of 5-10 people, in no way confirms this broad generalization...which is why you have already demanded no one question it. For someone who claims to question everything, you certainly don't want anyone to question your supreme authority.

I have no inferiority complex. I think I am just as smart as you, if not smarter. It is you, and your brethren who feel the need to assert you superior intellect over and over. It replaces actual argument and reason.

So do carry on with your personal attacks on me and anyone who dares ask you to back up your unfounded claims. Do carry on with your rhetorical questions and open-ended statements without any conclusions. Believe whatever you want. No one is stopping you.

by Anonymousreply 343July 20, 2015 4:41 PM

[quote]I'm waiting for positive proof of a conspiracy

Your inability to connect the dots when millions before you have done so is proof of your limitations, not disproof of our beliefs.

You want front page headlines on the NY Times. But that ain't gonna happen. Know why? Because they were in on it too. The whole of our corporate-owned media has been aiding and abetting the conspirators. They couldn't have done a 9/11 until Reagan deregulated the media and allowed just a handful of evil fucks to buy up everything. The truth won't be served up to you on a platter by the NBC Nightly News or the Washington Post or any of the other corporate media sources that helped the Neocons lie us into Iraq. The media is the propaganda wing of the government in a fascist nation. The Neocon's "New American Century" is Fascism brought to our shores, wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross, just as Mencken said it would be.

by Anonymousreply 344July 20, 2015 4:50 PM

Millions (really, millions?) have connected the dots to come up with what exactly?

The whole of our corporate-owned media is in on it? That's a pretty broad conspiracy. I thought this would only take a handful to pull off. And where exactly did I say I wanted headlines?

You continue to duck the essential questions.

This is how your mind works: You come to believe there is a conspiracy first. Then you look for supporting evidence. You find other like-minded conspiracy nuts and copy them. You take out of context everything that you can make to support your conspiracy, even when it doesn't. Then you wave away any evidence that disproves your theory as part of the conspiracy. It's a neat little way to keep your conspiracy intact and never have to deal with a world far more messy and out of control than you'd like it to be.

by Anonymousreply 345July 20, 2015 4:56 PM

Nonsense R345. I only believed it when I started researching controlled demolition and found out the manpower requirement was very small.

As for the media, Noam Chomsky has been telling us for twenty years that fewer than a couple dozen people control basically everything we see and read in the MSM. That is not a "conspiracy" that started with 9.11 but one that had already been in place for twenty years.

by Anonymousreply 346July 20, 2015 5:07 PM

You know you've gotten at something real, when the reactions to it become insane. Whenever I've brought up the suggestion (and it isn't often that I bring it up) that 9/11 may not have happened how it has been reported to have happened, I've been met with incredulity and am almost hostile response.

You know, like how the things we hate in other people are the things we hate most about ourselves.

by Anonymousreply 347July 20, 2015 5:20 PM

R345, it is plain that you want to turn a blind eye to the veritable mountain of evidence that supports the theory that the Neocons here and their cronies abroad conspired to stage 9/11. Take any aspect of the event and we can give you plenty of good reasons why the official explanation for it is suspect. Go ahead, name your poison. Pick any one topic pertaining to 9/11 and I'll tell you why you should view it with skepticism. The perpetrators left their fingerprints all over it.

I don't doubt in advance that you will find a way to reject out of hand any thing I have to offer, but I am willing to try anyway.

by Anonymousreply 348July 20, 2015 8:18 PM

WHY are you willing to try, R348? People who don't believe and won't study have a very good reason NOT to as do those who believe. It would be more interesting to know really why each side approaches this event as they do,not just their findings; how they feel about governments and Arabs and Jews and lies and the idea of hidden conspiracies in general.Many don't want to believe their government doesn't really care about them and others don't want to believe they DO. THAT'S where the 2 sides begin. I don't think it has anything to do really with the evidence,rather a predisposition to these basic issues. Because honestly, ANYONE with an open mind could not NOT see something off here AND would approach the other side understanding that. It's like attacking ones religion.

by Anonymousreply 349July 20, 2015 9:20 PM

R344 is right "You want front page headlines on the NY Times. But that ain't gonna happen. Know why? Because they were in on it too. The whole of our corporate-owned media has been aiding and abetting the conspirators."

by Anonymousreply 350July 20, 2015 9:22 PM

Planting the story was immediate and incredibly blatant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 351July 20, 2015 11:13 PM

Jerome Hauer also put the White House on Cipro.

How did this private rent-a-cop get all this access to the highest levels at the time? Interviewed as an expert on falling buildings and Osama bin Laden by Dan Rather. Medical advice followed at the White House. He didn't have the ostensible qualifications for ANY of it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 352July 20, 2015 11:16 PM

I blocked R345 (and her insane posts that defend every government action, no matter how egregious) a few weeks ago. I was wondering why every post on this thread seemed to be defending against an "unseen" attacker.

Just block the cunt. She works for the government and is a "true believer". Video of Hilary Clinton shooting Vince Foster, or Bush ordering the 9/11 attacks, would result in claims it was "doctored footage".

by Anonymousreply 353July 20, 2015 11:21 PM

Yes, yes, yes...waterboarding Cheney, Netanyahu and prossiby Kissinger...the truth would probably come out. I hate those murderers.

by Anonymousreply 354July 20, 2015 11:42 PM

R354

Don't forget to add Obama, Hilary, Holder, Power, et al. to that list.

They are all war criminals who should be imprisoned for life.

by Anonymousreply 355July 21, 2015 12:33 AM

Tarpley lets Bush off (sort of), and says it was all about threatening Russia with therrmonuclear war.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 356July 21, 2015 2:50 AM

R351 he was an actor and a very bad one--see below

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 357July 21, 2015 3:08 AM

and a youtube reply: clay jones 9 months ago (edited) I do have a couple of quick questions if that's ok. How does jet fuel that burns off within oh 10 to 15 min melt steel or keep burning for the next 99 days? Or melt cars,busses,and firetrucks. You made a statement no bombs were used well yes. They were. If you will look at the Naudet brothers video,the ones that first video taped the first plane,you will see that all the windows in the lobby were completely blown out and the lobby was blown apart. Jet fuel coming down an elevator shaft does not do this. Sorry. Second. How does solid steel turn into dust in mid air? A 100 foot steel girder. Third. In the history of the world 3 solid steel frame skyscrapers collapse in their own foot print at free fall speed. Do you know what free fall speed means? That means there was no pancake effect like everyone has been told. It means that the floors below were blown away so it would fall in on itself. Building 7 was not hit by a plane plus the script that it had collapsed was aired on BBC TV with the building in plain sight behind the reporter!! I could go on and on and on about the 2.3 trillion dollars that were lost and juuust so happened to hit the Navel office where the records were in the Pentagon but I won't. Much less here's the real kicker. 757 aircraft can not fly at those speeds at sea level. Period!! Nor at the Pentagon 5 feet off the ground. The planes turbulence would have pushed it up and over the Pentagon. Bottom line is yes our government did kill all those people that day to hide the fact of lost trillions and to start another war to make more trillions. That's the facts and that's truth. If you can dispute any facts Ive just said please. I'm all ears.

by Anonymousreply 358July 21, 2015 3:09 AM

Defenders of the official story never want to talk about the fires that burned underground for weeks after 9/11 at Ground Zero, or the pools of molten steel that were found beneath the rubble. Even though we have video, photographic and recorded verbal testimony about the molten metal, they all have to pretend it didn't exist because neither jet fuel nor office fires can burn remotely hot enough to liquefy steel. When the fires that burned underground were finally extinguished, it was the top story in the local NY news. But now, they kind of need you to forget those fires burned for weeks and weeks because that also points to an event that created heat of a far higher temperature than the official story-tellers can account for.

by Anonymousreply 359July 21, 2015 3:11 AM

R359

If they admit it then they have to take Ron Paul seriously.

Government drones (rethuglican or demoncrat) cannot allow any doubt into their faith in government power.

by Anonymousreply 360July 21, 2015 3:40 AM

ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THE DEMOLITION--WATCH THIS AND GET BACK TO US-

I WANNA HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY

WE'LL BE WAITING

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 361July 21, 2015 3:56 AM

Damn, R361, that man has his shit together. Who can "debunk" a firefighter who was there on the scene, knows what he saw, and knows what's wrong with the official story?

by Anonymousreply 362July 21, 2015 4:03 AM

Their claim is the friction of collapse created that heat, not fires.

by Anonymousreply 363July 21, 2015 4:49 AM

Ron Paul did nothing about 9.11

by Anonymousreply 364July 21, 2015 4:50 AM

R363, thanks for the info. Do people believe that eleven seconds or less of friction can cause steel beams three or four feet thick to turn to liquid?

by Anonymousreply 365July 21, 2015 4:52 AM

Those looking forward to an end to psychotic megalomania in the political class may have long to wait however. A disturbing trend in federal employment.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 366July 21, 2015 5:02 AM

Not only was the Iraq War planned in advance of 9/11. So was the War in Afghanistan.

Curious, considering that 9/11 just happened to give the Neocons the perfect pretext to follow through with their plans.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 367July 21, 2015 5:14 AM

in this metafilter thread, someone at 1:11 said

Building 7 at the former WTC is on fire and may collapse. posted by hijinx at 1:11 PM on September 11, 2001

It didn't collapse until 5:21. How could someone know 4 hours ahead of time it would come down? It looks like someone might have been planting rumors about WTC7 too early. which would explain the BBC reporter saying it had collapsed when it was still visible in the frame.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 368July 21, 2015 9:30 PM

R368

Sure it isn't a time glitch?

by Anonymousreply 369July 21, 2015 9:34 PM

Posting 9/11 conspiracies could mean you lose your passport.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 370July 21, 2015 9:37 PM

Actually R367 your post supports the theory that 9/11 was not planned as a motivation to go to war with Afghanistan. If everything is the link is true the US had already decided to go war - and the 9/11 attacks took the neocons by surprise. Plus we know for a fact that the Bush Administration manufactured evidence totally independent of 9/11 to attack Iraq.

It seems you have solved the mystery for us - not only is there no sound evidence to support a Bush 9/11 conspiracy but there is evidence to support the conclusion there was no conspiracy. There was intent to launch wars on these two countries already in place.

by Anonymousreply 371July 22, 2015 1:23 AM

R371, if you see no sound evidence for a conspiracy, you have your head buried in the sand.

by Anonymousreply 372July 22, 2015 1:25 AM

It's worth noting that R371's contribution to this thread constitutes mainly of posts to the effect of "yawn...boring."

So you can see how dull-minded and useless he is when confronted with a multi-faceted and infinitely fascinating topic.

by Anonymousreply 373July 22, 2015 1:29 AM

Yes OP!

DUH!

by Anonymousreply 374July 22, 2015 1:36 AM

r369 what do you mean a time glitch? Someone posted on a widely read site that WTC7 'may collapse' 4 hours before it actually did. It's just ... odd.

Before 9/11 nobody would look at a steel skyscraper that was on fire and think: "Gee, it might collapse."

Now, after 9/11, nobody thinks that either, because it just never happens.

by Anonymousreply 375July 22, 2015 3:02 AM

So I have to assume R373 that you don't actually have an argument to dispute my conclusions.

I freely admit that the idea of a 9/11 Bush conspiracy is boring. I've been reading Larry Sabato's THE KENNEDY HALF CENTURY. Now, that isn't boring. Sabato doesn't make an argument for a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But he is making, at this point in my reading, a great argument for how the actions of our government after the assassination fostered conspiracy theories.

What I find not so boring is people's thinking on this subject. The way they formulate their opinions. For example why self identify as Truthers? It leads me to the question are all "birthers" "truthers" but not all "turthers" are "birthers"?

What I do find interesting is that R367 has posted links to support the idea of a 9/11 Bush conspiracy which actually disputes the conspiracy theory. That is interesting. How delusional do you have to be to not see that?

But the other details posted so far have been so widely disputed it is boring.

To be honest it's like Creationism. The discussion of whether or not Creationism is a legitimate scientific theory is boring. Many reputable scientists won't even engage on the subject.

But the perverted and twisted thinking that goes into supporting creationism is interesting. Just like the 9/11 conspiracy perverted and twisted thinking is interesting.

by Anonymousreply 376July 22, 2015 3:09 AM

Precisely, R375, on the one hand, we have to believe that the collapse of WTC 7 was such a wildly rare and random event that it took NIST years to invent a "New Phenomenon of Thermal Expansion" to explain it, yet on the day of 9/11 there were several people (recorded on video, no less) going around hours before the unprecedented collapse declaring with certainty that the building was going to come down. How could they have predicted the results of a "New Phenomenon of Thermal Expansion" when no one had ever observed such a phenomenon? (A "phenomenon" that will never occur again, no doubt.)

by Anonymousreply 377July 22, 2015 3:13 AM

R377 - yawn.

by Anonymousreply 378July 22, 2015 3:16 AM

R376, take your own advice and go watch Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.

You clearly lack the intellectual curiosity to question anything the talking heads on TV plant in your shallow-thinking brain.

by Anonymousreply 379July 22, 2015 3:17 AM

R376

So, reading a book by a Democratic Party operative, one with close ties to the establishment, is your basis for dismissing the evidence of a conspiracy around the assassination of JFK?

The CIA connections of Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama are just coincidence, I'm sure.

People like you will believe anything the government approves as "respectable".

by Anonymousreply 380July 22, 2015 3:27 AM

R379 - now you have really hurt my feelings. Let me ask you something. I'm a fan of Joss Whedon. Movies and TV - but I just can't manage to watch Dollhouse. Do you like the show?

I think binge watching Buffy is good for lots of folks. I have a stressful job and to be honest too many of my direct reports think they would like to have my job. So I sometimes get a little paranoid. For some reason watching Buffy helps calm the paranoia. Anyways, that's one of the reasons I suggested it. Although I'd skip season four.

That said - why waste your time on this conspiracy theory? There are actual concerns you should focus on which are current. Assume the federal government planned 9/11. OK - what nex?. Well look at the NSA. What are they doing? Now part of me thinks I'd like the conspiracy theory folks looking into that. On the other hand since your evidence is so weak on the 9/11 theories, well maybe not a good idea.

by Anonymousreply 381July 22, 2015 3:29 AM

R380 - be careful the call is coming from within your house.

by Anonymousreply 382July 22, 2015 3:30 AM

R376 and R381 who says "your evidence is so weak on the 9/11 theories" please watch theses next 10 minutes and then tell us what you think

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 383July 22, 2015 4:31 AM

R383 - yawn

by Anonymousreply 384July 22, 2015 4:34 AM

R384, you are so obviously a troll or a shill. Your yawning response reveals nothing at all about 9/11 and everything about your own lack of intellect (unless you are playing dumb, which is possible.)

Obvious troll is obvious.

by Anonymousreply 385July 22, 2015 4:54 AM

R381

Dollhouse is a great premise that just didn't gel. I didn't watch the whole run, but nothing clicked for me. Firefly was the real gem.

Buffy will be well regarded for decades.

As a "truther" I can tell you I have no idea if the government planned it, if it was an intelligence leak, a colossal fuckup or a "false flag" by the Deep State. The latter seems more likely when viewed through the lens of "revisionist history" - not the bodice-ripping kind, but the type that closely examines key incidents in history and then looks more deeply at the contemporary events (like the strangely conflicting stories given by Bush #41 and his wife Barbara in their respective autobiographies about the events of that day in November 1963, or the behind the scenes action in the days before Pearl Harbor) and examines how "official history" is often at variance with "what really happened".

Another example would be the Civil War. There is no harm in pointing out that the Emancipation Proclamation only affected Confederate states while leaving slavery in Union states untouched, or that Lincoln wanted to ship all black Americans (free or slave) back to Africa. These facts do not change the history, but they do call into question the "narrative thrust" of many arguments over the "civility" of the Civil War.

Once you begin to see behind the curtain of the "accepted interpretation of what happened" and can poke holes in those mainstream beliefs...well, it's like the Matrix. You quickly find out what you "know" is suspect.

As far as impact on your day to day life? Well, knowing that virtually everything you hear or see or read in the "news" is either slanted or bullshit is helpful.

by Anonymousreply 386July 22, 2015 5:21 AM

R381

The NSA spying could be used to revoke your passport.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 387July 22, 2015 5:24 AM

R381

The NSA is stopping any attempt to escape.

---

Thus, as always, the free market began developing its own solutions. Earlier this year an inventor by the name of Benjamin Caudill announced a device he dubbed the ProxyHam which was going to literally change everything about how those concerned with privacy could connect to the internet:

“I PRESENT PROXYHAM, A HARDWARE DEVICE WHICH UTILIZES BOTH WIFI AND THE 900MHZ BAND TO ACT AS A HARDWARE PROXY, ROUTING LOCAL TRAFFIC THROUGH A FAR-OFF WIRELESS NETWORK – AND SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING THE DIFFICULTY IN IDENTIFYING THE TRUE SOURCE OF THE TRAFFIC. IN ADDITION TO A DEMONSTRATION OF THE DEVICE ITSELF, FULL HARDWARE SCHEMATICS AND CODE WILL BE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE.”

Rhino Security Labs via HackRead

What Caudill had built is a device that would mix up your personal WIFI signal in such a way that no one, not even the National Security Agency, could track down where it originated.

That, of course, is not something the government wants in the hands of ordinary citizens, and the events of the last week show exactly how dangerous of a device this is to the Big Brother Surveillance State.

---

Just hours before Caudill was to reveal a fully-functioning ProxyHam at the DefCon hacking conference his presentation was abruptly cancelled. No reason was given and Caudill posted several cryptic Tweets that left many baffled.

The device had been disappeared, the company was cancelling production on retail units, and the source code and blueprints would no longer be released to the public.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 388July 22, 2015 5:27 AM

Benjamin Caudill ?? Never heard of him. NOW I have. THANKS!

by Anonymousreply 389July 22, 2015 6:35 AM

Over the weekend, some followers of the project speculated that the FCC had barred Caudill from selling the device because it violated laws that control the use of radio spectrum. But Caudill denied that explanation, too, saying that ProxyHam’s radio output remained below 1 watt, the legal limit. “We had no contact or issue with the FCC throughout the project,” he said.

In fact, it seems much more likely that Caudill has been issued some sort of gag order. Did he have a run-in with law enforcement? “No comment,” Caudill responded.

----

"No comment" = the government will throw me in jail if I tell you they issued a secret court gag order.

Our government is evil and corrupt.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 390July 22, 2015 6:42 AM

DAMN! ^R390---THANKS FOR THAT!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 391July 22, 2015 7:01 AM

The funniest thing about this thread are the YT videos which the truthers are using as "FACTS" to support their theories. Any qualified scientist can and has debunked every one of them already. Of course the truthers will just say that those experts are shills and inside operatives who are in on the conspiracy. You simply cannot argue with someone who is that far gone. I have FACT. I posted early in the thread that a family member Terry was on the UA flight . That is a fact. If you are trying to tell me that she did not die, or that her plane was diverted to CLE where she and her pax were offloaded into another aircraft which was flown west by a remote controlled plane and dumped into the Pacific Ocean, and that woman with 35 years of experience married to a UA pilot didn't make a call in CLE to her husband and inform him of the change in ships....you truly are so insane and you just can't use common sense. Do you think that a crew would board a ship with unknown pilots(which I suppose would be actors posing as pilots) headed to LAX and just go with the flow?? That's NOT the way CRM works dude. NO ONE would go with that. And if your lunatic scenario of the CLE ship headed west is not true, then where the hell is Terry?? Do you think her husband would just accept the conclusion if there were even a chance that it seemed shady?

I feel sorry for you and others who have made this such a central part of their lives. It happened. It's done. Accept it. Or is your own life so disappointing or out of control that you are seeking some causal proof that life isn't fair and the decks are stacked? I have never, and I mean never met a conspiracy theorist who was well adjusted and prospering in their own life. They all seem to be perpetually pissed off that life isn't giving then a fair deal. So they look everywhere for proof that no matter what they may try to do or hope for, TPTB are always going to fuck them over. If you put half as much brain power and effort into improving your lot in life as you have on this cuckoo plot, you might actually achieve something and thus live the life you had hoped for.

by Anonymousreply 392July 22, 2015 7:44 AM

[quote]If you put half as much brain power and effort into improving your lot in life as you have on this cuckoo plot, you might actually achieve something and thus live the life you had hoped for.

You might also wind up being murdered by the Necons for power and profit, just like the thousands the Neocons murdered in cold blood on 9/11.

by Anonymousreply 393July 22, 2015 7:20 PM

R393 FOR THE WIN!

by Anonymousreply 394July 22, 2015 7:24 PM

R393? Do you know what Neocon means?

by Anonymousreply 395July 22, 2015 7:26 PM

Even if 9-11 was a false flag operation, I doubt people will care. It is now documented fact that the Gulf of Tonkin was indeed a false flag inside job and nobody seems to care that 58,000 of our men were sent to die based on a lie. It is already confirmed fact that the Iraqi war was based on a lie. If we do not care about those scandals, then certainly 9-11 being a false flag would not phase us. We are a very numb people.

by Anonymousreply 396July 22, 2015 8:20 PM

I'll take Well-Known and Widely Discussed Conspiracy Theories from Late 2002 for $1,000, Alex.

by Anonymousreply 397July 22, 2015 8:23 PM

[quote]Do you know what Neocon means?

Neocon = unfettered Capitalist + unfettered Zionist

The Project for a New American Century is a project to deliver the whole US Treasury over to Wall Street and the whole Pentagon over to Tel Aviv.

by Anonymousreply 398July 22, 2015 8:30 PM

AND R392 ,EDUCATE YOURSELF beyond your "knowing" This video will not take up too much of your day,for as you said "I feel sorry for you and others who have made this such a central part of their lives" We don't care just for OUR lives but the lives that died POSSIBLY in a bit of a crime. Just possibly. Just sit through maybe the first hour AND GET BACK TO US. And if you don't intend to watch, no need to say so. Just let it go. Yet for someone who complains about people obsessing-you wrote one of the LONGEST posts on this thread. Now get your popcorn and go.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 399July 22, 2015 8:42 PM

R399

People who believe that the government tells the truth are not worth you wasting your time.

You could show them video of Cheney remotely piloting a 9/11 plane into the towers, or Hilary shooting Vince Foster point blank, and they would still believe in the government.

by Anonymousreply 400July 22, 2015 10:14 PM

R400 Actually I would believe such proof as that. Why has the intransigent truther not bothered to explain my FACTUAL flight attendant dead relative? He doesn't seem to have a (believable) answer for that. truthers ignore the simplest of contradictions and instead focus on the most arcane shit. THAT'S why no one is getting behind your cause.

by Anonymousreply 401July 22, 2015 10:56 PM

R401-

To whom are you replying?

Unless you put "Rxxx" in your reply, no one can tell what you are ranting about.

by Anonymousreply 402July 23, 2015 12:49 AM

[quote]If you put half as much brain power and effort into improving your lot in life as you have on this cuckoo plot, you might actually achieve something and thus live the life you had hoped for.

This comment is reminiscent of W. Bush's address to the nation in the immediate aftermath, in which he instructed the nation to get up and go to work and get back to "business as usual" the next day.

Once the Neocons had the "New Pearl Harbor" they needed to launch "America's New War" and against Iraq, and Afghanistan, and had the context to introduce the overweening surveillance society (so beloved by Bolsheviks and Neocons,) and rid lower Manhattan of those asbestos-laden white elephants known as the Twin Towers, and demolished the SEC headquarters in WTC 7 where millions of documents to be used against Enron and WorldComm were housed, and once they hit the accounting dept. of the Pentagon to provide cover for the missing $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld copped to the day before 9/11, the only concern was that ordinary people might get spooked from spending money and being materialistic. So Bush's first advice to us in this Brave New World was "everybody get back to work!"

Nothing to see here, folks. There would NEVER have been an investigation into 9/11 at all if the Neocons had their way. I would love to hear defenders of the official story tell us why the Neocons felt there was no compelling reason for the Federal government to investigate 9/11. Common sense says they were covering their own tracks.

by Anonymousreply 403July 23, 2015 1:14 AM

r401, I do not doubt your relative was killed on 9/11.

I also don't doubt that explosives brought down all 3 towers.

What does that make me?

by Anonymousreply 404July 23, 2015 1:21 AM

R404 But you do realize that she was a FA on the UA plane. So you do believe that planes with people in them hit the towers? Are you saying that you believe that the aircraft fire/damage was boosted by the use of explosives? That's a bit less insane than the idea that the pax and crew members were of loaded in CLE and then shipped off to the deep blue Pacific by way of a remote control aircraft.

by Anonymousreply 405July 23, 2015 1:34 AM

R405, just out of curiosity how do you account for Channel 9 News in Cleveland reporting on the morning of 9/11 that the Mayor of Cleveland stated that a jet that made an emergency landing in Cleveland and that United Airlines had identified that jet as United Flight 93?

(And recall that there are no photos in existence at the alleged crash site in Shanksville PA that show anything that can be identified definitely as the wreckage of Flight 93.)

by Anonymousreply 406July 23, 2015 1:39 AM

Very well said R403. And what else is there TO say? It's funny, I was just thinking about The Rumsfeld Missing Trillions Press Conference today. I have never understood who these people are that come out of the woodwork for every 9/11 thread on DL. I will never believe there are this many people here who believe "The Official Story". It is one of THE most bizarre & disturbing phenomenon of The Datalounge. In blind item celebrity threads as well as Scientology threads many DLers believe payed shills & PR types troll the thread and try to derail it. One way or another. I can only believe that it is something like that, that happens when we talk about 9/11!?!?

by Anonymousreply 407July 23, 2015 1:58 AM

R406 I would say that either the mayor or the television station was incorrect, just as many of the bystanders were mistaken after watching the aircraft hit the towers. One anchor said t was a smaller plane such as a B727, one said it was a 4 engine jumbo jet, one said it appeared to be a Gulfstream or other corporate jet. Flights were rerouted and diverted all over the place that morning, and it's not at all surprising that there was confusion. It's human error. Are you aware that the NTSB practically discounts any eyewitness testimony when investigating an airplane disaster? Do you know why that is? It's because humans have difficulty processing such traumatic occurrences as they happen, and what they THINK they see is usually not what they saw. Nearly every time a plane crashes, and you can research this, eyewitnesses will report that "the plane exploded right before it hit the ground." That has never happened. They cannot process the impact, the explosion and the black cloud of jet fuel as it actually occurs. A LOT of the so called FACTS about what happened on 9/11 is based on eyewitness accounts, and that is precisely why I take each story with a grain of salt. Any atty will tel you that an eyewitness to a crime is the worst witness to count on when making a case. DNA and other physical proof is much better because science doesn't depend on imperfect assessment to be accurate.

by Anonymousreply 408July 23, 2015 2:28 AM

Being lectured to on the rules of evidence by a guy who just waves away whatever doesn't fit his conspiracy theory as part of the secret worldwide government cabal...Awesome!

by Anonymousreply 409July 23, 2015 2:48 AM

R403

Your libertarian analysis is wrong because it is libertarian. QED.

If you were right then it would mean that Obama is wrong, and that isn't possible.

by Anonymousreply 410July 23, 2015 2:52 AM

R405-

"So you do believe that planes with people in them hit the towers?"

I do believe that the people on those planes died hitting the towers.

I also believe that the details of 9/11/01 have been suppressed by the government, either out of complicity or malice, to cover up what happened that morning.

I am so sorry for the loss of your sister. No matter what, it was tragic, and I feel for you and your family.

by Anonymousreply 411July 23, 2015 2:59 AM

R405

This is R411

I had nothing to do with R404, or any reply questioning what happened that day to your sister.

by Anonymousreply 412July 23, 2015 3:04 AM

We need a president who is willing to arrest some people for treason. Eventually it will happen. The military is already losing control.

by Anonymousreply 413July 23, 2015 3:40 AM

President Bush did not plan 9/11. However, President Bush and his handlers definitely took advantage of 9/11 to go to war.

I would not be surprised if in the futurpresident bush did not plan However, president bush and is handlers definitely ticket vantage of mine 11 president bush and is handlers definitely ticket vantage of 911 to go to war. New New paragraph I would not be surprised if in the future we I would not be surprised if in the future we discover boy should ministration not the president boy should ministration not the president himself new of the pending 911 911 attack monsoon

by Anonymousreply 414July 23, 2015 3:43 AM

WTF??????

by Anonymousreply 415July 23, 2015 4:05 AM

From the developers of the WTC - it was to withstand a force of multiple times of an airliner. Both of them say that. A jet plane of a force of 300 tons - but the building was designed to withstand 13,000 tons.

AGAIN - 300 tons versus 13,000 tons.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 416July 23, 2015 4:09 AM

IN HONOR OF TERRY --and those who died that day...

R392-R401- You said-" Do you think that a crew would board a ship with unknown pilot?? NO ONE would go with that."

WHAT MAKES YOU SURE THEY HAD ANY CHOICE??!!

Phones could have been confiscated-people could have been drugged or killed straight off. I'm not saying I don't believe the official story or do .I thought this version was crazy when I first heard it.

But what I DO know is WE DON'T KNOW--

not you ,not me, not the conspiracists-

NO ONE but the people who planned this and the people who were victims of those plans,.

AND NEITHER OF THEM ARE US!!

You want facts? Here they are:

FACT: not one of us still alive down here on the ground know FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO TERRY.

FACT: THE WORLD IS NOT SATISFIED WITH OUR CONCLUSIONS. And by that I mean the WHOLE world!

Now what?

As long as we don't know the truth ,this search for the answers will be just one heavy responsibility among the other wonderful things we are occupied with in these lives we've been blessed to still posses, in honor of those who will not live another day.

You said "I feel sorry for you and others who have made this such a central part of their lives."

I have not. But it now is and will forever be in America's and your story of your sister. And I feel sorry for you. I really do.

But the way I respectfully show that is by keeping the investigation alive in honor of the prematurely dead. It's terrifying to think that those we loved could have been killed by those we trusted. I'd rather a foreigner as well.

But what I REALLY want is the truth, and we're not there yet . Not in the America I still believe in.

by Anonymousreply 417July 23, 2015 4:49 AM

R413

I agree, these people should be arrested for treason!

Let's start with Bush 1&2, both Clintons, Obama, Cheney, Rice, Kerry, etc.

by Anonymousreply 418July 24, 2015 11:31 PM

in their hearts they already HAVE been

by Anonymousreply 419July 25, 2015 12:15 AM

Interesting article at link - Recall, Bush would only speak to the 9/11 Commission off the record behind closed doors with Dick Cheney at his side to help him field all questions. Imagine any other President declining to testify anywhere unless his Vice President were there to back him up.

"Cheney was in charge of 9/11 false flag operation: American scholar"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 420July 28, 2015 3:31 AM

The Bush family are guilty treason a thousand times over. Trying to kill Reagan. Iran-Contra. Selling missile secrets to China. Pursuing wars in Iraq on behalf of Saudi Arabia. Pursuing economic destruction of the American middle class on behalf of China. Supporting the Chinese government over Tiananmen Square. Allowing the Chinese to gain mastery over our submarine deterrent. Allowing the Chinese to copy our green berets. Treating Putin like an ally. Allowing the Russians to surpass us in conventional superbombs. All these things were done by the Bushes, constituting the most damage to the American national interest in history. The whole fucking family should have their heads on spikes in Lafayette Park.

by Anonymousreply 421July 28, 2015 3:41 AM

R420

Do you believe these same shady, powerful "behind the scenes" actors don't have full control of Obama as well?

Once you realize that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama (and now Bush or Clinton again) are just figureheads for the Deep State things become clearer.

Once you wake up and see the truth -that both parties serve the same master- it becomes easier to see through government bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 422July 28, 2015 3:42 AM

R421

Do you believe that Clinton and Obama's hands are clean regarding these treasonous actions?

Do you think that these treasonous actions are unknown by the Real Elite, and that Reagan and Bush and Clinton all "toe the line" since they saw what happened to JFK and Nixon?

Or do you believe that Obama is above all that, and is his OWN MAN, unaccountable to the billionaires that funded his campaign?

If you think Obama is any different than Bush or Clinton then you aren't worth debating.

by Anonymousreply 423July 28, 2015 3:47 AM

I'm sure they told the Clintons. It would have been dangerous to have them on the outside. I doubt they told Obama.

by Anonymousreply 424July 28, 2015 3:58 AM

R424

I'm sure the CIA handlers for his mom, dad and stepdad clued him in to the "real deal" back in 2004 when he gave the Democratic rebuttal to the State of the Union address.

Obama knows who pulls the strings, and is too smart to rebel. He loves his family too much to endanger them by exposing his masters.

by Anonymousreply 425July 28, 2015 4:22 AM

We know the assholes who were in our white house were responsible...that is extremely obvious.

by Anonymousreply 426July 28, 2015 4:50 AM

R426

Unless you group Clinton and Obama in that group of "assholes" then you're just another useful idiot for the Elite.

by Anonymousreply 427July 28, 2015 5:36 AM

Another example of GHWB treason. One of the conditions of WWII victory was Hirohito stop pretending to be a god, which he did. But when he died, GHWB was president, and not only were the Japanese allowed to elevate him back to divinity, but the new emperor was allowed to engage in the "mystery" where he went behind the sheets with two vestal virgins and waited to be entered by the spirit of the Sun Goddess. So Japan is back to living under a divine emperor, thanks to GHWB thinking nothing of throwing away one of the key elements of our reform of Japanese militarism from 1945. GHWB is truly a fascist traitor, and it pisses me off when people come on here and pretend he's the "nice" Bush.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 428July 28, 2015 4:37 PM

BEST THREAD ON THIS BOARD

by Anonymousreply 429July 29, 2015 3:06 AM

R428

Why should the obscure rituals of Japan have any effect on the foreign policy of the USA?

The government of the USA is evil and corrupt, but the internal religious beliefs of any country is none of our business.

Until people recognize Ron Paul as the ultimate 21st century statesman then bullshit posts like your will continue.

by Anonymousreply 430July 29, 2015 4:10 AM

The reason I hesitate to think it was planned is because the CIA WARNED the Bush administration several times in direct memos stating Bin Laden to hit Twin Towers with planes. The CIA also was not on board about invading Iraq. An agent and her operation was outed because of it. It amazes me that Bush got the highest approval ratings ever recorded after 9-11. You can bet your ass if that happened under Obama’s watch, he would have been impeached, possibly facing criminal charges, and back to Chicago on the next thing smoking.

by Anonymousreply 431July 29, 2015 5:31 AM

Clinton would have faced the same scenario. The Republicans have perfected outcry. The Dems are too pussy. They let the Rethugs control the narrative. They were too scared to question the Bush administration for sleeping on the job because of the accusations of being unpatriotic and divisive. Some were so scared they voted for the war in Iraq because they feared backlash from their constituents. These assholes spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating a blow job, but did not do a damn thing investigating the biggest attack on our nation. The sad part is Bush probably feels no remorse at all for 2 of the worst disasters in our history- 9-11 and Katrina- happening on his watch. The early 2000s were a very ugly time in our nation’s history. I don’t even want to get into the fascist tropes Karl Rove and co. helped push. The ginormous investment and focus on defense and protecting the homeland, having an essentially state-sponsored media, the manufactured public vitriol directed at anti-war France, Dan Rather, the Dixie Chicks, Rosie O'Donnell, among others. It should be no wonder our standing in the world plummeted. Everyone marveled at American stupidity, and laughed at us for standing by Bush waving flags and eating freedom fries like blind sheep for the slaughter.

by Anonymousreply 432July 29, 2015 5:45 AM

And now the crown jewel for the neo-cons and Zionists is Iran. That was the second conquest they had in the works after taking out Saddam. My respect for Obama has re-emerged this year because this was a very gutsy and brave move on his part. Obama knows this is what the chickenhawks plan put on ice was. I am glad he sweeped the rug from under them. This deal has thwarted their plans. This deal along with the oil independence we have developed under his tenure has greatly weakened Saudi Arabia's political leverage with us. Make no mistake that the Saudi Arabian, Israeli, and the neocon political heavyhitters hate his guts. I salute him. Dare I say it but I doubt Hillary would have even had the guts...

by Anonymousreply 433July 29, 2015 5:57 AM

R433

I am proud of Obama, despite his CIA ties and NWO bullshit, over the Cuba and Iran deals.

But I'm not gullible enough to suck his cock, and think he is almost as bad as Bush 2. Your trust in government blinds you to the evil rot at the core.

by Anonymousreply 434July 30, 2015 1:46 AM

And your belief that anything can happen without government makes one think you have brain damage. Obama did not have GWB arrested. If he had, our whole history would be different. BUT he is certainly not in a class with the others. Just the fact that he did deals with Iran and Cuba shows that he has a concept of American national interest, which the GOP doesn't even pretend to have any more.

by Anonymousreply 435July 30, 2015 1:56 AM

R435

Wow. So much stupid in so few words.

I hope you're trolling- I can't believe an adult on this website is that ignorant.

by Anonymousreply 436July 30, 2015 4:25 AM

BE NICE

by Anonymousreply 437July 30, 2015 7:17 AM

What I find most remarkable is that on that morning, before the terrorist attack was explained, many of our initial gut reactions to the footage of the buildings collapsing uniformly was that it seemed so unreal like a projection in a bad movie. It was like living out a hellish nightmare. The only thing that confuses me is that though the plane hit and the buildings crashed with the speed and precision one would expect during a controlled demolition via remote controlled airliner, the towers did not fall instantly like one would expect in an explosion. The edited footage shown on the news, showing the planes hitting the towers and the resulting collapse, makes it seem like the buildings fell immediately after they were hit but that is not the case. The buildings collapsed an hour after the planes struck. If the planes were laden with explosives, wouldn't it have detonated as soon as it crashed? I am still not sold on it being an inside job, but I am not sold on the government's official account either especially regarding the Pentagon

by Anonymousreply 438July 31, 2015 2:19 AM

My other question that makes me doubt the inside job theory is if the civilian aircraft hijacking was all a ruse, then what explains the victims and the log of emergency calls made from Flight 93? Sure, calls can be doctored but victims and their families can not.

by Anonymousreply 439July 31, 2015 2:26 AM

"Sure, calls can be doctored but victims and their families can not. " One theory is that they were taken to a second location (as the plane was said by one controller to have landed) whereupon the passengers were killed by who knows who. Crazy I know, but do any of us REALLY know the truth?

by Anonymousreply 440July 31, 2015 2:46 AM

AT LEAST NOT YET!

by Anonymousreply 441July 31, 2015 2:46 AM

Get a load of this - at 11:07 on the morning of 9/11 a CNN correspondent claimed that a third building of about 50 stories was reported believed to have collapsed at 10:45 - a full 15 minutes after the second tower came down.

NIST wants us to believe that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to a "new phenomenon of thermal expansion" - a phenomenon it took them years to identify, so how on earth could anyone have predicted it? Yet here is this reporter who it appears has been sent on TV to describe what can only be the collapse of WTC 7 - over six hours BEFORE it happened! How could anyone reporting from lower Manhattan have been mistaken as to whether a third skyscraper did or did not come tumbling down before noon on 9/11?

It seems likely WTC 7 was scripted to come down that morning and something went wrong - maybe the fourth plane, Flight 93 was supposed to hit it and failed to arrive. Then maybe they had to just wait until later in the afternoon to go ahead and demolish it anyway. At any rate,this report that aired live on CNN is highly suspicious as a supposed eye-witness describes an event he couldn't possibly have really seen. A similar scenario would play out six hours later when the BBC in London and its on-the-scene reporter in Manhattan would provide a detailed story about the collapse of WTC 7 - almost a half an hour before it actually happened.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 442August 1, 2015 2:40 AM

R442---That's an interesting take---" maybe the fourth plane, Flight 93 was supposed to hit it and failed to arrive. Then maybe they had to just wait until later in the afternoon to go ahead and demolish it anyway." Thanks for that and the ideo.

by Anonymousreply 443August 1, 2015 6:58 AM

video

by Anonymousreply 444August 1, 2015 6:59 AM

I recall watching the live news reporting that afternoon and a reporter saying that Building 7 had also collapsed, which happened about 30 minutes later.

by Anonymousreply 445August 1, 2015 11:21 AM

yeah, the reporters got the script too early.

by Anonymousreply 446August 1, 2015 11:26 AM

Here is another interesting artcile that describes the altogether likely scenario that Flight 93 was supposed to appear after the Twin Towers fell and cleared a path for it to strike WTC 7. Imagine all the survivors who might have died had the third plane hit WTC7 that morning to provide cover for the nearly immediate controlled demolition of that building while the area was still full of people.

If the plane was shot down, it makes sense that the planners would have to wait to clear the area of as many witnesses as possible before they went ahead and took down WTC 7 anyway. It was obviously wired for demolition and it did have all those incriminating documents against Enron and WorldComm and other criminal Republican enterprises.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 447August 1, 2015 7:40 PM

^UNREAL!

by Anonymousreply 448August 2, 2015 1:25 AM

R164We're all a little crazy. It takes all kinds :)

by Anonymousreply 449December 8, 2020 5:22 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!