Insanely Incredible Issues as Proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy

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]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Excellent thought pattern, the incompetency theory even has holes in it. The war games coincidence was and is hard for me to buy into, especially when you later say "we had know idea something like this could happen".

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 jprophet420
amazingly no OCT's had anything to say.

Too funny.





Here goes another choice that I somehow didn't take much note of when it was still fresh:
9/11 mystery jet stirs conspiracy theories
Air Force E-4B
www.cnn.com



Add that to the Pentagon "Case Point".

This would fall under the "Intentional Disinfo" aspect I presented.

Recall the Pentagon portions I mentioned, and how it would almost seem that they've been handling it in a way to almost ensure that people fall into a diversonary trap:

"They" intentionally add fuel to the fire by doing things like withholding the footage from numerous security cameras at the Pentagon that would show us what hit it, while releasing the worst possible images that only spawn more questions and controversy to add fuel to the fire which is keeping scores of researchers diverted from getting to the concrete issues.

Now, on 9/12/07 all the sudden CNN not only airs a piece like the "Doomsday Plane", but they even entertain the conspiracy theorist view in unprecidented format. The fact that CNN even aired it and gave the CT view 'serious' consideration smells like a foul to me. What better way to get everybody wound up into Pentagon missile/remote-control-drone fervor once again. I'd be surprised if the "TV Fakery" people aren't already using this to turn up the holographic plane contrast in promoting their disinfo-discredit psyop campaign.

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]

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]

In additon to the E4-B bit above that I pointed out earlier tonight, I just remembered a key segment that I meant to include in the OP way back when:

CASE POINT: The WTC Collapses

Item of Interest: The Explosive Audio Collapse - "Return to Ground Zero"



With this case we have 2 or more versions floating around of a particular tape. One has very clear and present audible explosions all during the collapse, the other doesn't. The one lacking apparently floated around the net for a while before the audible tape surfaced. One might assume a few dismissive things about that until the source comes into queston:

"Return to Ground Zero" - You can see the specific clip at about the 4:40 mark.
NINEMSN, which is a joint venture between Microsoft and "PBL Media" out of Australia, aired "Return to Ground Zero" last year for the 9/11 anniversary. Apparently it was aired on national TV there over the "NINENetwork".
www.pbl.com.au...
en.wikipedia.org...

And it amazingly has a 60 Minutes logo inside the title box and the 60 Minutes stop watch clip at the very end. No credits. The old link had "sixtyminutes" where you'd expect www, but it isn't working now. Earlier this year that's the one I posted and you can go thru the thread and verify that there wasn't any question with functionality the link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here you can verify at Archve.org that it existed in "sixtyminutes" format:
sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au..." target="_blank" class="postlink">LINK
Scratch that, the recent functioning transcript page still has the "sixtyminutes" prefix:
sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au...
It's a 60 Minutes production.

I'm not sure were else it's been played.

This clip recieved extended discusion a while back in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Someone claimed that "Paul Bremmer" was the one who shot the clip but with some personal account of his son knowing Paul or whatever.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But he couldn't answer my challenge on finding a statement to verify who recorded it and if that's the proper audio. I didn't manage to find an email for the guy. But it really doesn't matter:

We're forced to take the "Return to Ground Zero" clip seriously. There's only 2 ways to spin this one, that I can figure, and each just so happen to fall into our 2 main categories:

So what we have:
1: NINEMSN/Microsoft/JBL Media/60 Minutes are in on the conspiracy to put out fake audio cuts to generate conspiracy theories (diversionary disinfo).

2: The audio is real and you all know what that means. Moreover, it means that the media networks who aired it, before this new tape surfaced, engaged in intentional coverup.

It don't get much more incredible than that. In fact it basically smashes the rhetorical paradigm I set out for in this alternative thesis.



Any arguments?

[edit on 22-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

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...

reply to post by Redge777


Tactfully thought out Redge, months ago I tried to engage my father in some discussion about 911 and he was very skepticle for this same reason, that Bush is someone you can trust. When I used elements of your approach, not placing blame on anyone or talking about CDs or vanishing aircraft, but consentrating on the prior knowledge and stonewalled investigations aspects, he actually has started to listen and engage me in what I've found out when we visit.

Understanding the feelings of the older generations has always been difficult for the generations that follow, and visa-versa. If mankind could find away to break down this "I know whats going on and you don't" thing, we might be able to save ourselves one day.

It turns out that NORAD didn't keep it a secret that they were conducting a drill during 9/11 that would weaken air D:

September 9, 2001

NORAD Maintains Northern Vigilance

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AFS, Colo. – The North American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean.

“NORAD is the eyes and ears of North America and it is our mission to ensure that our air sovereignty is maintained,” said Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of NORAD. “Although it is highly unlikely that Russian aircraft would purposely violate Canadian or American airspace, our mission of vigilance must be sustained.”

NORAD-allocated forces will remain in place until the end of the Russian exercise.

Use the Wayback Machine to pull up the dead link:
www.norad.mil...
www.archive.org...

I guess I'll have to rethink that point, but to say the least it's still pretty incredible that they'd release such info with the endless warnings they were taking in during the leadup months.

reply to post by infinityoreilly


I realized some of these things when I learned new information. 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. Then proclaim them bs

all joking aside, it has also shown me a funny thing, the thing the debunkers do is what they accuse the CT's of doing, they look for something that might explain their point of view and can't be disproven because you would have to disprove a negative, they latch on and suddenly because wall board has sulfer in it, the nodules of liquid metal with thermate signature sulfur got there sulfer from there. Total breakdown of logic. or did I just do it again

I heard a creationist say dinousaurs were on the ark. Why? it is the only model that fits his beliefs. I heard a NIST official say their was no heat from below the pile during clean up. Why? it would force him to discard his current beliefs.

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.

It's too bad the 9/11 No Planer disinfo hit squad, and the general CT unwillingness to stick to "Actionable Consensus" topics, both killed the 9/11 Truth movement dead.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss You mean the 9/11 Reality team right? Not a "noplaner disinfo hit squad"

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Riiight... That's right....... When the CGI planes hit the towers they were shot with space beams while suitcase micronukes went off inside.... thus "sublimating" cars and the like. How could I forget that's precisely how it happened doh!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Well, if you want to live in such silliness you can, I will stick with reality. On a cursory look, you seem to have the extremely mistaken belief that NORAD had hundreds of combat ready fighters that were sent away from their normal duties to partake in exercises. In reality, the US Air Force, had exactly FOURTEEN fighters on alert status that day, the NORMAL number. Every one of them, were sitting in their alert barns that day, and ALL of the ones for the northeast quadrant launched.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

"Everybody" knows that. But I fail to see the point of you bringing it up...

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

"Everybody" knows that. But I fail to see the point of you bringing it up...

It just illustrates a failure for people (like you) to understand that even when there are drills going on, the "real life" procedures are still in place. No one stood down, no one was unable to respond due to lack of equipment or readiness. The next most often claim is, "NORAD intercepts within 15 minutes"...not even close to reality anymore. Even TODAY, it takes a MINIMUM of 30 to 45 minutes on average to intercept an aircraft.

So, yes, when someone takes a look at the actual evidence and reality of the day, it is easy to dismiss the 9-11 "truth" movement.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

It was forever ago when I wrote the OP, but does any of this specifically answer anything about my OP????