The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

reply to post by BlueRaja


The fact that the PNAC documentation was even thought of proves all your statements wrong. Even if not carried out. THEY STILL THOUGHT ABOUT IT. And thought it was a good idea to document it by writing it down.

How blatantly obvious does it have to be?


[edit on 3/13/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Being in the military and being around sensitive info, I know that I have access to info that I "need" to know, and don't have access that I "don't need" to know. I don't feel that because I don't know everything, that something is wrong or suspicious. You don't know why info is being withheld, but that doesn't mean that it is being withheld for nefarious reasons. I'm okay with keeping info secret for security reasons, and you apparently are not, and that's where we're at.

reply to post by Griff


How stupid would they have to be to write down plans to attack America, and then do it? It doesn't make sense to me to try to use some PNAC document to prove anything. It was merely common sense being spoken- when something huge happens, people put aside their differences. That is not evidence of wrong doing on the part of the government.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The towers came down, so they tried to figure out why, and how.

They didn't try and figure several scenarios that could have fit the observed data and phenomenon.

How is this coming to a conclusion before the facts are in.

Because they ignored a bunch of data. Like eyewitnesses saying explosions (even if transformers...wouldn't that have affected some of the structure...making it weaker and therefore easier to collapse?), molten metal, the documented FEMA corrosion of the steel where they state it could have happened pre-collapse.

The facts already existed- the WTC collapsed after being hit by planes.

Well, as a structural engineer, this isn't enough for me. Sorry that it is for you.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Please tell me what about 9/11 would be held for "security reasons".

Shipping the steel away? The construction documentation of buildings no longer existing? Video of the day?

I'm really trying to find the "security" in not disclosing these things.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
That is not evidence of wrong doing on the part of the government.

But, it IS evidence of the way they think and do things behind closed doors. Manipulating things. If you trust them so much, so be it. They have shown their nefarious ways to me by writing down their thoughts of killing innocent people of their own country.

Again, I feel sorry for people who blindly think everything is all fuzzy bunnies in the world when it comes to our government.

reply to post by Griff


Bill Kristol isn't in the government is he? Or is he in the shadow government?

reply to post by Griff


What info might be withheld- weaknesses or vulnerabilities in our intel or defense capabilities comes to mind.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Griff

 

Being in the military and being around sensitive info, I know that I have access to info that I "need" to know, and don't have access that I "don't need" to know. I don't feel that because I don't know everything, that something is wrong or suspicious. You don't know why info is being withheld, but that doesn't mean that it is being withheld for nefarious reasons. I'm okay with keeping info secret for security reasons, and you apparently are not, and that's where we're at.

Yeah, me too. Except I also know that standards for the classification of 'facts' are subject to political influence and, having said that, compartmentalization of classified information (need to know) and restricting information to certain 'channels' very often has little to nothing to do with 'security reasons.' I have spent a long time in the business (from cold war to Desert Storm) and I can definitely tell you secrets are not always kept for reasons that translate into national security.

I can't guess at how you can possibly conform to the ideology of 'I guess I didn't need to know.' when you must have been indoctrinated in the hitory of all the abuses that have taken place. Unfortunately the political apointee system has ensured that 'contractors' and the like are deciding what you should know. I know I couldn't.

reply to post by Maxmars


That still isn't evidence of guilt or wrong doing though. Even if info is withheld because it's embarassing, doesn't mean that treachery was involved.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Bill Kristol isn't in the government is he? Or is he in the shadow government?

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952 in New York City) is an American Republican pundit, analyst and strategist. He is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the founders of the neoconservative movement, and Gertrude Himmelfarb, a scholar of Victorian era literature.

In 1997, Kristol and Robert Kagan cofounded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Kristol is a member of the board of trustees for the think tank Manhattan Institute. Kristol is also a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the neoconservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kristol has also been an attendee at Bilderberg Group conferences.

en.wikipedia.org...

While many think tanks are funded by governments, interest groups, or businesses, some think tanks also derive income from consulting or research work related to their mandate.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

I wonder who funds PNAC?

reply to post by Griff


So he is in the shadow government then?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
So he is in the shadow government then?

What, you don't think it exists? Curious. With everything that we do know what our shadow government has done and all.

Did we need an excuse to depose Noriega in Panama? We deployed MORE troops in Panama, flew MORE sortees in Panama-- all WITHOUT U.N sanctions or approval. Where was the crazy-eyed false flag for that? There was none-- Why? Because it is not neccessary--AT ALL.

Taxi-Driver - we hear that argument time and again from the deniers - 9/11 couldn't have been a false flag event because some other occurrence wasn't. Not only is it illogical but the occurrence cited (terrorist event/military operation) usually did involve false flag activity.
The U.S. invasion of Panama was no exception. The Academy Award winning documentary The Panama Deception covers this pretty well.

I'm also dumping this thread because, as others have noted, it is so obviously not aimed at understanding anything, let alone 9/11.

The only value I saw in it was the OPs assertion that 1000 journalists were invited to the European Parliament's 9/11 Independent Commission of Enquiry and not a single one turned up. If this is true it is quite remarkable indeed. I've worked for years with journalists and know how hungry they are for copy. It's not difficult to drum up a news crew for some quite mundane event and they'll descend uninvited like flies on anything vaguely controversial that might fill a few column inches or a 30 second gap in the schedule. An Italian MEP and a member of the Japanese parliament discussing whether the U.S was complicit in 9/11 in the European Parliament. 1000 journalists knew about it. Not one attended. jthomas says it was because they weren't interested.

Maybe someone's dumb enough to believe that, but I doubt jthomas is.




[edit on 13-3-2008 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by Griff


I believe there are interest groups that have more or less influence on policy decisions. I don't believe there is some elite group of individuals that decide who will be president, or that elected officials have to ask persmission from before acting. I wouldn't call it a shadow government.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I believe there are interest groups that have more or less influence on policy decisions.

I wouldn't call it a shadow government.

You say tomAto. I say tomato.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Much less because you declare it has to, against all reason.

How about the fact that our tax paying dollars went into funding the "investigation"? We damn well do deserve it.

An "investigation" is not a court case. The government does NOT have to "prove" anything in conducting an investigation. Do you understand the difference?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
There is no better example of people trying to reverse engineer a theory to fit their predetermined conclusion. And this is simply not how logic or science works.

No. It's more like we know that the reverse engineered official story is flawed and we are trying to fill in the gaps.

What "official story"?

Originally posted by jthomas
An "investigation" is not a court case. The government does NOT have to "prove" anything in conducting an investigation. Do you understand the difference?

Since they don't have to prove anything, how can they state what happened? With any certainty?

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by jthomas

 

Your point is well taken, the same argument applies to many topics like UFOs or Bigfoot, Ghosts, the JFK assassination, etc. But I felt that this event was somewhat different since there was so much physical evidence and yes, lot's of anecdotal evidence too.

There must be a way to collect and present the 'issues' of this event without waxing fanatical or offending those who are as steadfastly dead set against the possibility of collusion or conspiracy. I have always felt that such 'outlandish' theories usually contain at least some truth. Or do you believe that if you can't prove something with a written confession or a government certified document it just isn't so?

The burden of proof rests on 9/11 Truthers to support their own claims and refute the evidence against them.

The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Neither, under the rule of law, does the government, or anyone, have to "prove" it is "innocent" of anything just because it is "accused".