9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply

[Number1]

Originally posted by: glugglug
I hadn't heard about the freefall time as the evidence of explosives before, but now that I think about it, it makes sense.

Assuming a close to freefall as possible scenario, where the lower floors that haven't broken already are on the verge of doing so, so the only slowdown they cause the upper floors is transfer of momentum (with zero energy required for the actual breakage), the fall time would be almost doubled, to around 14s instead of 8s. (Will calculate more exactly later, maybe). Since the lower floors weren't even burning, there would be significant energy lost to the breakage as well, and the time should have been more than double, if explosives were not involved.

You have no clue what you are talking about so why don't you just STFU.
I mean really, you make yourself look like a total jackass.
Why don't you read the tread and then be in a position to make an intelligent post.

 

[voodoodrul]

Wow.. Self-proclaimed experts and ignorant fools who believe that watching the History Channel makes you an expert. You are not learned from a TV special.. And sitting in the audience listening to even the most renouned experts doesn't mean much.

Lets sum up a few points here:

The entire post-9/11 events line up with the Bush administration's primary agenda that is on public display on PNAC. Coincidence?

In the months prior to 9/11, NORAD was performing nation-wide exercises simulating hijacked airliners enroute to major metro areas to hit buildings. On 9/11, most air traffic controllers and military personnel didn't know if it was real world or exercise. This is a basic military tactic... Keep your enemy overwhelmed with misinformation. This was blamed for the lack of response on 9/11 for fighter intercept. If you fly off course in a Cessna over LA, you have fighters on your tail in minutes. Yet no response during the WTC events? Why? Well, I guess nobody will answer that one.. Well, Dick Cheney may know since he gave the stand down order. Interesting I would say.

All WTC buildings that fell on 9/11 were owned by the same man, Larry Silverstein, who took out major insurance policies on the WTC complex two months prior to 9/11.

WTC building 7 fell due to "fire". It was not hit by debris and the fire seemed to have no cause. It burned for hours without notice until Larry Silverstein was quoted as saying "pull it" and the building fell. It takes months to demolish a building. How could a demo be done in only a few hours? In the months after his PBS interview where he said he gave the order to "pull the building", he no longer comments about it, saying the building fell on its own accord due to the fire. WTC building 7 housed major emergency response, CIA and FBI centers. Coincidence?

I'm not saying I am a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe the official story and I don't believe in going off into fantasy land.

Your government does lie to you and only admits fault when caught with immediate, undeniable proof. The beauty of this situation is that sprinkling enough misinformation, incompetence, and a rewording of the past covers up most of the issue.

There are a lot of issues that need to be explained. What to do with this? I don't know.. But why people feel the need to cling to the nipple of the government for comfort is beyond me.

Remember Vietnam? Remember being told we *had* to win or the communists would take over? Well, we lost. The Earth is still here. And every last soldier in the war died in vein. And that should make you mad as hell. "We died for your freedom".. Well, I appreciate everything, you, the soldier has done for me. But in reality, the government has made you a pawn in a game. And there hasn't been a single war since WWII that had anything to do with my freedoms. Fighting Iraqis hasn't done anything to promote my freedoms. All it has done is let Bush take them away in the name of fighting "terror", while we fearmonger on TV. So if soldiers want to do something for my freedoms, don't play the game.

It should be painfully obvious that there is a thick coating of 1984 going on here. Open your eyes, accept human nature as devious, and use your own judgement.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

/rant

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: glugglug
I hadn't heard about the freefall time as the evidence of explosives before, but now that I think about it, it makes sense.

Assuming a close to freefall as possible scenario, where the lower floors that haven't broken already are on the verge of doing so, so the only slowdown they cause the upper floors is transfer of momentum (with zero energy required for the actual breakage), the fall time would be almost doubled, to around 14s instead of 8s. (Will calculate more exactly later, maybe). Since the lower floors weren't even burning, there would be significant energy lost to the breakage as well, and the time should have been more than double, if explosives were not involved.

You have no clue what you are talking about so why don't you just STFU.
I mean really, you make yourself look like a total jackass.
Why don't you read the tread and then be in a position to make an intelligent post.

This issue can be solved quickly using some basic math. It's physics. Regardless of the reason the upper portion of the building started to fall, the floors below it exert/absorb a lot of energy as they "pancake".. Gravity is constant at 9.86m/sec^2. The acceleration of the upper tower towards the ground should NOT be 9.86m/sec^2 because a lot of energy was expended in the pancaking. I'm not saying one way or the other, but some number crunching, by a panel of unbiased professionals, in this area would be interesting.

 

[sadguy]

Originally posted by: Number1
Link

Quote: A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

The conspiracy theory advocates are gaining ground. Unbelievable.
Soon we will all be wearing a tin hat.

It is sad to think that half the population thinks that their own government is willing to kill thousand of its own citizens to achieve its foreign policy.

Flame suit on.

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 65135 responses

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.
59%

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11.
35%

I'm not sure.
5.8%


Conspiracy theorists win.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: sadguy

Originally posted by: Number1
Link

Quote: A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

The conspiracy theory advocates are gaining ground. Unbelievable.
Soon we will all be wearing a tin hat.

It is sad to think that half the population thinks that their own government is willing to kill thousand of its own citizens to achieve its foreign policy.

Flame suit on.

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 65135 responses

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.
59%

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11.
35%

I'm not sure.
5.8%


Conspiracy theorists win.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/

And that's part of the problem.. People associate respect for those involved with supporting the official story. People don't want to think their loved ones died for a political agenda. Get used to it is all I can say. Nobody fighting in Iraq is fighting for my freedom. But I will have much respect for the soldier, the person, who believes he/she is fighting for a good cause. The reality of what's happening, though, is far from it.

And the way that poll was worded is misleading, obviously. I think everyone has unanswered questions about that day.. and most want to respect those that died. So which box do I check?

Should be a multi question poll:

Do you believe the government acted negligently in regards to 9/11?
Was it allowed to happen?
Was it planned by our own government?
Was it truly just a band of radical terrorists trying to prove a point?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: glugglug
I hadn't heard about the freefall time as the evidence of explosives before, but now that I think about it, it makes sense.

Assuming a close to freefall as possible scenario, where the lower floors that haven't broken already are on the verge of doing so, so the only slowdown they cause the upper floors is transfer of momentum (with zero energy required for the actual breakage), the fall time would be almost doubled, to around 14s instead of 8s. (Will calculate more exactly later, maybe). Since the lower floors weren't even burning, there would be significant energy lost to the breakage as well, and the time should have been more than double, if explosives were not involved.

You have no clue what you are talking about so why don't you just STFU.
I mean really, you make yourself look like a total jackass.
Why don't you read the tread and then be in a position to make an intelligent post.

This issue can be solved quickly using some basic math. It's physics. Regardless of the reason the upper portion of the building started to fall, the floors below it exert/absorb a lot of energy as they "pancake".. Gravity is constant at 9.86m/sec^2. The acceleration of the upper tower towards the ground should NOT be 9.86m/sec^2 because a lot of energy was expended in the pancaking. I'm not saying one way or the other, but some number crunching, by a panel of unbiased professionals, in this area would be interesting.

The speed at which the building fell was less than half that of a free fall.

Watch a video of the collapse. Debris ejected at the beginning of the collapse hits the ground LONG before the building finishes collapsing.

 

[BoomerD]

Without getting into the discussion of their validity, IMO, a big part of why all these conspiracy theories get so much play and so many followers, is because the administration is seen as not being open nor honest with it's citizens, and in the opinion of many, has shown it's propensity for playing dirty in order to get it's way.

Myself, I'm one of the suspicious bstards who immediately thought of the Mossad as being behind all this...what better way to draw the U.S. into their middle east disputes, than to attack us on our home soil, under the guise of a terrorist attack?

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: glugglug
I hadn't heard about the freefall time as the evidence of explosives before, but now that I think about it, it makes sense.

Assuming a close to freefall as possible scenario, where the lower floors that haven't broken already are on the verge of doing so, so the only slowdown they cause the upper floors is transfer of momentum (with zero energy required for the actual breakage), the fall time would be almost doubled, to around 14s instead of 8s. (Will calculate more exactly later, maybe). Since the lower floors weren't even burning, there would be significant energy lost to the breakage as well, and the time should have been more than double, if explosives were not involved.

You have no clue what you are talking about so why don't you just STFU.
I mean really, you make yourself look like a total jackass.
Why don't you read the tread and then be in a position to make an intelligent post.

This issue can be solved quickly using some basic math. It's physics. Regardless of the reason the upper portion of the building started to fall, the floors below it exert/absorb a lot of energy as they "pancake".. Gravity is constant at 9.86m/sec^2. The acceleration of the upper tower towards the ground should NOT be 9.86m/sec^2 because a lot of energy was expended in the pancaking. I'm not saying one way or the other, but some number crunching, by a panel of unbiased professionals, in this area would be interesting.

The speed at which the building fell was less than half that of a free fall.

Watch a video of the collapse. Debris ejected at the beginning of the collapse hits the ground LONG before the building finishes collapsing.

Yeah, I haven't looked into that aspect of it really. But I also wouldn't expect a true free fall even with explosions. We saw the floors under the falling upper portion "appear" intact and the towers were built with outer wall, "skin" support systems. So *if* there were explosions, it would be removing internal structure and the skin would still hold up the falling tower..

You would have to take a lot of factors into account - each floors undamaged ability to absorb the fall, acceleration between floors, etc., etc.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus
Occam's Razor says that the GOP, a group of politicians who couldn't keep their traps shut if they were stapled down, orchestrated the death of 3,000 fellow citizens and managed to keep every single person involved silent.

The CIA, not exactly a stranger to silence, can't keep the existence of overseas prisons a secret.

Yeah. Al Qaeda is the conspiracy theory. If you're a fscking retard.

You confuse politics for reality. Are you saying our government cant keep a secret? They have a long history of doing so quite successfully. You cant see past your television to the real world. You throw up news storys and speculation as a all inclusive blanket exclamation of a much larger picture.
Even if you have a big screen, you are going to have to look past it for the truth, if that is indeed what you are looking for.

The American government could not keep this secret, as they could not keep a moon landing hoax or JFK assassination a secret. Too many people would need to be involved, and the act is too significant for all of them to have stayed silent. You must be rather invested in Hollywood's fictional portrayal of the G-Man to think otherwise.

Storys? 😕 Please tell me you know better than to spell as atrociously as that.

Oh my, I miss-spelled a word! teh horrer!

guess your not looking for the truth, but instead correct spelling :disgust:

My correction of a spelling mistake third-graders would be expected to avoid was an aside to a serious response. Never mind though, carry on with such wonderful insights as, "You can't see past your television to the real world."

Your argument is baed on assumptions, with disregard to obvious standard operating procedures of compartmentalised operations that happen all the time. Your deep insights and personal attacks of my spelling nonwithstanding, you really should take the time to investigate who created Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden (CIA) Its a hard pill to swallow, but often truth is. Gulping down what you are spoon fed by the mass media may be prefferable to your situation, but is hardly a path to any real understanding.

 

[Babbles]

Seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists never paid much attention to their physics class (even if their father is a physics teacher).

I think that the conspiracy theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief. I'm all for thinking about "what ifs" but that can only take you so far before you have to admit to yourself that any possible "what ifs" are just not plausible.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists never paid much attention to their physics class (even if their father is a physics teacher).

I think that the conspiracy theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief. I'm all for thinking about "what ifs" but that can only take you so far before you have to admit to yourself that any possible "what ifs" are just not plausible.

:thumbsup:
That pretty well reflects my thinking.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus
My correction of a spelling mistake third-graders would be expected to avoid was an aside to a serious response. Never mind though, carry on with such wonderful insights as, "You can't see past your television to the real world."

Your argument is baed on assumptions, with disregard to obvious standard operating procedures of compartmentalised operations that happen all the time. Your deep insights and personal attacks of my spelling nonwithstanding, you really should take the time to investigate who created Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden (CIA) Its a hard pill to swallow, but often truth is. Gulping down what you are spoon fed by the mass media may be prefferable to your situation, but is hardly a path to any real understanding.

No, it's not. My argument, otherwise known as common sense, states that the large amount of people who would necessarily be involved in carrying this out could not possibly all keep silent for five years. Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens. On domestic soil. "They" have kept this a perfect secret for five years, but can't keep the existence of overseas prisons quiet?

Your argument, in comparison, was the same tripe we non-conspiracy kooks always here and snicker at behind your backs. Yes, you're sooo much better informed than the rest of us. You've got your eyes open, not us. Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

The CIA didn't create Al Qaeda, nor did it create Osama. Whatever your alternative source of information is other than the "mass media", I suggest you rethink use of them. Or better yet, educate us! Let us know what those wonderful sources of yours are. I dare you.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists never paid much attention to their physics class (even if their father is a physics teacher).

I think that the conspiracy theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief. I'm all for thinking about "what ifs" but that can only take you so far before you have to admit to yourself that any possible "what ifs" are just not plausible.

Good post, but have you considered

"that the official theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief."

In the immortal words of Curly

"The truth is stranger than fiction judgy wudgy"

I get the feeling that you have looked at some of the availible information, but to your point we must not forgo looking at that witch go's against any held belief, if we are ever to to get to the truth. I for one,partially inspired by your post will spend much of today looking through official and mainstream accounts to see what is on the other side of what I currently belive. Perhaps you might do the same.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Without getting into the discussion of their validity, IMO, a big part of why all these conspiracy theories get so much play and so many followers, is because the administration is seen as not being open nor honest with it's citizens, and in the opinion of many, has shown it's propensity for playing dirty in order to get it's way.

Myself, I'm one of the suspicious bstards who immediately thought of the Mossad as being behind all this...what better way to draw the U.S. into their middle east disputes, than to attack us on our home soil, under the guise of a terrorist attack?

did you quote the first paragraph (and the second being a response or write it yourself? i swear i read the same thing in an earlier post

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Good post, but have you considered

"that the official theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief."

you mean the theory that the buildings were hit by airplanes, and collapsed when the steel softened? what information goes against that?

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Babbles
Seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists never paid much attention to their physics class (even if their father is a physics teacher).

I think that the conspiracy theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief. I'm all for thinking about "what ifs" but that can only take you so far before you have to admit to yourself that any possible "what ifs" are just not plausible.

Good post, but have you considered

"that the official theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief."

In the immortal words of Curly

"The truth is stranger than fiction judgy wudgy"

I get the feeling that you have looked at some of the availible information, but to your point we must not forgo looking at that witch go's against any held belief, if we are ever to to get to the truth. I for one,partially inspired by your post will spend much of today looking through official and mainstream accounts to see what is on the other side of what I currently belive. Perhaps you might do the same.

I already looked at other alternative theories, literally now years ago. I simply can not agree with these alternative theories on many different levels ranging from science to psychology.

I work as a scientist, albeit not a physicist or engineer, and I like to think that just based on who I am and what I do I look at things rather objectively. My objective sense, and my Physics 101 course ~ten years ago, tell me that I just can not believe in these alternative conspiracy theories.

The parsimonious solution is what was released in the 9/11 reports. In order to even remotely believe in the conspiracy theories you have to ignore a lot of factual data and scientific logic.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus
My correction of a spelling mistake third-graders would be expected to avoid was an aside to a serious response. Never mind though, carry on with such wonderful insights as, "You can't see past your television to the real world."

Your argument is baed on assumptions, with disregard to obvious standard operating procedures of compartmentalised operations that happen all the time. Your deep insights and personal attacks of my spelling nonwithstanding, you really should take the time to investigate who created Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden (CIA) Its a hard pill to swallow, but often truth is. Gulping down what you are spoon fed by the mass media may be prefferable to your situation, but is hardly a path to any real understanding.

No, it's not. My argument, otherwise known as common sense, states that the large amount of people who would necessarily be involved in carrying this out could not possibly all keep silent for five years. Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens. On domestic soil. "They" have kept this a perfect secret for five years, but can't keep the existence of overseas prisons quiet?

Your argument, in comparison, was the same tripe we non-conspiracy kooks always here and snicker at behind your backs. Yes, you're sooo much better informed than the rest of us. You've got your eyes open, not us. Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

The CIA didn't create Al Qaeda, nor did it create Osama. Whatever your alternative source of information is other than the "mass media", I suggest you rethink use of them. Or better yet, educate us! Let us know what those wonderful sources of yours are. I dare you.

So to your statement "Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens" Since when is a CIA op that results in the death of people (of whatever number) or for that matter a op of our defence department outside the realms of considering killing US citizens? Look up Northwoods (find it yourself) It would be Illogical to assume that men who took an oath to protect and defend who in obvious disregard and violation of their sacred trust by putting such plans to paper would give 2c's about their fellow citizens. How accepted are such tactics behind the scenes to be so brazen even to suggest such treason and incriminate themselves by putting it to paper with disregard to the concequenses? How conforatable would you have to be in your opinion to not fear for your life after doing so? I would say pretty comfortable.

But as to your quest for truth and sources I say this, Just read. Whoever created Osama (we did by funding him, look it up) in the end created Al Qaeda. Weather that was the intended purpose at the begining or not.
Need a link?
www.google.com

Im not into spoon feeding.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus
My correction of a spelling mistake third-graders would be expected to avoid was an aside to a serious response. Never mind though, carry on with such wonderful insights as, "You can't see past your television to the real world."

Your argument is baed on assumptions, with disregard to obvious standard operating procedures of compartmentalised operations that happen all the time. Your deep insights and personal attacks of my spelling nonwithstanding, you really should take the time to investigate who created Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden (CIA) Its a hard pill to swallow, but often truth is. Gulping down what you are spoon fed by the mass media may be prefferable to your situation, but is hardly a path to any real understanding.

No, it's not. My argument, otherwise known as common sense, states that the large amount of people who would necessarily be involved in carrying this out could not possibly all keep silent for five years. Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens. On domestic soil. "They" have kept this a perfect secret for five years, but can't keep the existence of overseas prisons quiet?

Your argument, in comparison, was the same tripe we non-conspiracy kooks always here and snicker at behind your backs. Yes, you're sooo much better informed than the rest of us. You've got your eyes open, not us. Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

The CIA didn't create Al Qaeda, nor did it create Osama. Whatever your alternative source of information is other than the "mass media", I suggest you rethink use of them. Or better yet, educate us! Let us know what those wonderful sources of yours are. I dare you.

So to your statement "Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens" Since when is a CIA op that results in the death of people (of whatever number) or for that matter a op of our defence department outside the realms of considering killing US citizens? Look up Northwoods (find it yourself) It would be Illogical to assume that men who took an oath to protect and defend who in obvious disregard and violation of their sacred trust by putting such plans to paper would give 2c's about their fellow citizens. How accepted are such tactics behind the scenes to be so brazen even to suggest such treason and incriminate themselves by putting it to paper with disregard to the concequenses? How conforatable would you have to be in your opinion to not fear for your life after doing so? I would say pretty comfortable.

But as to your quest for truth and sources I say this, Just read. Whoever created Osama (we did by funding him, look it up) in the end created Al Qaeda. Weather that was the intended purpose at the begining or not.
Need a link?
www.google.com

Im not into spoon feeding.

Was Operation Northwoods carried out, yes or no? No? Right then, so don't be an idiot and try to equate the creation of a scheme with its actual carrying out. I think those people complicit would have a bit harder time sleeping having carried out the actual deed on real people, not just imaginary ones - don't you agree?

Just read? Google? Hahaha. Do I have you pegged or what? I'll just copy and paste the relevant parts of my previous post:

Originally posted by: yllus
Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AAjax
Good post, but have you considered

"that the official theories are just illogical and that in order to believe in them one must be willing to forgo looking at information that goes against their belief."

you mean the theory that the buildings were hit by airplanes, and collapsed when the steel softened? what information goes against that?

Look up the paper writen my Prof. Steven Jones. But my intended point is a bit larger, that a bunch of guys with box cutters could pull somthing off like that and be succsesfull without the collusion of higher powers. (the effective stand down or NORAD for instance)

Jax

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: yllus
My correction of a spelling mistake third-graders would be expected to avoid was an aside to a serious response. Never mind though, carry on with such wonderful insights as, "You can't see past your television to the real world."

Your argument is baed on assumptions, with disregard to obvious standard operating procedures of compartmentalised operations that happen all the time. Your deep insights and personal attacks of my spelling nonwithstanding, you really should take the time to investigate who created Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden (CIA) Its a hard pill to swallow, but often truth is. Gulping down what you are spoon fed by the mass media may be prefferable to your situation, but is hardly a path to any real understanding.

No, it's not. My argument, otherwise known as common sense, states that the large amount of people who would necessarily be involved in carrying this out could not possibly all keep silent for five years. Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens. On domestic soil. "They" have kept this a perfect secret for five years, but can't keep the existence of overseas prisons quiet?

Your argument, in comparison, was the same tripe we non-conspiracy kooks always here and snicker at behind your backs. Yes, you're sooo much better informed than the rest of us. You've got your eyes open, not us. Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

The CIA didn't create Al Qaeda, nor did it create Osama. Whatever your alternative source of information is other than the "mass media", I suggest you rethink use of them. Or better yet, educate us! Let us know what those wonderful sources of yours are. I dare you.

So to your statement "Also, perhaps you haven't noticed that this would not be a standard CIA operation. This is the mass murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens" Since when is a CIA op that results in the death of people (of whatever number) or for that matter a op of our defence department outside the realms of considering killing US citizens? Look up Northwoods (find it yourself) It would be Illogical to assume that men who took an oath to protect and defend who in obvious disregard and violation of their sacred trust by putting such plans to paper would give 2c's about their fellow citizens. How accepted are such tactics behind the scenes to be so brazen even to suggest such treason and incriminate themselves by putting it to paper with disregard to the concequenses? How conforatable would you have to be in your opinion to not fear for your life after doing so? I would say pretty comfortable.

But as to your quest for truth and sources I say this, Just read. Whoever created Osama (we did by funding him, look it up) in the end created Al Qaeda. Weather that was the intended purpose at the begining or not.
Need a link?
www.google.com

Im not into spoon feeding.

Was Operation Northwoods carried out, yes or no? No? Right then, so don't be an idiot and try to equate the creation of a scheme with its actual carrying out. I think those people complicit would have a bit harder time sleeping having carried out the actual deed on real people, not just imaginary ones - don't you agree?

Just read? Google? Hahaha. Do I have you pegged or what? I'll just copy and paste the relevant parts of my previous post:

Originally posted by: yllus
Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

"Was Operation Northwoods carried out, yes or no? No? Right then, so don't be an idiot and try to equate the creation of a scheme with its actual carrying out."

The real question is how far away from putting such a plan to paper and carring it out is.
Answer: Just some more paperwork

Im sorry but I cant do your reading for you, truth is somthing we find on our own. Your looking for a fight, and Im looking for healthy argument. Looks like we both came to the wrong place.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: AAjax
"Was Operation Northwoods carried out, yes or no? No? Right then, so don't be an idiot and try to equate the creation of a scheme with its actual carrying out."

The real question is how far away from putting such a plan to paper and carring it out is.
Answer: Just some more paperwork

Im sorry but I cant do your reading for you, truth is somthing we find on our own. Your looking for a fight, and Im looking for healthy argument. Looks like we both came to the wrong place.

Originally posted by: yllus
Yet when pressed for details, akin to your pathetic arguments, you slide and dodge and never give a straight answer. In short: You're laughable.

 

[Vic]

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they never need proof once your believe in them. Anyone who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory must then be in league with the cover-up.

 

[eakers]

I am shocked.
I thought it was a pretty accepted fact that the US government was behind 9/11.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they never need proof once your believe in them. Anyone who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory must then be in league with the cover-up.

So Vic? IT'S YOU!?!!?!?

🙂

 

[preslove]

Talking to a 9/11 conspiracy theorist is like talking to a Christian Fundamentalist loony toon about evolution.