Originally posted by RipCurl

No one is stating that are military is too stupid to pull of anything. What we are saying is the need for "false" flags of any sort, is so 1960's

I totally dig this line. BUT, I am of the belief that this has only been so since 9/11.

I can't in my heart of hearts (or brain of brains) buy the Official Story. But I can't buy into conjecture either. I mean we've got Mainstream Media and government reports vs. websites with links to other websites and Utube clips. I can't really rely on either...But it seems whether or not what orginization trained who to fly the planes is a perfect way to continue the Grand Distraction of the People while certain individuals add to their superwealth.

There's obviously no way that there was nothing known of at least approximately when or how these attacks took place, to me. Knowing this, and that it'd be a perfect opportuinity for "Right Wing" politics to increase military spending for the purpose of homeland defense and really make a bunch of money for, you know, the people who profit from those kinda things...and such an attack would distract people's minds, say, from a rigged election meant to, at the last minute, change the way the Dem/Rep coin was to be placed on the table now that they had this new information ( I mean, looking back, weren't Bush/Cheney almost as much of a joke as McCain/Palin?)...but that, of course is for another forum; the point is I don't buy into the whole Dem/Rep thing.

9/11 Distracted the People from the election that was flipped upside down for the purposes of profiting from this attack. Random attacks happen, but the weapons/rebuilders/Carlton Groups of the world are full of smart people which can think on their feet. Which brings me back to my opening line...

With these attacks happening in a (then) age of unprecedented access to and means to spread more information faster than ever, "TPTB" (whomever you want to believe they are) obviously knew that conspiracy theorists and more generally people with questions about sketchy news reports from that day etc. etc. would surface quickly. Did they know that the majority of these people would get end up getting so bogged down in trivial details and proving the other side wrong (ties in to the left/right stuff) that it would distract them from all the other things going on in D.C. as much as fear of a terrorist attack distracted the "other side"? Well, I don't know. But ever since then, outside of like Black Ops hardcore military stuff, there doesn't seem to be any sort of attempt by government or media to cover up any of the dirty shennanigans that have gone on in D.C. in the past 8 years....or are going on today..

Truely a disgusting use of the distraction of such an emotional event. And now, yeah, it seems that no "false" flag is necessary at all. Even the Democrats have gone from being sneaky and lying to blatantly breaking promises; I thought that was the Repulicans' part? hah.

I

Originally posted by Silk

If it doesn't work - as the pundit claims - then why is it used ?

The question is more a question of how you define "works". You can torture anyone into saying anything. Ideally the goal of any interrogation (whether it includes torture or not) should be to extract accurate information. We know that torture can be used to extract false confessions. Just the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was tortured would not prove anything except that the US government violated the geneva convention. The issue is that all the "evidence" the government has ever given the public to suggest any actual islamic ties to 9/11 are centered entirely around an affidavit which was written by a CIA officer, and signed by a man who was waterboarded 183 times.

Pundits are paid to have their fake opinions. No real person believes torture doesn't work. That's the sick truth of the matter. Torture does work. The fact that it works too well is why it is not reliable. We could have made KSM admit to killing Abraham Lincoln, or killing Jesus for that matter. The CIA could have made him deny allah if they wanted.

Pretty much anyone who had been tortured as much as KSM (they did not just waterboard him) would admit to being the mastermind of 9/11.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

We had an investigation, a very thorough one

We had an investigation? You mean the 9/11 commission. Didn't the chairman and co-chairman of that commission come out and write a book (Without Precedent by Kean & hamilton) saying the investigation was a complete whitewash? The Executive Director of the 9/11 commission, Philip Zelikow was heavily tied to the people we should have been investigating. He served in both bush admins and wrote a book with Condi Rice. Who by the way was asked exactly zero followup questions when she testified to the commission that bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan a week before 9/11. Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission stated in his opening remarks in the commission's 1st hearing that they were already determined it was al qaeda. And he stated in later interviews that they had heard the "conspiracy theories" that the government was behind the attacks, but had specifically chosen not to investigate them. And what kind of "thorough investigation" would allow the most obvious suspect to dictate it's rules, and then when they called that suspect to the stand, he refused to appear under oath and demanded that his testimony not be recorded or made public.

Yeah, thorough.



[edit on 30-11-2009 by Bodhisattva420]