For those who buy into the OS of 9/11

a reply to: intrptr

None of that is evidence of anything. It is just circumstantial evidence used to push a confirmation bias.

Damn and here I thought I was talking to the ONE 9/11 conspiracy person who was actually demonstrating some intellectual integrity in his research. Guess not.

a reply to: seagull

The truth movement has been so corrupted as to not even resemble what it purports to be.

Exactly.

And thats the conspiracy within the conspiracy so to speak. The mole in the truth movement. Thats how the FBI took down the Black Panthers, the "Hippy"movement and the "Commies". From the inside.

a reply to: intrptr

It always comes back to the big bad govt., doesn't it?

That could, and in some cases probably is, be the case. But has it occurred to you that it could be, and probably is, people out to make a few bucks off gullible people?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of that is evidence of anything. It is just circumstantial evidence used to push a confirmation bias.

You're willfully blind. The relationship continues right now. The Kingdom of Saud is currently protecting the western puppet dictator from Yemen as they bomb that country to dust with American F15s and American smart bombs. The Sauds are the biggest buyer of US arms in the world. The Sauds let the US stage for the first gulf war in their country, too.

So that "non conspiracy" you say doesn't exist between the US and the Sauds, the whole reason for the wars for oil in the Middle East that traces back to 911?

You said you don't support war on terror, either. You just got caught.

Nah, only biased opinions, nothing real world.

I notice that the more time that passes, the louder they shout. Like a schoolyard bully who grows more aggressive with each birthday party he's not invited to. Many probably feel like they're on the outside now and even if their mindset did change, their pride would not allow them to express it, even though they appear to be in the minority. Stupid if you do, stupid if you don't, I guess. Appearance never bothered me none. After a few conversations, that does seem to rub off on some. Meh, good luck.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

ok, let's question these truths...
1...bush and Cheney would only testify to the commission if they were interviewed together, in a closed meeting, no notes, no transcript, and everyone was swore to secrecy....why?
2...the 1st WTC attack in 1993 was done with a bomb in a van, and yet the 9/11 commission refused any testimony, investigation, or even possibility, of another bomb attack...why?
here's a list of questionable behavior (truths) that should prompt an independent investigation...
www.newsfocus.org...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: intrptr

It always comes back to the big bad govt., doesn't it?

That could, and in some cases probably is, be the case. But has it occurred to you that it could be, and probably is, people out to make a few bucks off gullible people?

The government is the tool used to enact legislation favoring you know which industrial complex. Through PACs for one, and seeming obliviousness on the part of the government, too. Like, we're waging aggressive war operations on countries right now without a congressional declaration of war, right?

And I agree with you, who needs evidence when we have social media?

The firstest, loudest, mostest opinion wins.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of that is evidence of anything. It is just circumstantial evidence used to push a confirmation bias.

You're willfully blind. The relationship continues right now. The Kingdom of Saud is currently protecting the western puppet dictator from Yemen as they bomb that country to dust with American F15s and American smart bombs. The Sauds are the biggest buyer of US arms in the world. The Sauds let the US stage for the first gulf war in their country, too.

So that "non conspiracy" you say doesn't exist between the US and the Sauds, the whole reason for the wars for oil in the Middle East that traces back to 911?

I have my doubts that those wars were fought primarily for oil. Afghanistan DEFINITELY wasn't fought for oil and I think it is likely that we went to Iraq because of some unfinished daddy issues that Bush jr had. And BOTH of them were probably fought to extend Cheney's Mercenary company contracts.

You said you don't support war on terror, either. You just got caught.

I did? How? I don't recall saying that I support the war on terror after saying I didn't... So now you are putting words in my mouth. My opinion of you was SO high at the beginning of the thread, now it's as low as any other truther.

Nah, only biased opinions, nothing real world.

Uh huh.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The reason is because there is an intentional coordinated online effort to keep the truth hidden. There are several members here dedicated to the cause. They will show up here and it will be plainly obvious who they are and what their agenda is. Like you say, if its so absurd to suspect conspiracy on 9/11, why bother posting? You dont see this in the 'Sasquatch' threads lol. Theres absolutely a reason for it.

I agree with this. You'll notice the same usernames posting over and over when one post could easily explain their stance on the subject, but they continue to try and get that 'last word' on the thread to appear to be the authority on the subject matter. False flags are real and there's been many implemented throughout history to maintain status quo. Following the money usually leads to the ones behind said false flags. What is wrong with questioning the mainstream story of any story at that? Critical thinking is frowned upon nowadays. Luckily, at the moment, we can question this. It hasn't reached holocaust proportions yet. Although, Obama/Bush has said to never question 9/11! Obama on one hand was like, "Al-Qaeda killed innocent people that day; shame on you for axing questions!" Yet, he'll drone strike some little kids in another country with ease of mind. Bush pretty much said the same thing. Although, Bush couldn't even properly recollect where he was and what he saw on the morning of 9/11/01 . Where did Al-Qaeda get funding though(before 9/11)? Why did they fight them all through Iraq & Afghanistan? What company got no-bid contracts to rebuild said states? Oh yea, Halliburton. Why was the military in charge of reestablishing poppy fields in Afghanistan and protecting those fields? When they got bored of that story where did ISIS come from? How come they again fund Al-Qaeda to fight ISIS? If Al-Qaeda is the enemy then, what the fluoride?! Also, when did other people get blamed for what someone else did? If I go fly a plane into the queen of englandistan's home are they going to go attack several other nations that have nothing to do with it?

Then if you play the other fence of the story(just for fun). How come the air force couldn't blow up some hijacked planes? If the police was the first responders best believe those planes would've never made it. There's no technology to hack the computers of said airplanes and force them to safely land? How about to take over cars? Where's all the trillions in funding to the defense budget being squandered at? Is the air force full of retards? How about the rest of the military? All that money, albeit fiat debt instruments, and nothing could've prevented this event.

Just by looking at motives, who would stand the most to gain? Corporations once again. Who had the most to lose? The American tax-payer.

That's my opinion.

a reply to: intrptr

So that "non conspiracy" you say doesn't exist between the US and the Sauds, the whole reason for the wars for oil in the Middle East that traces back to 911?

The "relationship" with the House of Saud dates back to WWII when the U.S. began to suffer oil shortages. The Texas oilfields couldn't meet the demands.

The "relationship" has remained intact since.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that the "relationship" only started recently, when that isn't the case at all.

Personally, I think the "relationship" should be rethought. But until, or unless, something changes that's not going to happen.

originally posted by: jimmyx

1...bush and Cheney would only testify to the commission if they were interviewed together, in a closed meeting, no notes, no transcript, and everyone was swore to secrecy....why?

Why?......Separation of Powers, it's in the Constitution.


en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have my doubts that those wars were fought primarily for oil. Afghanistan DEFINITELY wasn't fought for oil and I think it is likely that we went to Iraq because of some unfinished daddy issues that Bush jr had. And BOTH of them were probably fought to extend Cheney's Mercenary company contracts.

Oil being the primary reason, other minerals and in the case of Afghanistan, the "geopolitical" (read that military strategic) importance of its location.

Ever wondered why the Soviets, British (twice) and Alexander the Great all tried to occupy afghanistan? Now the US.

The other issue is pure control and conquering of territory. Why do any of the empires in the history of the world try to conquer the whole world?

Usually controlled by tyrants (those issues Bush had), their pride and greed have no bounds. I would cite Rome and Caesar, Alexander (He's the great) Ghengis Kahn, Stalin, Royalty of every European countries past… and the hi command of most militaries, to name a few.

When state and military are combined (like Hitlers Germany) under one leader, then its the worst of possible outcomes.

WWII >>> tens of millions dead.

You may divide you the reasons for each country being invaded, you can't divided that are all in one region of the world, borders touching even, and their primary export is oil..Now tell me again why Bush (Big Texas Oil) and the Sauds (Big ME oil) aren't in cahoots?

originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: jimmyx

1…bush and Cheney would only testify to the commission if they were interviewed together, in a closed meeting, no notes, no transcript, and everyone was swore to secrecy….why?

Why?……Separation of Powers, it's in the Constitution.

Ha ha, thats not at all what is meant by that. They testified in secret to cover up what they both knew, period.

Like you just did, misconstruing it as "Separation of Powers".

a reply to: seagull

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that the "relationship" only started recently, when that isn't the case at all.

Not at all. The current cycle of war began after 911. Extending from the "First" Gulf War, extending from US meddling in Iran and Iraq wars, back to the US Shah (deposed), to WWII (did you know Rommel was trying to occupy the Middle Eastern oilfields by going through Africa? US put a stop to that, ending up with the occupation by Israel of Palestine.

All the way back to "lines drawn on a map" (following pipelines no less) and approved country borders after WWI.

But about the Kingdom of Saud, yes, currently, deeply embedded with the US.

a reply to: qwerty12345

What is wrong with questioning the mainstream story of any story at that? Critical thinking is frowned upon nowadays. Luckily, at the moment, we can question this. It hasn't reached holocaust proportions yet. Although, Obama/Bush has said to never question 9/11!

(Bushes announcement)

originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: jimmyx

1…bush and Cheney would only testify to the commission if they were interviewed together, in a closed meeting, no notes, no transcript, and everyone was swore to secrecy….why?

Why?……Separation of Powers, it's in the Constitution.

Ha ha, thats not at all what is meant by that. They testified in secret to cover up what they both knew, period.

Like you just did, misconstruing it as "Separation of Powers".

yes, that was what i was going to ask.....the administration chose the people they wanted to be on the commission. no independence whatsoever.

originally posted by: intrptr

Ha ha, thats not at all what is meant by that. They testified in secret to cover up what they both knew, period.

Like you just did, misconstruing it as "separation of Powers".

You asked a question "Why?" I answered that question.
Separation of Powers is the correct answer whether you like it or not.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: jimmyx

1…bush and Cheney would only testify to the commission if they were interviewed together, in a closed meeting, no notes, no transcript, and everyone was swore to secrecy….why?

Why?……Separation of Powers, it's in the Constitution.

Ha ha, thats not at all what is meant by that. They testified in secret to cover up what they both knew, period.

Like you just did, misconstruing it as "Separation of Powers".

yes, that was what i was going to ask…..the administration chose the people they wanted to be on the commission. no independence whatsoever.

Yah, not too obvious there. Read on…

The 9/11 Commission members were appointed by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, which led to the criticism that the Commission was not independent. The Commission stated in its report that their "aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter…

Wiki on commission

a reply to: Jchristopher5
Thats why we still talk about 2012 and the Kennedys (both John and Bobby's) assassinations...and of course the never ending "building 7"... and the "no planes hit those buildings" stories...and Princess Diana-murdered...Elvis and Michael Jackson still alive...along with Hitler...and Madam Hillary and the Bengazi stuff...all of it.

Just look the other way...its not ever going to end. Especially on conspiracy forums like us. I feel the same way you do though....



MS

I do not frequent the 9/11 forums often, but occasionally I pop in and read them from time to time. There are many events that have transpired over the course of history with ulterior motives at the core. Anyone of them that gets called a conspiracy is done so from both sides of the fence. Either it is a conspiracy that began the problem or a conspiracy that continued the problem or a conspiracy that began the conspiracy.

How can anyone believe the true story when it is never told with truth to begin with? Look at history, when have we ever been given the entire truth about anything? Never.

There is absolutely no reason to believe what is written or reported about anything. Whatever the truth is does not stop what happened from being real. Reality is no matter what anyone says they are wrong somewhere or purposely lying. My question to you? Why does it matter?

From what I can see in every thread about that day specifically, 9/11, it is still a fresh wound for many even though it happened 14 years ago. Many people were affected worldwide, not just in America. Many do not believe the OS. Many still want answers. Many wish it never happened, but it did. Nothing will change the reality, not even the truth.