9/11 Cover Is Blown - The New Evidence

Originally posted by Zerbst

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what technology they may have to bring those towers down. If your guess was actually educated, and honest, the probability they possess technology far advanced what is public knowledge is hard to argue. Besides, there is evidence of workers having access to inner structure prior to 911.

So to support your hypothetical conspiracy scenario you're now hypothesizing that previously unknown super explosives were used...? You do know that's circular logic, right?

FYI the gov't doesn't really invent anything. They go to companies that make the stuff they're looking for and THEY invent it. Space probes are made by CalTech, M4 rifles are made by Colt, and helicopters are made by Sikorsky. So, who makes super explosives?

None of that matters anyway. You're trying to claim this single event impossible by a government that has done equal deeds in the past?

Not at all, actually. I'm arguing that a gov't who can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels is simply incapable of successfully pulling off such an insanely convoluted and intricate conspiracy involving hijacked planes, controlled demolitions, and hordes of disinformation agents, with the sheer perfection of an act of god, like the way you're describing. More so, since they only wound up slipping on banana peels during every OTHER "equal deed in the past" (Cambodian Bombing, Watergate, Iran-Contra, outing that CIA agent, etc)

So to support your hypothetical conspiracy scenario you're now hypothesizing that previously unknown super explosives were used...? You do know that's circular logic, right?

Do you mean like when you create a computer simulation to explain the initiation of the collapse and it doesn't work, so you hypothesize new numbers instead? Like that?

Originally posted by jprophet420

So to support your hypothetical conspiracy scenario you're now hypothesizing that previously unknown super explosives were used...? You do know that's circular logic, right?

Do you mean like when you create a computer simulation to explain the initiation of the collapse and it doesn't work, so you hypothesize new numbers instead? Like that?

Or to explain the seemingly lack of debris from a plane that just crashed, say it buried itself.

Or the best yet... if you don`t want a commission to find out the truth, don`t let those attend whom would expose it.

This report - The Report from Iron Mountain -I believe is called a hoax by those who want it exposed but wish to keep their involvement hidden - You obviously accept the hoax version. I do not - I will refrain from name calling. The report exposes the hidden political functions of war. It is worth reading since it agrees with Orwell's premise in 1984: Social stability brought about through war really means keeping the low's in poverty and the high's in power...forever.

Griffin (Creature from Jekyll Island) states: This report was commissioned by people who are in charge - it is the brainchild of the CFR...All one has to do is hold the report in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every major trend in American life is conforming to the recommendations of the report... So many things become clear - foreign aid, wasteful spending, destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, a world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties, and the ecology hysteria.. The Report from Iron Mnt. has already created our present. It is now shaping our future.

A Hoax? - No. Rather an uncovering by those who do not want to take credit for what is the agenda of the shadow govt.

reply to post by thedman

This report - The Report from Iron Mountain -I believe is called a hoax by those who want it exposed but wish to keep their involvement hidden - You obviously accept the hoax version. I do not - I will refrain from name calling. The report exposes the hidden political functions of war. It is worth reading since it agrees with Orwell's premise in 1984: Social stability brought about through war really means keeping the low's in poverty and the high's in power...forever.

Griffin (Creature from Jekyll Island) states: This report was commissioned by people who are in charge - it is the brainchild of the CFR...All one has to do is hold the report in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every major trend in American life is conforming to the recommendations of the report... So many things become clear - foreign aid, wasteful spending, destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, a world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties, and the ecology hysteria.. The Report from Iron Mnt. has already created our present. It is now shaping our future.

A Hoax? - No. Rather an uncovering by those who do not want to take credit for what is the agenda of the shadow govt.

Originally posted by visitor-mc

This report - The Report from Iron Mountain -I believe is called a hoax by those who want it exposed but wish to keep their involvement hidden - You obviously accept the hoax version.

And of course you know about the book than the man who wrote it, Leonard C. Lewin, and it's pub;isher. For those of the day seeing the growing popularity of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it was a satirical response.

But like with UFO reports, no Conspiracist stories ever die, even when proven false a hundred times from a hundred sources. Why bother with things like facts and the truth when a good fairy tale is more entertaining.

(Of course I could be an agent of the NWO)


Mike

www.silverbearcafe.com...

How the Hoax Began:

In 1967 the Cold War was still a major factor in U.S. foreign policy, the body bags from Vietnam were beginning to pile up, several major American cities were sites of bloody race riots, and theories about the Kennedy assassination continued to abound. And in that year too, a respected mainstream publisher, The Dial Press (whose list included such prestigious writers as James Baldwin, Norman Mailer, and Richard Condon) released Report From Iron Mountain. Purportedly, the book was a suppressed, secret government report written by a commission of eminent scholars investigating and determining the nature of the problems that would confront the United States if and when a condition of "permanent peace" should arrive, and proposing recommendations to deal with that contingency.

Lewin imagined some shocking conclusions: lasting peace, while not theoretically impossible, was probably unattainable; even if peace could be achieved it almost certainly would not be in the best interests of a stable society to achieve it, for war fills certain essential and basic social, cultural, and economic functions; until other ways of filling these functions were developed, the war system must be maintained-and improved in effectiveness.

With a dispassionate logic that led to a "value free" rationalism, Lewin then went on to propose a number of possible substitutes for the essential controls provided by war. In cold, think-tank jargon he explored such "unthinkables" as: the creation of a giant space-research program aimed at unreachable targets (economic control); creation of "alternate enemies," such as deliberately engineered massive environmental pollution of a contrived extraterrestrial threat (political control); the institution of modern sophisticated forms of slavery (whose first step might be a National Service Program), socially acceptable "blood games" modeled after witch hunts, and organized repression of minority groups (social control); birth control drugs added to food and water supply and universal test-tube procreation (ecological control).


The Inspiration:

The inspiration for this incredible piece of satire was a short New York Times item about how the stock market had tumbled because of what the headline called a "Peace Scare. " The hoaxers' target, according to Lewin, was "the military-supported think tanks whose pseudoscientific assertions were taken quite seriously by people in the defense department and military industries.... Another objective of the book was to serve as a warning that a transition from a war economy to a peace economy would not be easy, a point that appears all the more pertinent today."


The Reception:

The 1967 edition of Report From Iron Mountain was the most talked about book of the year. A number of people, including some prominent intellectuals, believed the Report was authentic. Many others, including most book reviewers, labeled it satire. John Kenneth Galbraith's review of the book written under the pseudonym "Herschel McLandress" appeared in the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. The book was variously described by reviewers as "a harmless subterfuge," "a hair-raising analysis," "the sinister work of a sick mind," and "a serious fraud." As a work of social and political commentary, it has been compared to Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and "Dr. Strangelove."

In 1972 after the book had been translated into 15 languages, Lewin publicly admitted the hoax, and by 1980 the book was out of print, the controversy all but forgotten by the mainstream press and public. Until...


Today:

In what may be one of the most bizarre twists of political satire, Lewin discovered that bootleg editions of his book were being distributed to members of the ultraright-wing militia movement who claimed it was an authentic government document and, therefore, in public domain. The back cover copy of the bootleg edition maintains Lewin's claim of authorship "was just another move in a deception game played with exceptional cunning and skill." Lewin sued for copyright infringement and the bootleg copies were turned over to Lewin. However, as a May, 1995, front-page article in the Wall Street Journal stated, extreme-right fringe groups continue to quote Report From Iron Mountain as "proof of a secret government plot to suppress personal liberties and usher in a New World Order dominated by the U.N."

Mike

Originally posted by hgfbob
S&F

and the stuff just keeps on coming

I do feel sorry for the ones in this country who are totally clueless about ANYTHING related to 9-11, (there are millions)...they are going to feel 'SO' betrayed, (and pissed off), AFTER they get over the SHOCK of realization.

Hopefully the social upheaval that comes with the mass realization of this information doesn't make the situation even more violent and worse.

Originally posted by evergreenvt
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Let's take the facts as you allege and, for once, look at the practical aspects. How many people, working full time, for at least six months, were involved in the conspiracy to weaken and demolish the World Trade Center complex? 500? 1,000? 2,000?

Wow, blah blah blah is all I feel is coming next but let's see -

Of those, say, 500 people, NO ONE changed his mind. NO ONE kept a diary of any kind. NO ONE breathed a word about the conspiracy to a loved one or family member, and NO ONE was tempted to warn anyone working in the complex.

NO ONE had a drinking problem and let something slip in a Jersey City tavern. NO ONE was being investigated or followed on any unrelated family court or blah blah blah

I was right. You spent all that time, writing all of that to make a point and it is all based on your ASSUMPTION of 500 people. You just picked a number and then spent all that time telling us why that number makes it impossible to be an inside job.

I would have given your spiel a chance if it did not begin with a guess, an assumption, a number you just picked out of thin air.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Zerbst

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what technology they may have to bring those towers down. If your guess was actually educated, and honest, the probability they possess technology far advanced what is public knowledge is hard to argue. Besides, there is evidence of workers having access to inner structure prior to 911.

So to support your hypothetical conspiracy scenario you're now hypothesizing that previously unknown super explosives were used...? You do know that's circular logic, right?

FYI the gov't doesn't really invent anything. They go to companies that make the stuff they're looking for and THEY invent it. Space probes are made by CalTech, M4 rifles are made by Colt, and helicopters are made by Sikorsky. So, who makes super explosives?

None of that matters anyway. You're trying to claim this single event impossible by a government that has done equal deeds in the past?

Not at all, actually. I'm arguing that a gov't who can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels is simply incapable of successfully pulling off such an insanely convoluted and intricate conspiracy involving hijacked planes, controlled demolitions, and hordes of disinformation agents, with the sheer perfection of an act of god, like the way you're describing. More so, since they only wound up slipping on banana peels during every OTHER "equal deed in the past" (Cambodian Bombing, Watergate, Iran-Contra, outing that CIA agent, etc)

Why don't we make this real simple for you?

Why would anybody deny the truth? All some people are asking for is the truth, what motivates you to oppose this? They certainly could have had a thorough investigation originally that left out any doubt? They bothered to gather a puppet commission to appear to investigate it, why not really do it? You can't say that you respect the findings of the 911 Commission or the NIST Report and expect me to take you seriously?

You claim you cannot accept hypothetical theorizing, but you argue in support of theirs? Their theory is fine with you even though they; 1) had undeniable motive; 2) exclusively used this event to initiate that motive; 3) prevented real investigation; 4) financially benefited from multiple aspects of the event? And yours is the rational voice of sanity?

The truth stands against any and all scrutiny. There is no need to protect it. Only shame and degeneracy need darkness. Which are you? Do you know?

Peace.

2 billion dollar bribe from BAE to Prince Bandar helped pay for Mujahadeen, 911 and more

18 countries requested for England to be put on the terrorist sponsor list

implicates M. Thatcher and T. Blair and Obama!

gives the direct path for official investigation!!

Larouche radio interview at 7:15 am on Sept. 11/2001 "consider who sent, who created Osama Bin Laden. Who protected him"

larouchepac.com...

and its not a previously unknown super explosive.. Active thermitic material (yes thermite) was found in the WTC dust.. LOADS of it!!

its proven: www.youtube.com...

and they DID slip on a banana peel! their cover up attempts were pathetic, 1/3 people know the truth! 100 witnesses have so far 'died' since that day.. the national archives have HARD evidence! check the video at the beginning of this post!! the 9/11 commission was 'set up to fail'!

the former president of Italy Cossiga said 'it is common knowledge amongst intelligence agencies that 911 was an inside job' not a direct quote but almost

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I'm more inclined to believe my student's brother-in-law who actually worked IN security. Someone who worked at the WTC wouldn't have as much access or observation as someone who works in security.

I don't doubt that extra dogs were brought in, but there were no bomb-sniffing dogs at all one day the week before 9/11. (Was Sirius a bomb-sniffing dog? Or trained in something else?)

I believe this was an inside job and it was planned well before Bush was in office.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Nivcharah]

Originally posted by Nivcharah


I'm more inclined to believe my student's brother-in-law who actually worked IN security. Someone who worked at the WTC wouldn't have as much access or observation as someone who works in security.

He WAS in security.

And he says different.

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Another thing ppl forget about Mr. Ventura, he was a Navy Seal.

Not just any Seal either, but Underwater Demolition Team.

So Jesse went to school on how to blow stuff up, so to speak.

Having worked around some Seals while I was in, I respected
all the ones I came across, though some were a bit wild.

PO3 Janos was UDT/SEAL but his experiences were limited. This does not make him an expert of any sort other than his basic training in demolitions. He was not a team leader and only "followed orders." He did do well on the base football team, however.

FYI, all SEALS are UDT. The originals were selected from the UDT teams. BUDS is all about it and it's true that the young ones are sometimes wild because they believe their own PR. This is true of any elite force.
SEALs are really good at what they do and having a perimeter of SEALs makes one feel safe and warm.

Originally posted by WinstonSmith911
and its not a previously unknown super explosive.. Active thermitic material (yes thermite) was found in the WTC dust.. LOADS of it!!

its proven: www.youtube.com...

It is not proven. It is speculation based on bad science. What is claimed to be paint-on thermite is paint-on paint. Jones is a disinfo agent.

Originally posted by Seventh
Or to explain the seemingly lack of debris from a plane that just crashed, say it buried itself.

The simple things are the best tools to wake people up...

People are too lazy to do the math and figure out that the official report is scientifically physically impossible...

But this is much simpler...

Show me a picture of a plane in shanksville or at the pentagon...

Not one single picture???

NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTO IN THIS DIGITAL MODERN WORLD?????



[edit on 27-7-2009 by Jezus]

Originally posted by Victoria 1
If 9/11 was a consperacy don't you know how many people would have had to cover everything up. There would be 100's and possibly 1,000's of people all keeping a secret. Don't you think that would have came out? Don't you think the media would jump on this, they hate Bush and would do anything to make him look bad.

Looking bad has nothing to do with it. Bush would want to look bad to have a good cover story to go with his Teflon flank covers.
The best way to keep a secret is to tell everyone the lies you want told. That way, the disinformation gets out first. The continuation of that secret is to never let those that participated know the extent in which they participated. Your government calls this leaderless conflict or sleeper cells (remember disinfo out first). If you are in the US and you can afford to go, get to The SPY MUSEUM in Washington, DC - boy what an eye opener. That way you can see treason from the inception - instead of media perception that is. Also if you really think the media is hot to get the government, then you know very little, if anything about The FCC. It is possible that you were watching MTV in 1994 when this happened - It is called The Conspiracy of Silence - when the FCC and Congress pressured The Discovery Channel to remove a documentary which points to a very large child sex scandal involving the White House, some Congressmen/Senators and possibly DIPLOMATS. It is called 'Conspiracy of Silence - Illuminati Pedophiles in Washington, DC.' I'm sure you will be happy to know that in the end that a black man did go to jail for the entire affair. Just use your favorite search engine and get back to me on that theory of non-existence of conspiracy as soon as possible, OK?

[edit on 27-7-2009 by DaWhiz]

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
reply to post by Zerbst

 

Star for you my friend, excellent post!

Posts like yours deserve a thread of their own otherwise they get missed or skimmed over and forgotten. People need to think about about the big, big picture because it puts everything into perspective.

Thank you, Mark_Amy!

To argue this event by dissecting every individual detail is only causing confusion? It is also ignoring that obvious gut feeling of suspicion? There's no need to complicate it, just keep it simple. They possess the resources and ability to explain every detail of this event. Refusal to expose this truth can only imply guilt? Sabotaging evidence relating to this truth can only imply guilt? Creating false investigations, phony reports and directly lying about this truth can only imply guilt? Makes no difference what side you're on, these are easily provable facts that cannot be debated. This alone is enough to sway, even the hardcore deniers, towards government involvement. Covering up facts, destroying evidence and perjury are themselves serious crimes, and many places a direct admission of guilt to the crime one is attempting to cover? Nevertheless, mounting physical evidence continues to accumulate and will easily expose the guilty when given the chance!

Nobody can realistically believe anything is impossible for the US government to carry out? To do so would be to deny similar events, carried out by them successfully, throughout all of history. This, getting away with crime, pattern of behavior is literally their only success. It's seriously their only area of provable accomplishment that is consistent? Not to mention how weak it is of an argument? Saying "they could never pull it off" is about as legitimate a defense as "I know you are, but what am I?" commonly used prior to 2nd grade? There is so much support to this argument it would undoubtedly be comical to even challenge it? On the other hand, what possible support can be found to shine an opposite light on these criminals? Where can anything positively good can be shown as their doing? I challenge anybody to show proof, even one single act, of them acting for unselfish good? Takers? Any one want to humiliate themselves?

Peace.

Originally posted by Zerbst

Nobody can realistically believe anything is impossible for the US government to carry out? To do so would be to deny similar events, carried out by them successfully, throughout all of history. This, getting away with crime, pattern of behavior is literally their only success. It's seriously their only area of provable accomplishment that is consistent? Not to mention how weak it is of an argument? Saying "they could never pull it off" is about as legitimate a defense as "I know you are, but what am I?" commonly used prior to 2nd grade? There is so much support to this argument it would undoubtedly be comical to even challenge it? On the other hand, what possible support can be found to shine an opposite light on these criminals? Where can anything positively good can be shown as their doing? I challenge anybody to show proof, even one single act, of them acting for unselfish good? Takers? Any one want to humiliate themselves?

Take a deep breath now.

Great closing line. Really invites discourse.

You missed your calling as a speech writer.


M



[edit on 28-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by DaWhiz
It is possible that you were watching MTV in 1994 when this happened - It is called The Conspiracy of Silence - when the FCC and Congress pressured The Discovery Channel to remove a documentary which points to a very large child sex scandal involving the White House, some Congressmen/Senators and possibly DIPLOMATS. It is called 'Conspiracy of Silence - Illuminati Pedophiles in Washington, DC.'

The truth about the abuse is almost too horrible to grasp...

It makes you wonder if sociopaths are bred by sociopaths from a very early age. For whatever reason, humiliation, sex, sacrifice.

They scare me... Cathy O'Brian maybe for real after all.