Does it make sense to you?

[1.] So far "the government" is supposedly able to...
[2.] But the same governement that can carry out all that is somehow unable to sneak WMDs into Iraq...
[3.] Does this make sense to you?!

No, your argument doesn't make sense to me at all. It's called a non sequitur argument, i.e. "it does not follow".

Your argument amounts to this:
1. If the cat can eat chicken, it can also eat beef.
2. The cat did not eat the beef.
3. Therefore, the cat did not eat the chicken.

Here's another, more appropriate comparison:
1. If the USA can invade Iraq for regime change, it can also invade Zimbabwe.
2. The USA did not invade Zimbabwe.
3. Therefore the USA did not invade Iraq.

Or:
1. If Nixon used the FBI for his own purposes, he could have used it to completely suppress the WPost Watergate story.
2. Nixon did not use the FBI to suppress the Watergate story.
3. Therefore, Nixon did not use the FBI for his own purposes.

Your argument is also amusingly similar to the Chewbacca Defense. I can almost hear you saying in Johnnie Cochran's voice, "Does this make sense to you?! It does not...make...sense!"

In a debate, any time you use a non sequitur argument as your main point, you've lost the debate, pack up your pencils and sit down, thanks for comin'.

You've also used the same tactic by lumping all of the conspiracy theories together, somehow connecting the Pentagon, with the WTC towers, and even throwing the London bombings into the pot for spicing. It is quite likely that the no plane theory and the pod theory are bogus, but that does not mean that there was no conspiracy...just as if you knock out a few columns, it doesn't mean the entire building is going to collapse in a pile of pick-up sticks and dust. In fact, the no plane and pod theories were possibly even deliberately injected into the 9-11 truth movement as disinfo to be used in the exact manner that you have used them here - to discredit the entire cause by merely showing that one element of it is incorrect.

I don't need to go into the specifics of your argument because others have done so already, and it is fundamentally flawed from the first sentence.

Does it make sense to me?



No, your argument doesn't make sense at all.

9-11 was a TV show. No follow up investigation. No inquiries. No nothing but a TV show and a bunch of news stations feeding us lies about 19 Arabs with boxcutters who hate our freedom.

Those buildings were demolished. That's a fact. Buildings constructed to the highest standards, such as the WTC towers, simply DO NOT CRUMBLE AT FREE FALL SPEEDS DUE TO SMALL FIRES (CONTAINED) NEAR THEIR TOPS.

Those buildings were demolished. The film says it all. Talk all you want.

Watch the film. Witness a controlled demolition. End of story, case closed. Go back to be America, you're TV shows will be here tomorrow when you wake up.

wecomeinpeace fantastic post.

I am sad that I have used up my way above awards. I think when I get more next month I'll come back to your post.

I think catherder has abandoned his own thread.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
You've also used the same tactic by lumping all of the conspiracy theories together, somehow connecting the Pentagon, with the WTC towers, and even throwing the London bombings into the pot for spicing.

Somehow connecting the Pentagon with the WTC towers?

Either it was ALL a conspiracy, the SAME conspiracy, or it wasn't a conspiracy. Are you now going to say that "yeah terrorists attacked the Pentagon... but uh, yeah, at the exact same time the US government saw that as an opportunity to attack the WTC towers"? Why is it you conspiracy proponents only choose to argue the topics that are the most difficult to prove for either side?

I'm very confident that I've shown that a 757 did indeed fly into the Pentagon, there was no missile, there was no Global Hawk, it was a 757. You were one of the original supporters of the no 757 theory: you were wrong. Now you choose to separate the Pentagon events from the WTC events even though they were carried out on the same day, by the same group of people, to the same results.

Now the same conspiracy theorists calim the 7/7 bombings were all part of the ongoing government plot to sway public opinion behind the ongoing plan to conquor the world. It's all the same plot, the same players, and the same foes. Would make for a great Tom Clancy novel.

It is quite likely that the no plane theory and the pod theory are bogus, but that does not mean that there was no conspiracy...just as if you knock out a few columns, it doesn't mean the entire building is going to collapse in a pile of pick-up sticks and dust. In fact, the no plane and pod theories were possibly even deliberately injected into the 9-11 truth movement as disinfo to be used in the exact manner that you have used them here - to discredit the entire cause by merely showing that one element of it is incorrect.

Ah, but it does it not?

If they didn't perpetrate an attack on the Pentagon, why did they perpetrate an attack on the WTC towers? If they didn't control the 757 attack on the Pentagon, why did they control the 767 attacks on the WTC towers? If they didn't control flight 93, why did they control the Pentagon and WTC aircraft? If they didn't use missiles and global hawks on the WTC towers, why did they use something other than a 757 on the Pentagon? It's all related...

What exactly happened is left for history to determine.
- Is it all part of the expansion plans of the American Empire? Sounds reasonable.
- Does it mean there was more to the story than we're led to believe? Sounds reasonable.
- Does it mean there were giant James Bond type plans carried out in order to fool the masses? Doesn't sounds very plausible.

Getting lost in conspiracy theories and hollywood type spy stories does nothing to bring light to the reality of the situation. If they could do all of these incredible things that people keep claiming happened on 9/11 then why in the hell couldn't they do far simpler things such as plant WMDs?

But seriously, surely there is some evil satanic freemason illuminati elite connection where pentagrams are visible in the WTC tower rubble and that there is a 5 sided star visible within the shingle pattern on the Pentagon roof which they used to guide the 757 in through mind control you could be pointing out instead?

Originally posted by NoJustice
I think catherder has abandoned his own thread.

This is what separates me from crackpots like you. I'm here to discuss freely and openly different ideas. You're here to participate in your clique and berate anyone with opinions (regardless of how valid they are) that oppose or contradict your own little myopic reality.

This isn't my own thread, this is one thread in thousands where tens of thousands of people are free to discuss whatever topic is raised.

CatHerder wrote:
You were one of the original supporters of the no 757 theory.

Huh?? Where have you seen me support the no plane at the Pentagon theory? The most I ever posted regarding the Pentagon was a couple of the anomalies in a huge 9-11 smoking gun list I copied and pasted into the WTC Challenge thread. Not once did I post saying that no plane hit the pentagon. If I ever did state such a thing, then it was a long time ago, or I have erred, because after reviewing the evidence, much of it in your excellent Pentagon thread, I surmised that the theory was very doubtful, if not bogus. But wait...what's this? You say I'm "one of the original supporters of the no 757 theory", implying that I have been a vocal and famous advocate of this theory on ATS since the beginning. Gee, CatHerder, you've gotten so worked up over all us conspiracy kooks that in your mind we've all blurred into one amorphous blob of Planet X tinfoil hat-wearers. You need to either take a rest, or take a Paxil.

As for the rest of your post, it's the same old argument. If some "conspiracy crackpot" or disinfo agent propagates the theory that the planes which crashed into the towers were actually holograms beamed from Mars, and then that is summarily proven to be bunkum, does that mean that the entire conspiracy just didn't happen? No. If we show that it wasn't a missile or a global schmork that hit the Pentagon, does that mean that everything's all fine and dandy, the government is all good guys, and their was no conspiracy? No. Do you really need me to help you think of the technology that could be used to fly a 757 into the Pentagon? Come now...you're a smart lass. I can't be bothered responding to your post point by point because your keystone logic is flawed, the events of that day are not so binary as you imply, and your latest post is simply a rewording of the original flawed logic. You seem to have gotten on some trip from the success of your Pentagon thread and have somehow decided that that you have debunked the entire affair. I'm sorry, but no, you haven't.

On a related note, o ye who herds cats, why oh why do you constantly cry and whine about other people being rude and mean to you, when all you ever do is patronize, insult and deride members you don't agree with, constantly calling them kooks and crackpots and making spiteful allusions to their sub-standard intelligence and research. I can literally feel the bile emanating and seeping out of the screen every time I read your posts. And all the while you place yourself, your research and your posts on a shiny golden pedestal. The tune is getting really old. Please change it or tone the volume down a little; you're cluttering up the airwaves with your bizarre mix of vitriol and whining.

external image

[edit on 2005-7-21 by wecomeinpeace]

Fantastic reply, gave me a good laugh.

While I seem to recall you were one of the original no-757 proponents, it's very possible that I am mistaken; the names all seem flow together on here for me. I apologize if you were not.

You're probably right in your opinion of my actions on this forum though. My experience with the 757 thread, and the personal attacks I experienced there, have most likely jaded me forever when responding to posts on this website. I find myself unable to discuss anything with people like globaldisorder who just talk around in circles, contradicting themselves in every other post, within the same post, and even pointing to their own contradictions as "proof" of some sort of evidence against another member's ideas/opinions. "Authors" like that are the main reason I stopped responding to the 757 thread last year and simply walked away from it.

I used to find the lunatic fringe amusing to read, now I just find it to be lacking in fringe.

Originally posted by CatHerder
Fantastic reply, gave me a good laugh.

While I seem to recall you were one of the original no-757 proponents, it's very possible that I am mistaken; the names all seem flow together on here for me. I apologize if you were not.

No worries, and nice to see we're back on the level. I've never been a proponent of that theory because I think it's too cloudy and the evidence is too contradicting to make any solid conclusions, thus I won't commit to either side. There are easier fish to catch in the 9-11 pond, and there are more than enough of those to prove a conspiracy in my book. BTW, you actually had me worried for a while there. I was scratching my head, racking my brains and searching around trying to find where if ever I'd supported the no 757 theory.

You're probably right in your opinion of my actions on this forum though. My experience with the 757 thread, and the personal attacks I experienced there, have most likely jaded me forever when responding to posts on this website. I find myself unable to discuss anything with people like globaldisorder who just talk around in circles, contradicting themselves in every other post, within the same post, and even pointing to their own contradictions as "proof" of some sort of evidence against another member's ideas/opinions. "Authors" like that are the main reason I stopped responding to the 757 thread last year and simply walked away from it.

I know how you feel. Just be thankful that HowardRoark is on your side. The man drives me to the bottle as much as globaldisorder obviously does for you, and sometimes that frustration will result in misdirected anger at other posters. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.

Y'r Tinfoil Hat-wearing Friend
wecomeinpeace

ok, now that the ghey-fest is over and everybody is friends again, let's get back to the topic.

do i think it is possible for a government to have commited the acts of 9-11 on it's own people when it can't even smuggle some weaponry into a foreign county with no leadership, until recently no police force, no border patrol, no government and no real monitoring? well, first, i don't believe 9-11 was perpetrated or complied with by the American government, but if there was doubt in my mind about it, i haven't seen anything that would sway that doubt to even a "possible" vote.

i have to honest, the comparison of one of these to the other is a bit of a bad comparison, but, nonetheless, if a government can't even get it together to smuggle the afore mentioned weapons, how the hell can it be organized well enough to pull-off 9-11 without getting caught red-handed? i mean, local police forces have caught people with virtually NO evidence many, many times for various crimes, how could they think they could get away with it if they weren't even capable of the afore mentioned smuggling job?

Fledgling, as I've already said, the US was in total control of the investigations of 9/11. They had a total monopoly over it all. A lot of investigative work was cut off sharply with orders from higher-up officials in the FBI, etc. What did come out of the investigations was a bunch of garbage that even members of this forum have debunked based simply on the video and photographic evidence of 9/11. The problem that is any serious official investigations are being blocked and we're fed garbage regarding what actually happened to those three skyscrapers, Flight 93, etc.

If we smuggled weapons into Iraq, the UN would very likely begin an investigation. The UN knew Saddam didn't have any WMDs, and that's why it would not back our war. If we went in and found their programs in disarray, degraded since the Gulf War, and everyone telling us straight-up there was nothing there, the UN would be a little suspicious to say the least if we suddenly "found" a nice array of WMDs.

It's common sense that the US government would have little say in a UN investigation. Unlike situations at home where they can control and manipulate every part of the investigation, the UN would do their own work, and find out where those WMDs came from.

In an international affair, you can't just go willy-nilly planting weapons like that. Maybe if you could control the investigation that ensued, you could do it and get away with it. But if you leave the investigating to others, and they investigate it seriously, you're busted.

I don't really think the US exactly got away with 9/11, either, judging by the vast numbers of books, videos and websites exploiting the lies we've been fed. Imagine if the UN investigated 9/11.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Besides, propaganda of the justification for the Iraq invasion was threefold:

1. Iraq has WMD's (bogus)

2. Iraq has connections to al Qaeda (bollocks)

3. Iraq has a humanitarian crisis (tripe)

Anytime one reason was shown to be fallacious, they'd switch to the next, and on it went. There was no need to go to the risky extent of sneaking WMDs into Iraq, because the U.S. public and the Coalition of the Duped were already fooled. And now, anyone with a brain knows that all the reasons were utter crappola, but does anything happen? Does anyone act on it? Have impeachment proceedings begun? Nope. And BushCo and their puppetmasters knew this would be the case, because they control the whole system anyway. No president is going to be impeached unless it's at their behest.

But they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys, and that means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them.

[edit on 2005-7-21 by wecomeinpeace]

Here's a bit that some of you are aware of. This is pretty mind boggling stuff. Ever hear of Michael Aquino? He is a retired Lt.Col and PSYOP Research Analysis. "Dr. Aquino is High Priest and chief executive officer of the Temple of Set, the nation's principal Satanic church, in which he holds the degree of Ipissimus VI. He joined the original Church of Satan in 1969, becoming one of its chief officials by 1975 when the Temple of Set was founded. In his secular profession he is a Lieutenant Colonel, Military Intelligence, U.S. Army, and is qualified as a Special-Forces officer, Civil Affairs officer, and Defense Attaché. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College, the National Defense University and the Defense Intelligence College, and the State Departments' Foreign Service Institute."

You can view his MindWar paper here:

www.xeper.org...

The odd part about the whole thing, is of course the methods of MindWar are waged against the populace today, but how is it that Aquino, a child molestor, who has been charged numerous times by the actual children, of child rape, gets off and has Top Secret Security clearance, and actively involved in PsYop's while doing so? This is well documented through many sources:

Throughout much of the 1980s, Aquino was at the center of a controversy involving the Pentagon's acquiescence to outright Satanic practices inside the military services. Aquino was also a prime suspect in a series of pedophile scandals involving the sexual abuse of hundreds of children, including the children of military personnel serving at the Presidio U.S. Army station in the San Francisco Bay Area. Furthermore, even as Aquino was being investigated by Army Criminal Investigation Division officers for involvement in the pedophile cases, he was retaining highest-level security clearances, and was involved in pioneering work in military psychological operations ("psy-ops").

On August 14, 1987, San Francisco police raided Aquino's Russian Hill home, which he shared with his wife Lilith. The raid was in response to allegations that the house had been the scene of a brutal rape of a four-year-old girl. The principal suspect in the rape, a Baptist minister named Gary Hambright, was indicted in September 1987 on charges that he committed "lewd and lascivious acts" with six boys and four girls, ranging in age from three to seven years, during September-October 1986. At the time of the alleged sex crimes, Hambright was employed at a child care center on the U.S. Army base at Presidio. At the time of Hambright's indictment, the San Francisco police charged that he was involved in at least 58 separate incidents of child sexual abuse.

According to an article in the October 30, 1987 San Francisco Examiner, one of the victims had identified Aquino and his wife as participants in the child rape. According to the victim, the Aquinos had filmed scenes of the child being fondled by Hambright in a bathtub. The child's description of the house, which was also the headquarters of Aquino's Satanic Temple of Set, was so detailed, that police were able to obtain a search warrant. During the raid, they confiscated 38 videotapes, photo negatives, and other evidence that the home had been the hub of a pedophile ring, operating in and around U.S. military bases.

Aquino and his wife were never indicted in the incident. Aquino claimed that he had been in Washington at the time, enrolled in a year-long reserve officers course at the National Defense University, although he did admit that he made frequent visits back to the Bay Area and to his church/home. The public flap over the Hambright indictment did prompt the U.S. Army to transfer Aquino from the Presidio, where he was the deputy director of reserve training, to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis.

On April 19, 1988, the ten-count indictment against Hambright was dropped by U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello, on the grounds that, while there was clear evidence of child abuse (six of the children contracted the venereal disease, chlamydia), there was insufficient evidence to link Hambright (or the Aquinos) to the crimes. Parents of several of the victims charged that Russoniello's actions proved that "the Federal system has broken down in not being able to protect the rights of citizens age three to eight."

Russoniello would later be implicated in efforts to cover up the links between the Nicaraguan Contras and South American coc aine-trafficking organizations, raising deeper questions about whether the decision not to prosecute Hambright and Aquino had "national security implications."
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...





[edit on 21-7-2005 by vincere7]

[edit on 21-7-2005 by vincere7]

[edit on 21-7-2005 by vincere7]

As a completely neutral source, I declare wecomeinpeace has a MUCH MUCH better argument than...anyone. My decision is unbias, and however much I want it NOT to be true, the facts lead to TYRANNY. Thank you and have a nice day.

"Im yet to see a greiving realitive of someone from the plane on TV "


I don't know where to begin with that logic. You really believe that the passenger rosters on the plane taht hit the pentagon was faked ? Would you mind if I put you in touch with one of those relatives so you can tell them their pain doesn't exist ?

seriously, will you talk to one of them ? I'm not kidding.

"Its very funny that a plane crashed in NYC only a week or so later...killing many on board.... "


yeah, we were all rolling in the aisles when we heard that


[edit on 21-7-2005 by syrinx high priest]

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
Bottom line, alot of people have way too much time on their hands thus if you look at something long enough you are bound to see what you want.

yeah like tesla, einstien, hawkings, da vinci and galileo had 'too much time on their hands'. no offense, but this meme is idiotic. 'get over it' was very effective, but the boys in the ivory tower just HAVE to come up with a better meme than, 'too much time on their hands' to combat conspiracy FACTUALISTS..

[edit on 24-7-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by NoJustice
I think catherder has abandoned his own thread.

This is what separates me from crackpots like you. I'm here to discuss freely and openly different ideas. You're here to participate in your clique and berate anyone with opinions (regardless of how valid they are) that oppose or contradict your own little myopic reality.

This isn't my own thread, this is one thread in thousands where tens of thousands of people are free to discuss whatever topic is raised.

I think your post right here did nothing to contribute to your own topic. You should look up to the word hypocrite in the dictionary. This thread is a joke in the first place there's nothing serious to debate. You lumped like 30 different items into one and ask "does it make sense" NO they don't. End of discussion, rediculous topic. You are no different then anyone here to call someone a crackpot, in fact you're worse. We're here to discuss a conspiracy on a conspiracy website. You are here yet you believe in no conspiracy theory, so you must have too much time on your hands to argue with everything on the planet you don't agree with, if this whole site is rediculous and none of these conspiracies exist why not argue with the Titor fanatics or the UFO believers? But you always go after the Government conspiracy, makes me wonder if you're convinced that you are right in your own belief that there is no conspiracy. If that's wrong and you have no open mind to a Government conspiracy then I'm sure there are Forums on CNN or FOX's website that you might can go to and your Government loving propaganda might be appreciated, but don't expect it here.




[edit on 25-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by bsbray11
If we smuggled weapons into Iraq, the UN would very likely begin an investigation. The UN knew Saddam didn't have any WMDs, and that's why it would not back our war. If we went in and found their programs in disarray, degraded since the Gulf War, and everyone telling us straight-up there was nothing there, the UN would be a little suspicious to say the least if we suddenly "found" a nice array of WMDs.

Maybe I missed something, but don't we have more contol in Iraq than we have here in our own country?

Where is the UN investigation of Abu-Ghraib? I don't see the UN doing much in Iraq. Didn't they pull out? Any investigation in Iraq would be conducted by the US army.

I agree with Catherder that it would be much easier for us to plant WMD, than it would be to sneak explosives into the WTC.

Even if there were any possibility of a UN investigation, a government that could pull off 9-11 would be able to coverup anything according to some of you out there.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I agree with Catherder that it would be much easier for us to plant WMD, than it would be to sneak explosives into the WTC.

Simply no need to go to all that trouble and risk, as was stated earlier.

Whether or not they could sneak WMD's into Iraq has absolutely no bearing on the engineering of 9-11, as was explained earlier.

That's your opinion and I disagree.

You made some good points about non-sequiter arguments, however I don't see this as one.

IMHO, I don't see why they expose themselves with all this trouble in Iraq over missing WMD if they had the power to plant them. The gains for the administration far outwiegh the risks. Something I don't agree works for the 9-11 masterminding scenario.

It seems logical to me that if you could pull something off as big as covertly imploding the twin towers, it would be easier and they could gain more by planting WMD and justifying their war.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The gains for the administration far outwiegh the risks.

I see Bush still in office. Geez, he was even re-elected even after no WMD's were found and the lies were exposed! I see Powell resigned because he didn't want to lie for the cabal anymore. I see Captain Rummy still waving his hands and talking about Iran as the next target. I see Cheney's Halliburton and Bush daddy's Carlyle still making $gazillions out of non-contested contracts in Iraq. I assume by "risk", you mean consequences. So what consequences are you talking about exactly?

It seems logical to me that if you could pull something off as big as covertly imploding the twin towers

And therein lies the crux. "Could", as opposed to "would". "Could", as opposed to "need to".

They could probably drop an old nuke warhead out of a plane onto Iranian territory and then take a picture of it as proof the Iranians want to blow us all up. They could probably do a lot of things, but the question is would they, and do they need to. There have been NO consequences, and they knew that would be the case. No need for risky adventures in WMD placement.

...it would be easier and they could gain more by planting WMD and justifying their war.

Why? The intelligence fabrication was as simple as making a few reports and convincing Powell to tell the UN. Heck, Rummy, Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz and the rest of the "crazies" - as they have been referred to in Washington since Reagan's era - have been doing it this way for years, even back with the Soviets. They've never had to answer for any of it. Did you know that the "thousands of Iraqi troops and tanks" amassed on the border with Saudi Arabia before the Gulf War were NEVER THERE? The satellite pics showed zip, zero, nada...only dust and rocks...not even a villager with an AK-47. CIA intel analysts have come forward and exposed this, but are there any consequences...? No. Check out the BBC doco "The Power of Nightmares" for more on this tried and tested neo-con modus operandi.

That's your opinion and I disagree.

It's all good.