a real investigation is taking place with every debate. Truths are being placed together like pieces of a puzzle. its crazy.

Now we could all pretty much go to town adding in the countless other incredible issues to add to the "Incredible" aspect of this thesis, but here goes an explaination that just occured to me -that I hadn't heard yet- which fits quite nicely into both the "3rd dichotomy" and the "Incredible" aspects of the thesis:

Case Point: The NORAD Drills

On 9/11 there were multiple "war game" drills taking place. The story goes that the majority of the U.S. mainlands fighter jet fleet -with the East Coast in particular- was diverted in places like Alaska, and this left very few fighters available to stop the largely successful attack operation. Moreover, many have argued that these were part of the "inside job" smokescreen to add confusion leading to faciliation of the attacks.

NORAD officials have since countered that hypothesis claiming that because so many officials were taking part in the war games, they were able to shift into a "better" "rapid resonse" "in about 30 seconds". The incredible meter is rising, as they obviously didn't do a very good job alowing the planes to fly around for roughly and hour and 40 minutes. This sure works out well for the whole "Incompetence Theory" which is basically the "Official Story".

Regardless, the 9/11 attacks did happen during these scheduled exercises. Next we'll sum up the 2 obvious dichotomies, followed by my third scenario which makes the 'incredible meter' smack the side of the display:


1: 9/11 was an inside job. The scheduling of the drills and the event ensured the attacks could largely succeed and justify NORAD's failure. Operating under the "inside job" mindset this isn't actually all that incredible.

2: 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It was all coincidence, incompetence and bad luck on on NORAD's part. Very lucky on Al Qaeda's part. Going by this assumption and reasoning, one could even begin to argue that Allah helped facilitate the attacks. That's begging to dive into incredible territory, by all means, which leads us to the third scenario...

3: The attacks weren't an inside job, but "Al Qaeda" had an inside source that told them when to attack, while the U.S. air defenses were depleted.

Here we'll operate under the assumption that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and that these drills would have been "Classified" "Top Secret" as they'd weaken our defenses. If you'd like to argue that they weren't hush hush, it only makes the Incompetence/Coincidence Theory that much more incredible, especially since there were so many terror warnings all summer long leading up to the event.

There's only one problem: Where is this "mole"? What happened to this person. Since no Al Qaeda moles were ever captured, this is troubling. Even more so because there have been many criticisms for nobody facing any form of reprimand for their "incompetence", yet not a single case has been mentioned. In fact, quite a few people who were responsible for the facilitation of the 9/11 attacks -whether witting or unwitting- are known to have been promoted afterwards. The list which includes at least one person from virtually every governmental department we would have expected to protect us, includes Gen. Richard Myers who is a former Air Force general and was the Vice Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff at the time. He was promoted to Chairman on October 1st, 2001, and later claimed "It's never been about getting Osama".

Considering the latter, and the fact that the so-called mole was never apprehended, this is very incredible. So incredible, in fact, that it really begs the question of who this mole really was and who were they operating for? Or are we to believe that our "clumbsy" government didn't even bother looking on the inside of the defense establishment for Al Qaeda operatives? It doens't seem they'd be too hard to find, especially not with all of the billions of dollars in defense budget increases.

Surely they found it striking that the attacks happened during their exercises. Maybe they did look for insider Al Qaeda operatives, but didnt find any because there were none. But this doesn't mean that there weren't still mole insiders involved, but that would mean they were actual "Insiders" following the "Inside Job" mindset. Since the official context is always "of course it wasn't an inside job, what are you crazy", perhaps the truly good intentioned investigators were blinded by patriotism while looking in the wrong places.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

wow. thats incredible alright. I have mentioned it here (scenario 2, we just messed up really bad) and presented it for a vote, i.e. inside job or we dropped the ball badly. amazingly no OCT's had anything to say.

the third possibility raises an eyebrow for me, isn't there a missing nuke (or 6) scandal right now and a pre-war with Iran? that would be a gold mine for a mole.

Originally posted by earth2
I have a grandfather that I tried to talk to about 9/11.
OMG not a good idea. That man loves Bush and what bush says is the law.
And man did he get mad at me.

There are 100million other people in america just like him. Tell me how to get through to him and make him see the truth and you will convince the world.

He doesnt believe anything you tell him or show him no matter how proof positive. He only believes Bush the "christian".

His anger is a defence mechanism, he does not want to believe you. start by breaking down his core defence his inner identification with Bush. Specifically the assumption that Bush is a Christian. You must first seperate his identification so the attack on Bush's credibility will not be associated with previous attacks he has heard on his Christianity.

First show the obvious contridictions and lies of Bush. This is the strongest information and hardest for desire to overcome. Then go through Bush's obvious actions that are not in the Teachings of Christ, poverty, kindness, mercy, humility.

After that I suggest Skull and Bones clips showing occult ritual, and Bohemian Grove film by Alex jones. Before showing these explain how the fact that Bush is just not living up to the teachings of Christ and that as a good christian you would like to point those things out.

These should be followed by examples to anchor that bush is not part of his group, specifically associate him with groups you know he does not approve of. Elitism is a very good example for this, especially with the hard working older class of people. Bush's lack of self sacrifice in the war. Things like "you volunteered and served yet he did not, we know that to be true." Also avoid any indication that you are just supporting Hillary or other groups that he has strong dislike of, (justified in my view). Avoid an either or, or lesser of evils argument. Have an example like Ron Paul to show him, examples that fits his core beliefs that Bush only fakes.

During this you must watch this secondary defence ego/guilt. This will turn him to defend the issues because of denial of the possiblity that he has been fooled, ego, and that his prior support of Bush makes him partly responsible, guilt. Try to emphasis that he was good and right supporting Bush, his trust and support of a persumed fellow Christian, was an honarable thing to do. Then move in with "things have changed" this frees him from having to feel he made any mistakes, because they were the right thing with what we all knew then. Frame past Bush support as good, but current support is not. He should make concesions of this possibilty. At that time follow this with positive reinforcement and build on that to eliminate ego/guilt trap. If the reinforcement is obvious it will backfire, keep it honest and simple, not from a possition that you were right, just, mildly, highlight the parts of your grandfather that you truthfully respect. A story of some past knowledge he shared with you might work. But not in a this time I am right way. He his your grandfather, he will want to be the one teaching and showing you the truths of the world not the other way around, reinforce the past ways he has done this. Some of these things even got me to start looking into Bush.

Basically break Identification, and give an alternate 'out' for feelings of being wrong. If you succeed at this he may be willing to listen to new information, without first overcoming these hurdles nothing you say or show him will be processed by his thinking mind.

Finally the whole time remember all he has heard is good things about Bush, he is actually correct in his oppinon of Bush from his information set, you must be add information to his experiance before making any claims of who Bush is. You are wrong about Bush until he hears the things about Bush like elitism occultism and falseism.


[edit on 22-9-2007 by Redge777]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And to even make matters worse, the government is actually denying that the E4-B was even in the air that day. All they had to do was admit "yes, it was part of Global Guardian". Done. End of story for all the "OCT" supporters out there. But, no, they just had to go and deny it knowing that it's clear and plain as day that the plane was in fact there. Lastly, assuming it wa spart of the operation then what is it doing in plain view, unless it wan meant to be seen ala intentional diversionary disinfo hypothesis.


That's some direct disinfo if I've ever seen any.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Great video! There is clearly nothing to really hide. It was there, we all know. A general will grumble that CNN is revealing secrets, etc. but they'll let it slide since it's all part of the set-up and well-enough documented anyway.

Now, the reason they ain't talking is rules and regulations. So it seems legit, and we can't prove it's disinfo any better than we can prove the E4B was running things. But it is an interesting set-up, whether by design or not. And they do lve the secrecy and mystery, especially at the Pentagon.

For Hamilton to dismiss a high-tech military plane in the air over the capital during the 9/11 attacks, presumably as part of Global Guardian, another coincidental war game like the others they ignored, as insignificant... he disregarded it for some reason but that ain't it.

Too late to tackle the other new point...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


For the last post, the problem comes when people percieve that certain individuals represent a certain social group, and then the observer who decides they like that group falls into the thinking of the supposed group representitive.

Then comes movies like Loose Change, which focus on the most debatable issues, and that's about it. The items may still deserve certain merit, but there are far too many issues with 9/11 that arent up for debate (actionable consensus) and are copletely forgotten about while everyone tries to figure out things that basicaly cant be figured out / proven. The concrete issues deserve their own thread, but since these other issues are front and center I had to address them.

The most important thing to remember (by both sides) is that debunking the "LC arguments" doesn't disprove the existence of a conspiracy. All they had to do was consciously allow it to happen, case closed, line up the firing squad on national TV.

My concern is because we NEED a REAL investigation, and so far getting one isn't going good, meanwhile most people that are aware of the subject at all are caught up in the same diversionary issues.

This is the best post I've read in a long time. I basically sums up everything thats wrong with people arguing over 9/11 and how stupid a lot of people can be when doing so. This should be a sticky. Im sick of reading morons say how CTs are nutts, when the facts DO NOT support the official explanation. (i do agree though that some theories dont have much to stand on...but id you look at the science and expert testimony, its stops becoming a matter of 'belief' but rather 'acceptance'- which is where you either show your bias and ignorance or lack of)

Originally posted by Redge777
I would say it is so obvious why didn't I see it. I figured I didn't want to see it. That upset me since it makes all my opinions invalid, they are just what I want to believe not what I think.

Sadly I still catch myself doing this, when I feel that "look for a falsehood" while reading sites that debunk 9/11 truthers sites I know I do this, so I fight the guardian of my opinion and read on.

Right. It's all brilliantly designed to fuel the ideas of the would-be "Conspiracy Theorist", while giving the "Skeptics" all the Occam's Razor they coul dever need to stay stuck in their shells.


This is an older thread. It's been eons since I've had much time to think about 9/11 or even keep up on anything new. If you more illuminated ones can add case points to my original set that'd be fantastic. It would make a great documentary, which focuses on all the indicators that they deliberately fueled the fire in this manner, and also focusing on all the clear and obvious disinfo to make it impossibly confusing and the COINTELPRO type "No Planes Movement" etc.