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

reply to post by AllUrChips

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's assuming that Mossad would be working as an independent agent or under the direction of Israel. I've long thought that the therm Intelligence Community would describe it better as Mossad, MI6, CIA, etc. basically operate as the strong arms of the puppetmaster Illuminati who are beholden to no national borders and a whole different agenda. Different arms of the same Octopus. Maybe the motive was because they were told to.

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.

The primary motive was the same as in so many other events of this nature.

M-O-N-E-Y !!!!

It may have been prompted by the Taliban's reluctants to allowing big oil to build a pipeline across Afganistan which got them blamed for what was going to happen anyway.

As to who carried out the plans, just follow the money and look for those who would best profit. Be they people or governments, the results is what matters. We all saw how some of these people reacted, then and now.

Much of the speculation about highjackers and remote control planes could be combined. A few "marters" more or less does not mean much if they fit into your planning. You just tell them what they want to hear until they get on the plane. For that matter you really only have to make it appear as though they got on the planes. The only videos I saw were from a few hundred miles away.

I mostly agree with you but this presents a rather peculiar and global psychological issue.

If the physics dictates that it is impossible for airliners to have destroyed buildings that big in that little time then what does that say about lots of people world wide who supposedly understand physics? But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of them are SILENT. They are not agreeing with the official story.

And what about nations like Iran? They have the Milad Tower which is taller than the WTC was.

Why aren't they producing data and math and "propaganda" accusing the United States of lying about 9/11 on the basis of the physics?

But how can the Physics Profession ever come clean about this? How can they explain letting it go on for TEN YEARS? But then we have all of the crap about STEM education in the United States. STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. How do they teach physics for the next 1000 years and not get this straight? Can't build a physical model that can completely collapse.

I think the global psychology of this issue is a bigger deal than who did it at this point.

The media is composed of people who can't think of asking the question of how steel must be distributed down a skyscraper so it can hold itself up in the first place. If they can't think of questions that simple why should we listen to them talk about Global Warming and Economics? Oh yeah, they haven't noticed planned obsolescence in automobiles since the Moon landing. And then Richard Gage and his buddies don't make a big deal about steel distribution either. Was there more steel toward the bottom or not? So the majority of peons are supposed to be too dumb to think and are just BELIEVE one expert or the other for whatever silly reason pops into their heads.

psik

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".

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.

You left out his evidence comes from "all over the Internet". That's like basing your PhD thesis on Wikipedia. But, its Trutherland!

reply to post by trebor451

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Snopes found this to be true. www.snopes.com...

BUSH: Each situation is different, Robin.
And obviously we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force. The hardest decision a president makes is ever to use force. After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently. After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us.
In the old days we'd see a threat, and we could deal with it if we felt like it or not. But 9/11 changed it all.

I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. That's why we're bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice. That's why I said to Afghanistan: If you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban is no longer in power, and Al Qaida no longer has a place to plan.

And I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And the unique threat was that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like Al Qaida, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction. And that was the serious, serious threat.

Never mind that we worked closely with the mujajadeen and Bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight Russia in the 80's. And, if Hussein was such a bad man, surely he could have supplied the "terrorists" with chemical weapons that could make a big mess in the US but...

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.

www.cbsnews.com...



Both of Goerings conditions to bring a country into war: check.

And then there is John Farmer, Senior Council for 9/11 Commision now Dean of Rutgers Law School who says in his book "The Ground Truth"

"In the course of our investigation into the national response to the attacks, the 9/11 Commission staff discovered that the official version of what had occurred [the morning of 9/11/01]-that is, what government and military officials had told congress, the commission, the media, and the public abbout who know what when-was almost entirely and inexplicably untrue...the public had been seriously misled about what occured the morning of the attacks...at some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."

Guess he should know.

Thing is, you can find some useful things on the internet.

reply to post by whyamIhere


Well since he started every line with "I believe" I think it's pretty obvious.
Sorry, couldn't find a source to back up my theory.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So the majority of peons are supposed to be too dumb to think and are just BELIEVE one expert or the other for whatever silly reason pops into their heads.

This is the crime that atheism is guilty of; and it is a high crime indeed. The majority of the population have been trained to view science as a closed, centralised priesthood, and to equate logic, intelligence, and maturity with only taking the words and edicts of said priesthood as law, in any contentious issue. We are told never to think for ourselves, because there is no way that our own thought or experience could ever have greater authority or legitimacy than that of the "experts."

You can see probably three examples of the mentality that I am talking about, in this very thread. They are not presenting extensive arguments, but are merely arguing pedantic minutiae, and resorting to the "citation needed," troll. Straining at gnats, as it were.

The main identifying marker of their presence, however, even more than the pedantry, is their level of expressed contempt and derision. The pseudo-skeptical argument primarily has to revolve around attempts at censorship; generally either via shame, or an attempt to psychologically wound their opponent to the point where s/he is driven to withdraw from the argument. They have to do this, because they do not have a legitimate rational argument.

I am generally willing to withstand their attempts at psychological warfare for prolonged periods; but I am unusual. Most do not have sufficient fortitude to brave even their initial barrage, but instead simply remain silent, rather than endure the psychological scourging which they know will be forthcoming, if they dare to speak.

Shanksville looks like it was shot down with no centralised impact zone and debris spread over a large area. There was one crater from photos of the area which more resembles an engine rather than the whole plane that hit that spot.

As for those that want some links and evidence, here are a few I like www.kwakakev.com...

Some may think North Korea is a bunch of crazy mad hatters, but America does take the cake when it pulls a stunt like this off. When looking deeper into the hows and whys of it, things like MK Ultra, Monarch and Montauk do hold some pieces of the puzzle that fit. I have not been able to establish any direct links to any extraterrestrial influence, but there is a fair amount of indirect association through the Military Industrial Complex in general.

Nice one and love your work.

Spot on.

I would say more if you hadn't said it already..........thanks.

Originally posted by petrus4

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.

a lot of insurgents and opposition were killed in afghanistan and iraq, and loyalties were put in question and resolved. those conflicts drew in a lot of people who would have otherwise fought for iran had they went directly at them, they needed to soften the blow in a way.

iran is still in the picture, even more so than ever and our attention has shifted with it.

I think there's more than enough evidence to suggest Mossad played a major role. The dancing Israelis is pretty good indicator IMO, along with the facts that one of the Urban Moving vans had a mural depicting the WTC towers with a plane en route of impact, two of the said persons were previously acknowledged Mossad agents, and before any trial could occur they were quickly deported back to Israel. Not to mention the wealthy dual citizens who appeared to have had foreknowledge and/or profited from the incident, including Silverstein himself. As for motive, was it not Israel who was pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD's, as they are currently doing with Iran? Regardless of order, we seem to be in direct conflict with most of Israel's enemies since 9/11. Also, they have a history of false-flags with suggested goals of drawing the US into helping them fight their own conflicts. That conclusion also encompasses Zakheim, comptroller of the Pentagon at the time, who I believe happens to be a dual citizen as well and has a history as a big-wig of a company that was developing the flight-termination system that could very well partially explain a few more mysteries of 9/11... I could spew more, but I think that's sufficient.

Just my perspective...

Anyone really want links?? I'd be happy to hunt them down...

reply to post by petrus4


Petras, with all due respect, I'm going to ask for your sources.

I realize there's a literal mountain of info online but can you provide or sum up one or two sources that really swayed you?

This is not an arbitrary attack on your premise (I read your rant). But I've just recently begun to examine the 911 events and would appreciate knowing what you deem credible in this area.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Not to speak out-of-place and hijack a reply from petrus, so forgive me, but if I may suggest a few sources...

WhatReallyHappened - 9/11 Files

That's a secondary source, granted, but within are a number of links to other sources I think could be helpful. The site's ran by one Michael Rivero, and a lot of his personal review is included in light of that. His "bias" could be seen as discrediting, but I, personally, don't believe he has an illogical point-of-view.



That's a film by one Ryan Dawson, who runs the site "rys2sense" which carries an anti-neocon theme. He's also affiliated with the site above, mind you, and once again a secondary source. War by Deception is a pretty general summary of post-9/11 events and lacks sources, but the info's out there... He made a more concise video with a focus on 9/11 but claims youtube won't allow it.



Here's a much shorter vid on Zakheim and the Flight Termination Systems I mentioned above...

Sorry for all the secondary sources. WRH really does have a mountain of included sources, though. Check it out and see what you think...

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by petrus4

 

Petras, with all due respect, I'm going to ask for your sources.

There have been a lot over the years, smylee...but I will try and find you some of the material I've read on controlled demolition, in particular.

The main article I've drawn from, was a long one on controlled demolition that I would have discovered in about 2002, I think. This pdf is a mirror of it. That file gives a comprehensive list of elements which were apparently entirely ignored by the official account. Among other things, it cites the molten pools of metal, which apparently remained molten for several weeks after the incident. There is also information concerning the use and characteristics of thermite cutter charges.

As a more recent example, there's also this video:-



I wouldn't take this on its' own, no; but it's consistent with a lot of the other material on the subject. The comparisons of sound recordings from known use of thermite and controlled demolitions was good. It also cites the numerous witnesses who reported the sound of secondary explosions during the day. This wasn't just a single witness; it was many, and they reported explosions in many different parts of the buildings, including the base.

Probably the single most compelling piece of evidence from that video, is the footage which shows a clearly visible stream of molten metal coming from one of the towers, for several seconds before the tower came down. That is one of the biggest clues. There are explosions which occurred before the planes hit the towers.

If the official story was true, I would expect a single impact point on each of the towers, from the respective planes. The evidence which I have seen, strongly suggests decentralised detonation, with explosive charges set at numerous altitudes and points within the buildings.

There is also this pdf by David Ray Griffin. He goes into some of the political context behind the attacks, but one of the most interesting points, is his mention of the difference between the melting point of steel (2800 F) and the burning of jet fuel. (1700 F)

I will admit that I was also impressed with Peter Joseph's treatment of the subject in the first Zeitgeist film.



Note to arbitrary skeptics:- If you cite the "credible sources," troll here, I am not going to care. Refute Joseph's actual points.

I also do not care, for the record, about the known inaccuracy of the first part of the film, which was a debunking of Christianity. Joseph was an anti-theist with the usual axe to grind, where that was concerned. It is irrelevant to my purposes here, so any mention of it will be ignored.

This contains recordings of firefighter footage from the day, as well as analysis from news commentators who were reporting at the time. Also noteworthy are the photographs of Shanksville, which do not show anything other than a hole in the ground; no wreckage.

Finally, while it only mentions 9/11 in passing, I will also cite the extensive historical, political, and scientific essays of Wade Frazier. Wade presents abundant evidence of the criminal and exploitative nature of the history of both America and Europe, and provides a context in which 9/11, as a false flag attack, is an entirely consistent element of a very large overall pattern.

There isn't any one single piece of evidence, here. It is a very large, overarching tapestry. I still do not claim to know decisively who was behind the attacks, and I've already mentioned that. But if you look at all of the available evidence for the use of thermite; if you look at history, and if you look at the manner in which the attacks have been used as pretext for fascism in the eleven years since, deductive reasoning begins to provide a reasonably clear, yet extremely dark and unpleasant picture.

Speaking of thermite, there are a lot of naysayers who like to say "thermite can't cut steel", but check out this video:



This guy makes rudimentary thermite, or thermate, and clearly demonstrates it's potential. His specific method isn't exactly practical to apply to the WTC theory, but you gotta think, he's one guy, an amateur, and developed the method on his own. In contrast, imagine what one or a group of experts could develop.

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.

Guess what, for the first year or so I too was skeptical. However, it became apparent that the reason for the "fuel" for all the conspiracies was the usual suspects : human error, bad communication, arse covering, ineptitude. The channel 4 program last week that replayed the recordings made makes it quite clear that the usual suspects were in command! I mean for f...s sake the goddam fighter jest scrambled from Langley headed out over the Atlantic because that was protocal nobody ever considered an internal attack.

Over the last 10 years the conspiracies have grown arms and legs with people actually doing the dumbest thing of all : re-quoting conspiracy essays as if they are the source of the truth.

Every single conspiracy theory has absolutely no hard evidence to back it up it is all based on assumption and bad interpretation of existing evidence plus , and this is really dumb, dismissive of any hard evidence that contradicts their theories. For example if you present a person who actually saw a plane fly into the Pentagon they are dismissed as being a government agent (or whatever).

People saw a plane fly into tower 1. People saw a plane fly into tower 2. People saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. That's an awful lot of government agents.

There are many videos of the planes flying into tower 2 some of them are poor quality......guess which ones are used to prove a missile hit the tower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean sheesh.

reply to post by yorkshirelad




Look above, sir. Kindly debunk specifics and refrain from the fallacy of over-generalization.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
There are many videos of the planes flying into tower 2 some of them are poor quality......guess which ones are used to prove a missile hit the tower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean sheesh.

I have not said anything about a missile.

reply to post by petrus4


I have to say I agree with your stance...there are just too many discrepancies with the OS that just don't hold up to common sense and very obvious logic

Passport found in street from the airliner that apparently exploded and caused heat enough to bring a building down, but a paper document found it's way, untouched, to the streets below.
Perfect demotion collapse - right in front of your eyes.
Witness statements of multiple explosions
WTC7 - same, but not even hit.
Worlds largest military, failed to scramble jets to intercept because that same day they are performing a drill of the exact same thing. come on people FFS think about this, really, really think about it. The odds of doing a drill, on the day the actual, once in a lifetime world changing event happens.

Pentagon - all CCTV footage seized in minutes. No amount of argument can explain this, simply because if it was a plane why hide all images of it appraoching.

Shanskville. Multiple impact sites. If the plane comes down, it comes down. One impact site, perhaps some debris scattered nearby. Debris scattered over a wide area indicates plane was in pieces in the sky - bomb or explosion - and therefore falls over a wide area.

Discounting these very basic facts requires one to detach yourself from the screaming truth right in front of your face, because to do so would be to realise what your own govts are willing to do to you to further enable their own plans. That's right your own govt willing to sacrifice you for it's own ends.
For most people that is so scary it's easier to put your fingers in your ears and just go nah nah not listening, and then try using certain tactics to discredit people.

The "no planes" group - clearly people there to make all of us normal people look insane because we get lumped in with some thinkers and therefore all "conspiracy" theorists are crazy!

The 1st video in the post above is very good also.

i agree with everything in the opening statement I'm no expert just my opinion but when i have those moments where i think that a government would never dream of doing that to it's own people and couldn't ever intend to do something so vile to justify war i read about operation northwoods again,

en.wikipedia.org... i know some people are a bit iffy with wikipedia but you can follow the links to the originals.
it reads like a plan for what was done at the start of the whole war on terror just with a different enemy in mind, this could of course be a bizarre coincidence but the whole thing feels wrong on so many levels, and the way it has been used to strip away our rights all over the world is insane.
i hope one day people find some closure with this even if that closure proves my beliefs completely wrong and callous.
Peace

edit..the points from 7 onwards make my stomach turn over really creepy