Was the government a co-conspirator?

reply to post by maxella1


Naw, we dont say that there wasnt a cover up. We just point out that the cover up, was for much different reasons and did not involve criminal actions by the US Government.

Originally posted by maxella1

 

But you got to admit that when you look at all of the information that came out since 9/11 it becomes very hard to believe the official explanation of what happened.

No offense intended, of course, but this whole "official story" label is just more made up truther lingo being passed off as fact. There wasn't any government bureau that sat down and came up with all this information. It came from lots and lots of eyewitness accounts from people directly involved in the events, from the owners of a flight school that taught Mohammed Atta how to fly large planes to the family Atta stayed with in Germany reporting how they kicked him out because he was a religious fanatic causing problems for their daughter (who was an unwed mother). Then there are the people who talked to their relatives via phone (like the mother of a stewardess) who relayed information on what was going on aboard the planes. So what exactly is "official" about parents in Germany protecting their daughter or a mother of a stewardess telling what her daughter told her over the phone?

THEN there's the collapes. One group of engineers belonging to FEMA came up with an educated guess to what caused the collapse of the towers btu couldn't even attempt to explain WTC 7. Then another group of engineers belonging to NIST came up with an educated guess on what caused WTC 7 to collapse and took a stab at their own explanation that said the FEMA explanation was wrong. Then later still Purdue university did computer modelling and came up with their own explanation for the collapse of the towers that said both NIST and FEMA were wrong. So where there even an explanation in this supposed official explanation?

Just becuase a gov't bureau collected all this information and put it in a book it doesn't mean they concocted the information themsleves. When the truthers attack the 9/11 report they necessarily need to explain why German parents and mothers of dead stewardess are wrong, and they consistantly refuse to do this.

For me the reason I believe the official story of 9/11 is because of how much knowledge I have of violent Islamic extremism. When a 9/11 conspiracy theorist looks at 9/11 he or she is looking at only a small part of what is a much bigger topic. My reason for believing in the official story is because it fits in with the history of violent Islamic extremism, this history I have learned form my years of reading and studying. I cannot explain this to you all in one post, one thread, or even in one book. I can direct you to sources but they are not online they are all books. I do think there are some unanswered questions of what happened that day but on the balance of the evidence I have to conclude that the official story is the most accurate.

I ca agree with this to some extent, but their being violent doesn't really link them to the 9/11 attack. Communism has murdered more people throughout the world than the Nazis or even the Islamic fundamentalists but it's absurd to say Communists were behind the 9/11 attack just because they're violent. It's the links from Bin Laden to his lieutenants to Mohammed Atta to his unique qualifications and motives to his being on the plane that was hijacked that links Islamic fundamentalism to the attack.

And why are people acting like that on these types of forums?

I think you already know why- there are people who identify with their pet causes to such a strong emotional extent that they consider any attack on their theories as a personal attack upon themselves, and their instinct is to respond in kind. This goes for both sides actually since one side thinks the truthers are a bunch of ghouls dancing in the blood of murder victims while the other side has been influenced by alternative ideas and they're frustrated that noone is listening to their warnings.

Personally, I think you're not going to find anyone credible to listen to from either side here. It's a discussion forum where people offer unsubstanciated opinions and fouth hand knowledge...not to mention blatantly false claims...more than they do the facts. You need to go to the first hand accounts, like the firefighters who were physically there and the people who can provide provable documentation. Joel Meyerowitz for example is a photographer who snuck into ground zero and took enormous numbers of photographs of the cleanup efforts, and he released them in his book called AFTERMATH. These alone offer critical information on what the wreckage looked like...and it offers critical rebuttal against many of the claims the truthers' make.

But them I'm supposed to be a sinister secret agent sent to lie to everyone here so what would I know.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Naw, we dont say that there wasnt a cover up. We just point out that the cover up, was for much different reasons and did not involve criminal actions by the US Government.

A coverup by the government is a crime.
remember watergate ?

And now explain to me how do you know what they are covering up?

www.thefreedictionary.com...
cover up - hide from view or knowledge; "The President covered the fact that he bugged the offices in the White House"

Just in case English is your second language.

reply to post by maxella1

And now explain to me how do you know what they are covering up?

You are kidding me right?

You think that bureaucrats are going to admit 40 years of bad decisions on their part helped lead to the events that day? Jamie Gorelick (9/11 Commissioner) was in the Justice Department during the Clinton years. While she was there, a request came up through the department for the FBI to be able to have permission to share information about some suspect Middle Eastern men with other departments and agencies. The request to share, came to her, because there were guidelines/rules/laws put into place after the Church Commission hearings/Watergate and a few other incidents that prevented FBI from the sharing the information. These rules were designed to protect people's civil rights. Ms. Gorelick, denied the request....the information the FBI wanted to share.....dealt with Muslim males in flight schools around the United States.......................

There are literally hundreds of things like that in the mess that lead to 9/11. And do you think, any of the people who made those decisions/passed those laws (in good faith mind you) want them publicized?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There wasn't any government bureau that sat down and came up with all this information.

And how exactly do you know this?

So what exactly is "official" about parents in Germany protecting their daughter or a mother of a stewardess telling what her daughter told her over the phone?

What exactly do you mean by this?

I'm talking about the official story that they couldn’t stop the attacks because of the failure of imagination..

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Naw, we dont say that there wasnt a cover up. We just point out that the cover up, was for much different reasons and did not involve criminal actions by the US Government.

here is a recent quote just ran across that I find appropriate for a response and since we know what you do, find fitting..

How Do You Know When the "Authorities" are Lying - When Their Lips are Moving!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Oh Jeeze Dave come on man, are you just playing us all for stupid idiots?

Not saying some of are or aren't, as really does not matter, as for sure anyone buy your take on the situation, has to be getting paid by someone who has your opinion being someone conflicting of interest, so you really should just excuse yourself or least come clean what your agenda is here, as either you just oping or you just plain ole playing us like a the ones who committed the crimes and only was it was possible..


Dave-"THEN there's the collapes. One group of engineers belonging to FEMA came up with an educated guess to what caused the collapse of the towers btu couldn't even attempt to explain WTC 7. Then another group of engineers belonging to NIST came up with an educated guess on what caused WTC 7 to collapse and took a stab at their own explanation that said the FEMA explanation was wrong. Then later still Purdue university did computer modelling and came up with their own explanation for the collapse of the towers that said both NIST and FEMA were wrong. So where there even an explanation in this supposed official explanation?"

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

And now explain to me how do you know what they are covering up?

You are kidding me right?

You think that bureaucrats are going to admit 40 years of bad decisions on their part helped lead to the events that day? Jamie Gorelick (9/11 Commissioner) was in the Justice Department during the Clinton years. While she was there, a request came up through the department for the FBI to be able to have permission to share information about some suspect Middle Eastern men with other departments and agencies. The request to share, came to her, because there were guidelines/rules/laws put into place after the Church Commission hearings/Watergate and a few other incidents that prevented FBI from the sharing the information. These rules were designed to protect people's civil rights. Ms. Gorelick, denied the request....the information the FBI wanted to share.....dealt with Muslim males in flight schools around the United States.......................

There are literally hundreds of things like that in the mess that lead to 9/11. And do you think, any of the people who made those decisions/passed those laws (in good faith mind you) want them publicized?

Do you really think that a criminal will admit to murder just because he got busted for shoplifting for example?

Do you really think that the Justice department would admit fast and furious voluntarily?

Things that came out since 9/11 are what has been uncovered.

Now explain how you know what hasn’t been uncovered

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There wasn't any government bureau that sat down and came up with all this information.

I wonder how the story of Jessica Lynch' rescue ended up in the news? Did it come from lots and lots of eyewitness accounts from people directly involved.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No offense intended, of course, but this whole "official story" label is just more made up truther lingo being passed off as fact.d mother).

This is an example of them debunking.

First you make something up, then you lie and say that it's what truthers claim and, debunk it.

Build a straw-man with something they pulled out of their behinds, and blow it down.

Pathetic

reply to post by maxella1


Max you missed a spin coverup show on ATS earlier? Was guy's saying that truth and logic is non-sense and only thing that matters is the" official story" and to stop question authority and reality...totally unbelievable and think we have found a few leads as to who else and all was involved, as a result, as you got to admit, those that suggest it was anything other than reason and logic, with comments that suggest they are protecting and hiding something or someone...by listening to their explanation and suggestions on what we should do and think...

here is a nice photo to examine...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You need to go to the first hand accounts, like the firefighters who were physically there and the people who can provide provable documentation.

Do you really want me to post the video of firefighters describing secondary explosions before the collapse in the area of the building that was not on fire?

We just had a whole thread just about the firefighters talking about explosions. And you guys argued with me about what they actually meant. I was saying that when they say “definitely secondary explosions” they know what they are talking about and mean exactly what they are saying. But you guys refuse to accept what they are saying and start making things up. That the explosions they are talking about are anything but explosives. Then you ask proof of explosives but don’t provide any proof that it was something else exploding.

I'm an ignorant truther, please explain to me why it's not explosives that the firefighters talking about on video while being on scene and in plain English.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Joel Meyerowitz for example is a photographer who snuck into ground zero and took enormous numbers of photographs of the cleanup efforts, and he released them in his book called AFTERMATH. These alone offer critical information on what the wreckage looked like...and it offers critical rebuttal against many of the claims the truthers' make.

Show me the rebuttals please.

Max, not hijacking your thread and just wanted to expand on the conversation, at to what government and entities in general could be involved, mainly the UK...

here is link here>

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is titled same as your format, "Could the UK be involved in 9/11?"

As I always like to look at the those who profited and recall there was more than one liar from more than one nation, as it Bush Blair ...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Probably they don't know. According to the news they wouldn't even tell Obama which one of them pulled the trigger, and besides, from what I've been told, Seal Team 6 was just a name the military concocted to confuse outsiders of their real identity, and there isn't any Seal Team One, Two or even a Three.

On my god that means that this is not true !

President Obama watched live video of the raid on Bin Laden's compound yesterday, a source tells us. In operations like this, our source says, soldiers and pilots often carry helmet cameras, and screens in situation rooms can carry live images from all of them. In a press conference this afternoon, head of counter-terrorism John Brennan said Obama's reaction when Bin Laden was killed was "We got him." Continue Below Read more: articles.businessinsider.com...

reply to post by earthinhabitant


Oh really? What do I do for a living? (this is going to be a hoot)

reply to post by maxella1


Umm...common sense and history? A group of us were talking on the evening of 9/11/01 (we were all members of the same unit and were making all sorts of phone calls, trying to find out if friends of ours at the Pentagon had been accounted for) and we all knew that in the end, it would be discovered that we had all the info we needed to put togething a fairly accurate picture of what was going to happen. The only problem was, the information was scattered on a few dozen desks in a few dozen different agencies, none of which could legally share the information with other agencies. Because that is ALWAYS how it happens.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by earthinhabitant

 

Oh really? What do I do for a living? (this is going to be a hoot)

You ever been in the military by chance?

Security?

Snake oil salesman?

reply to post by vipertech0596


wasn't the victims of the pentagon alleged plane or drone missile target, the accountants who were auditing the pentagon books and all the files and then destroyed and bodies never found, along with any engines from whatever hit the building...and does not a missile travel precisly the same way and speed and capable for making an impact that would be comparable to what ever hit the pentagon and did anyone see any plane pieces or plane and all the footage from security cams seized and sealed to 2050, minus one that was a FIA release that had the frames edited out that showed the object that struck the pentagon...and Trillions of missing loot $$$ became a non issue afterwards and game on for those involved..