9/11: Where the evidence has led me so far

Based on what I've seen, of the available evidence:-

- The World Trade Center was destroyed via deliberate, controlled demolition. I've considered the pancake/jetfuel theory to be completely infeasible since day one, and also consider it a case of George W. Bush attempting to offer people a fake explanation that was consistent with his own level of intelligence.

9/11 was a false flag attack, planned and executed at the behest of psychopaths, in order to further their agenda of continual war, fascist subversion of America and the West domestically, and providing the necessary pretext for moving the world in the direction of the Georgia Guidestones, in general terms.

- I don't believe that either bin Laden or the 19 hijackers were responsible, but I do not necessarily claim to know who was, either. I believe that the incident was carried out via contract or proxy for the benefit of virtually every government in the Western world, but particularly America, by unknown parties. I consider it very unlikely that we will ever know definitively who conducted the actual operation. More important, and more possible, is finding the individuals who paid them and gave them their orders.

- I do not believe that Osama bin Laden was likely to have to been alive, much later than 2004. I do not believe that the claimed assassination of him was genuine, but was staged because the American government realised that it was stretching credibility to an unacceptable degree, to continue to claim that he was still alive at this point.

- I do not believe that Al Qaeda, as an organisation, exists for the most part. There may be some loose central co-ordinating group, or they may be a "meme," similar to Anonymous or Occupy, but I do not believe that they are a set group in the manner which governments and political leaders have tried to imply.

- I do not believe that there was a real plane crash either at the Pentagon or in Shanksville. No identifiable wreckage or bodies were found at Shanksville to my knowledge, and it was only very recently that even any claimed aeroplane wreckage was found or identified at the Pentagon. The difficulty of the approach to the building for the plane in question, was also noted, as was the incompetence of the man who was supposed to be flying it.

- I believe that the official explanation of 9/11 is, in general terms, a monumental insult to human intelligence. I do not really understand how the psychopaths of the American government could have expected anyone to believe it, and consider it an indication of the level of contempt that they felt towards mainstream humanity. The fact that many people apparently do believe the official account, tragically suggests that perhaps the elite view of human intelligence, is not as inaccurate as we may like.

Is mine a minority opinion, or are there many other people here who more or less have the same perspective?

reply to post by petrus4


I could not agree more with what you have said.

Also quick comment, I believe Ossama died many years back, but even so, he was a puppet.

Sources?

Have you been to these sites?

Is this just your conjecture?

I agree with you 100%. You encapsulated the entire charade beautifully.

Yes, the "official story" is an insult to people with even a modicum of intelligence. I think the reason some people are so desperate to believe the OS is because the truth is just too difficult to process....That thousands of innocent people were crushed or burned alive because only a human sacrifice of that magnitude could get the American people to give up their freedoms and rights, and allow an invasion of not one country, but two, who did nothing to us.

That people were sucked into the fervent nationalism in order to send our sons and daughters into an illegal, immoral war, and that those boys and girls were killed and maimed for a dirty, obscene lie, is a bitter pill to swallow.

So much easier for all the sheep to stop thinking and let the government and the MSM tell us what to think and how to feel.

Thanks for posting this, OP. Well done.

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Sources?

a] Material in support of the argument I've made, is all over the Internet. You really shouldn't have to look far to find it.

b] A request for sources always, in my experience, translates to, "I don't agree with you, but I'm looking for ammunition that I can use for attacking you, while doing so in a superficially plausible/pseudo-rational way."

I am not interested in pedantry or fake, arbitrary skepticism. I never have been.

reply to post by petrus4


You're not alone!

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton said “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.

Saudi Arabia is responsible. They need ALL the competition in the area destroyed. The have the money to pull off such a feat as well. The US has always had a deal with the Saudis that as long as we dealt with them for oil, the US dollar would be what oil is traded in. This is why Lybia was destroyed, just as soon as Ghaddaffi announced he would start trading HIS oil in gold, rather than US dollars. ALL the highjackers were saudi, they werent even on the planes, there are several still very much alive and well. Anyway, this is the reason Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, have all been taken down. The US also benefits because we are slowly but surely choking out all oil trading partners for china and russia. Why do you think they are on the side of protecting syria. Its one of their last hopes for a trading partner.
ETA: What I am saying basically is that the US pulled it off with advance knowledge. They had a target once the insurance was taken out on the trade center just 2 weeks or so before the "attack". The owner silverman profited by changin this insurance. The US attacked ourself, to blame a scapegoat, and reason to take these countries out. WE ARE SAUDI ARABIAS B*%$H!!!!!!

Originally posted by AllUrChips
Saudi Arabia is responsible. They need ALL the competition in the area destroyed. The have the money to pull off such a feat as well.

Possibly, yes. I'm not saying that isn't the case, but some have said that the Mossad were responsible, and that means Israel.

I don't claim to know exactly who it was, as I said; but I will say one thing. They were very good. I think it was Danny Jowenko who said that only a few companies or people in the world would be able to pull off a demolition job like 9/11, and especially to do it as rapidly as he believed it would have needed to be done, as well.

To me, that says the Mossad. I don't know about anyone who the Saudis have got directly, who could do that sort of work; but they'd definitely have the money to hire someone, as you say.

reply to post by petrus4


I see your point, and have heard that as well, however, it ALL boils down to MOTIVE. Mossad does not have the motive, and if they did, they would have shifted blame towards Iran instead of afghanistan IMO. Their number one enemy.

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by petrus4

 

I see your point, and have heard that as well, however, it ALL boils down to MOTIVE. Mossad does not have the motive, and if they did, they would have shifted blame towards Iran instead of afghanistan IMO. Their number one enemy.

That does make sense, yes. Afghanistan strikes me as too far afield for Israel to be primarily concerned with it.

To me, that says the Mossad. I don't know about anyone who the Saudis have got directly, who could do that sort of work; but they'd definitely have the money to hire someone, as you say.

No, this is where the US had a hand. WE planned and carried out the attack. BLAMED it on the taliban. I dont know if many remember, but right before 9/11, the US had dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering a ten Million dollar bounty for Osama bin Laden. This was BEFORE 9/11. So we carried out, the Saudis FINANCED, and the US AND SAUDIS benefit.
ETA: The bounty may have been 25 million now that I think about it

Originally posted by AllUrChips

To me, that says the Mossad. I don't know about anyone who the Saudis have got directly, who could do that sort of work; but they'd definitely have the money to hire someone, as you say.

No, this is where the US had a hand. WE planned and carried out the attack. BLAMED it on the taliban. I dont know if many remember, but right before 9/11, the US had dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering a ten Million dollar bounty for Osama bin Laden. This was BEFORE 9/11. So we carried out, the Saudis FINANCED, and the US AND SAUDIS benefit.
ETA: The bounty may have been 25 million now that I think about it

edit on 21-4-2012 by AllUrChips because: (no reason given)

Very interesting. Very, very interesting.

Originally posted by petrus4

a] Material in support of the argument I've made, is all over the Internet. You really shouldn't have to look far to find it.

If I told you I believe in Reptilian People and I can find material all over the internet.....would you support the existence of them?

b] A request for sources always, in my experience, translates to, "I don't agree with you, but I'm looking for ammunition that I can use for attacking you, while doing so in a superficially plausible/pseudo-rational way."

I am not interested in pedantry or fake, arbitrary skepticism. I never have been.

Sad... you are a truther...not interested in any facts...just "material all over the internet" that fits your fantasy.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Sad... you are a truther...not interested in any facts...just "material all over the internet" that fits your fantasy.

Assuming that's true; the difference between myself and the arbitrary skeptic crowd, is that at least I'd be willing to admit it.

I think that is the main thing about you people which I find most offensive. It's the degree of dishonesty. You use an entirely deceptive facade of logic, in order to produce a mirage of support for your own narrow mindedness. It's nothing but semantic smoke and mirrors, however; backed up with some arrogant ad hominem (the insinuation of fantasy) and attempts at psychological warfare when the former predictably fails.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Sources?

a] Material in support of the argument I've made, is all over the Internet. You really shouldn't have to look far to find it.

b] A request for sources always, in my experience, translates to, "I don't agree with you, but I'm looking for ammunition that I can use for attacking you, while doing so in a superficially plausible/pseudo-rational way."

I am not interested in pedantry or fake, arbitrary skepticism. I never have been.

I might agree with you if I knew where you are getting your information.

b) people that post their opinion without any facts to back it up....Is almost always pure conjecture.

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by petrus4

 

I see your point, and have heard that as well, however, it ALL boils down to MOTIVE. Mossad does not have the motive, and if they did, they would have shifted blame towards Iran instead of afghanistan IMO. Their number one enemy.

Iran is surrounded... Saddam is overthrown as was written in the Israeli document "A clean break" ... Syria is also in chaos as fortold in the Israeli document "a clean break"

There is tons of motive for Israel to carry this out and they are the only ones with the resources and the people in the US government to get it done. Even if Iran was targeted after 911.. how in the hell would they mount a real attack on them without any bases in the area?

reply to post by petrus4


Petrus, you once again share many of my personal views on the events of 9/11.


I'm convinced it was an inside job, right from the very beginning, the morning I watched it happen live on television. The fact that the towers went down so fast, and the fact that there were reports of explosions in the basement (100+floors below impact zone) tells me it was rigged to go down. I don't buy the pancake theory one bit.

Here's what I think. This was an event 30 years in the making. I really believe that the structure was meant to come down from its inception. I believe that there were already explosives built into the framework of the structure, as the 2 week time frame from insurance policy change to building coming down was not enough time to rig the entire building to fall as cleanly as it did. Building 7 housed much of the information pertaining to the structure itself, blueprints, financial data, etc. That's why that building came down.

Like you, I believe Bin Laden was dead in 2004 if not sooner. The incursion last year was Obama's re-election ticket and nothing more. They kill one boogeyman to replace him with another.

The Pentagon was a missile, and nobody will convince me otherwise. Shanksville, I'm not so sure. Without writing a book, I think that flight was either shot down, or the people on board truly did bring it down. That's the one loose end in my theory.


The OS is, like you said, the greatest insult to human intelligence that I've personally seen come from the US government. Unfortunately, many of my fellow citizens don't think the same way.


I don't think we'll ever know what truly happened. Perhaps my grand kids will know some day...if we're around long enough for me to have them.



-TS

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Sad... you are a truther...not interested in any facts...just "material all over the internet" that fits your fantasy.

Assuming that's true; the difference between myself and the arbitrary skeptic crowd, is that at least I'd be willing to admit it.

I think that is the main thing about you people which I find most offensive. It's the degree of dishonesty. You use an entirely deceptive facade of logic, in order to produce a mirage of support for your own narrow mindedness. It's nothing but semantic smoke and mirrors, however; backed up with some arrogant ad hominem (the insinuation of fantasy) and attempts at psychological warfare when the former predictably fails.

Not withstanding what you think, there is a need to table out those specific points, or inconsistencies that allow you to come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an false flag operation. I have quite a few that lead me to believe that 9/11 as we are told, is not so straightforward. Whether a true false flag, or rogue operation, or a grand theft of gold, or even all three together, is not so easy to conclude, however it does make sense over multiple hijackers, with their own deficiencies, getting away with it.

reply to post by petrus4


So, just to be clear:

1. You believe the official story is BS, on the basis of "it's obvious".

2. You propose no other theory, specifically, except that "it was a conspiracy of some kind, done by some government actors, including the sitting president." And this is on the basis of unspecified evidence all over the internet.

My only response is that #1 is a case of reasoning from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. #2 is too vague to discuss.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by petrus4

 

So, just to be clear:

1. You believe the official story is BS, on the basis of "it's obvious".

If you want to believe the jet fuel/pancake theory, knock yourself out. I don't see that as being too far removed from belief in the Easter Bunny; but that's just my own "personal incredulity."

2. You propose no other theory, specifically, except that "it was a conspiracy of some kind, done by some government actors, including the sitting president." And this is on the basis of unspecified evidence all over the internet.

I proposed controlled demolition. The only element I am vague on, is the identity of the perpetrators.