Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
You are replying to a thread with a title "Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?" arguing that the Government is really so incompetent that it is simply impossible that they conspired to attack on 9/11. So forgive me for assuming that you believe the terrorists used the incompetence to their advantage...


I already gave my opinion about this earlier in this thread. You don't need to assume, you just need to read.


You also talk about evidence that support the OS all the time, some of the evidence that we are expected to accept are the ground zero passport, the red bandana and the suitcase that was left behind. So common sense suggests that you accept these as evidence...


Maybe you should rely less on your common sense then, and stick with the facts instead.


Why do you reply to a thread and expect me to ask you what you believe? I don't care what you believe but I care why you disagree with what I believe, so far you did not even try to explain it with anything other than repeating that what I think happened is unrealistic and impossible.


I don't expect you to ask what I believe, but you are complaining that I am not sharing what I believe. You wrote "Well that's the thing... I'm not sure what you claim except that everybody is wrong and you are right.". I gave you advice of how to solve this "thing", but if you don't care what I believe anyhow, there isn't even a thing to begin with.



Dealing with you is like dealing with a vending machine, nothing comes out until you press a friggin button... So I would appreciate it if you finally decide to state what exactly you think happened.


Huh? You don't care what I believe but at the same time you do appreciate it when I state what I think happened exactly?

I am not shy to share what I think, but please be more specific what you want to know.


LOL that's nonsense... FEMA's Center for Domestic Preparedness scheduled a drill and sent people to NYC to set it up but plans changed on 9/11. Why would they need to know anything other than that they were getting ready for 9/12 drill? Is it really so difficult for you to understand or is the "_____ had to be in on it" all that you have left?


I can't help that you ignore the consequences of your conspiracy theory. Yes, people at OEM had to be aware of the conspiracy, else they would not have a reason to plan that drill on that day. Its not all that I have left, but it is on extreme large hole in your conspiracy theory.


First I would never knowingly be a part of an inside job. But if I was investigating the crime of the century I would definitely research similar events in history and the character of people of interest. Known and proven liars have zero credibility with me and giving them the benefit of a doubt is not an option in this case. If you had been caught lying to save your ass in the past you wouldn't get the benefit of a doubt from anybody who wanted to talk to you regarding a crime.


So you decided not to give an honest answer to my question but instead ignore it.


So you believe that this piece of evidence from United 93 proves that one of the terrorists was on the plane?

And with a straight face you're telling me that what I believe is unrealistic and impossible? Or are you laughing your ass off like I am?


See my previous post to see what I think about the evidence. It seems to me you already read it as you replied to it. But read it again, and you probably would not need to ask this question.



I agree it wouldn't change anything except that it raises a red flag that the evidence might be fake and if that's true we have a big problem don't you think so? And just a few posts back you stated that it is possible that the FBI would try to cover up their incompetence.. So is the FBI in on it too?


According to your theory, yes, FBI is in on it. And you agree they didn't have any significant function. They were just in on it for the fun of it. The more people in your conspiracy the merrier.

You smell red flag I smell bs.
edit on 10-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   

The conspiracy theory where so many people and organizations are in on it is yours not mine...

No its yours. You are just ignoring the consequences of your theories. Drill date means people at OEM are in on it. Fake evidence means FBI is in on it. Fake passenger list means AA is in on it. etc.


If you really believe what you post here I really hope that your job doesn't require you to make decisions that effect other peoples lives.


Not sure how you are connecting one thing (my analysis of the motive of conspiracy believers) to the other (me not being able to make good decisions that affect other peoples lives). But I guess that is your modus operandi. Realize by the way that this analysis is not just made up by me. I have read it before from people who have actually studied the subject on an academic level. I think it explains the phenomena quite well, although other factors also play part.


The point of 9/11 is to get people so scared that they would support going to war.. You know the whole "War on terror" means that our enemies don't have a country or an army with uniforms, they can be anywhere on the planet and if we don't go there they will come here. 9/11 is a perfect example and they use 9/11 to keep everyone afraid.


This is basically what I mean. The people are all so scared and accept everything the government tells them. But not you. You have awoken, you have figured it out. Good for you. Its also nice they had at least a motive for 911. Yet they invaded Iraq mainly based on presumed WMD.


I ignore them because you don't give any reason why you believe that it would be impossible for the government to be part of it.


That is because I am not claiming that it is impossible. You really should pay more attention to what the person you are discussing with is actually saying and stop making these assumptions based on your "common sense".


You are wrong that it's unrealistic because history shows that false flags are realistic, and that it's impossible for our government to keep a secret but history shows that it was done before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident for instance took 40 years to come out...


I am not wrong as it is in no way possible that the large group of people in your conspiracy that would have to know about it would all remained completely silent. Its also impossible that there was no paper trace at all (oh yeh thats why they blew up 7) or any physical evidence. That kind of theories belong in the world of fantasies.



First make a claim and then present evidence... I can't wait !


Eh... Ok. Planes crashed into the WTC towers. Evidence: www.youtube.com...

Or maybe you should be a bit more specific.


I'm waiting for you to clarify what theories are impossible.. It's not the lasers from space by any chance?


Explosives, thermite, planned drills, faked passenger lists, faked evidence, larry admitting when he said "pull", BBC reporting collapse too soon, basically all the standard 911 truth nonsense.

Like I already said, for example FBI faking evidence could happen. But not as part of an inside job, as people in the FBI would have to be in on it. And since they don't have any significant function, no conspirator in the would would ever let them be part of it, as it generates extreme risk of exposure. Hence the question you refused to answer honestly, as you would have to completely agree that its nonsense.
edit on 10-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



No its yours. You are just ignoring the consequences of your theories. Drill date means people at OEM are in on it. Fake evidence means FBI is in on it. Fake passenger list means AA is in on it. etc.


The more I read your ridiculous replies the more I think you're in on it... How's that for a conspiracy theory?



This is basically what I mean. The people are all so scared and accept everything the government tells them. But not you. You have awoken, you have figured it out. Good for you. Its also nice they had at least a motive for 911. Yet they invaded Iraq mainly based on presumed WMD.


Wait a second are you saying that fear of another 9/11 only with WMD's from Iraq wasn't the reason people supported the Iraq war? Because that's what it seems like what you're saying.
I was awoken with the rest of the world when i found out on the news that the WMD's were imaginary.


Maybe they should look for them under your table.. Because you got to be in on it.




That is because I am not claiming that it is impossible. You really should pay more attention to what the person you are discussing with is actually saying and stop making these assumptions based on your "common sense".


So you're not claiming that it is impossible, Okay.. I see you're claiming that



I am not wrong as it is in no way possible





I am not wrong as it is in no way possible that the large group of people in your conspiracy that would have to know about it would all remained completely silent. Its also impossible that there was no paper trace at all (oh yeh thats why they blew up 7) or any physical evidence. That kind of theories belong in the world of fantasies.


You just ignore all the previous examples of our government doing things involving large groups of people in secret, and successfully keep them secret for 40, 60 years. And it is only in a world of fantasies that paper traces of crimes against humanity would not be attempted to be destroyed as soon as possible. Especially if the plan was to blame somebody else for it.

I just had a "discussion" with one of your fellas who believes if a whistle blower is not murdered before he talks it can only mean that he is not telling the truth. What do you have to say about that?

And again it is in your conspiracy theory large groups of people would be in on it. I make no such claims because there is a thing called compartmentation. Also I already explained to you how ridiculous your weak "in on it" logic is. But I'm in a good mood today so I'll do it again..



No its yours. You are just ignoring the consequences of your theories. Drill date means people at OEM are in on it. Fake evidence means FBI is in on it. Fake passenger list means AA is in on it. etc.


Drill date means people were preparing for a drill on 9/12. Fake evidence does actually mean that the FBI is in on it. Maybe even a couple of FBI agents are in on it. And of course you already contradicted yourself with the evidence theory just a few post above. First you said that you can see that the FBI planted fake evidence to make them look less incompetent but then you said that the red bandana from United 93 crash site and the passport from ground zero proves that the terrorists were on board the planes. Even if the FBI planted the bandana and the passport??

I have no idea what fake passenger lists your talking about.. I just said that they presented two passenger lists not fake ones. I know they called one the victims list and I'm okay with it, but since I cannot believe that the passport and bandana are real I question the reason for two lists. That's just the way I am, I just don't trust liars.



Eh... Ok. Planes crashed into the WTC towers. Evidence: www.youtube.com... Or maybe you should be a bit more specific.


I'm not in any disagreement with you about this claim. But your inability to make any other claim speaks for itself. Doesn't it?



Like I already said, for example FBI faking evidence could happen. But not as part of an inside job, as people in the FBI would have to be in on it. And since they don't have any significant function, no conspirator in the would would ever let them be part of it, as it generates extreme risk of exposure. Hence the question you refused to answer honestly, as you would have to completely agree that its nonsense.




But the people in the FBI could be in on the faking evidence? Rhetorical question no further response necessary.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
The more I read your ridiculous replies the more I think you're in on it... How's that for a conspiracy theory?


On par with the rest of your nonsense.


Wait a second are you saying that fear of another 9/11 only with WMD's from Iraq wasn't the reason people supported the Iraq war? Because that's what it seems like what you're saying.
I was awoken with the rest of the world when i found out on the news that the WMD's were imaginary.


Maybe they should look for them under your table.. Because you got to be in on it.


Yes that is what I am saying. At least not the only reason. I am totally positive they could have gotten away with it without 911.



So you're not claiming that it is impossible, Okay.. I see you're claiming that



Again, pay better attention and learn to read.

Government involvement is possible. Your theory of government involvement is not.

The use of smilies usually means a lack of arguments.


You just ignore all the previous examples of our government doing things involving large groups of people in secret, and successfully keep them secret for 40, 60 years. And it is only in a world of fantasies that paper traces of crimes against humanity would not be attempted to be destroyed as soon as possible. Especially if the plan was to blame somebody else for it.


Do these secrets involve the killing of thousands of fellow citizens? Do you comprehend the difference between keeping secret killing thousands of fellow citizens or keeping secret something that does not involve killing thousands of fellow citizens?


I just had a "discussion" with one of your fellas who believes if a whistle blower is not murdered before he talks it can only mean that he is not telling the truth. What do you have to say about that?


You probably missed the point of the discussion.


And again it is in your conspiracy theory large groups of people would be in on it. I make no such claims because there is a thing called compartmentation. Also I already explained to you how ridiculous your weak "in on it" logic is. But I'm in a good mood today so I'll do it again..

Drill date means people were preparing for a drill on 9/12.


And how did they decide to choose that very date for the drill if they were not in on? Or do you think one of the conspirators ordered the OEM to have a drill on that date? Oh my, that means there is a paper trail. Real actual evidence of a conspiracy. Please share it. Oh wait, you are making this all up.


Fake evidence does actually mean that the FBI is in on it. Maybe even a couple of FBI agents are in on it. And of course you already contradicted yourself with the evidence theory just a few post above. First you said that you can see that the FBI planted fake evidence to make them look less incompetent but then you said that the red bandana from United 93 crash site and the passport from ground zero proves that the terrorists were on board the planes. Even if the FBI planted the bandana and the passport??


If the evidence is not planted, then yes, it proves they were on the plane. If it turn out to actually be planted, then no, it is of course not valid evidence.

I am kind of shocked that I am explaining this. To me this is so extremely obvious logic that it goes without saying. But I guess other people need this to be explained to them.


I have no idea what fake passenger lists your talking about.. I just said that they presented two passenger lists not fake ones. I know they called one the victims list and I'm okay with it, but since I cannot believe that the passport and bandana are real I question the reason for two lists. That's just the way I am, I just don't trust liars.


So you believe the passenger list was real and AA was not in on it, and so you believe they were on the plane. Kinda making this whole FBI is in on it 100% pointless.


I'm not in any disagreement with you about this claim. But your inability to make any other claim speaks for itself. Doesn't it?


So how did you come to the conclusion that this is the only claim I can make? Can you explain your line of reasoning? Do you realize that my inventation to be more specific was so that I can make more specific claims? Or did you completelty miss the point when I saud "Or maybe you should be a bit more specific."? Hmm that is actually I pretty reasonable assumption given your track record. I will put it in more easy to understand words:

If you want me to make more claims, be more specific on what you want to hear claims about.





But the people in the FBI could be in on the faking evidence? Rhetorical question no further response necessary.


Smilies again. Does that mean you are missing the point again? Yep you are. If you want me to explain it in simple words, just ask. But maybe reading it all again a couple of times will also help.

Nice going on ignoring all the rest of my post, but its understandable.
edit on 10-11-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


On par with the rest of your nonsense.

I'm not the one accusing thousands of people of being "in on it" in fact no one except you post that nonsense.


Yes that is what I am saying. At least not the only reason. I am totally positive they could have gotten away with it without 911.

Now here is a claim that you should present evidence for. What makes you totally positive about it?
It's like pulling teeth with you. You've been here long enough to know that personal opinions are just that, personal opinions but if you want them to be taken seriously you need to at least explain why you have those opinions.


Again, pay better attention and learn to read. Government involvement is possible. Your theory of government involvement is not. The use of smilies usually means a lack of arguments.

My theory is very simple and in fact happens everyday. I deal with them everyday... Innocent people do not lie, destroy or plant evidence to cover up what was happening prior to a crime. That's what guilty people do.

Would you like me to use lol or haha when I'm laughing at you?


Do these secrets involve the killing of thousands of fellow citizens? Do you comprehend the difference between keeping secret killing thousands of fellow citizens or keeping secret something that does not involve killing thousands of fellow citizens?

This one is my favorite. To me it proves that they are capable of anything and they can keep a secret for a long time.
By the way this is how you make a claim and provide an explanation for how you came to have your opinion.


You probably missed the point of the discussion.

Do you see how you just assumed something without asking me for a link? Why did you complain when I made assumptions earlier?



And how did they decide to choose that very date for the drill if they were not in on? Or do you think one of the conspirators ordered the OEM to have a drill on that date? Oh my, that means there is a paper trail. Real actual evidence of a conspiracy. Please share it. Oh wait, you are making this all up.

The OEM was one of the participants in a multi-agency drill (the first of its kind) organized by an agency in which Cheney was the director. I gave you links didn't you read what it said?
What was so special about September 12 before the September 11 attack?


If the evidence is not planted, then yes, it proves they were on the plane. If it turn out to actually be planted, then no, it is of course not valid evidence. I am kind of shocked that I am explaining this. To me this is so extremely obvious logic that it goes without saying. But I guess other people need this to be explained to them.

Is the red bandana that came of the terrorists head inside United 93 and ended up in court as official piece of evidence real or planted in your opinion?
In my opinion it is not real, and the reason I have this opinion is when I looked at a picture of the bandana it looks to me like it's brand new or straight out of a washing machine. Very hard to believe that they found it at the site of a plane crash.
Again this is how you make a claim and explain it. Are you paying attention?


So you believe the passenger list was real and AA was not in on it, and so you believe they were on the plane. Kinda making this whole FBI is in on it 100% pointless.

I never said AA was in on it, you did remember? I have no reason to believe the list isn't real and I have no reason to believe that the terrorists were on board. All I see is the names of the terrorists but no prove whatsoever that they were on the plane. I don't expect you to understand but others will. You know sometimes tickets are paid for but people don't make it on the plain. Like the suitcase for instance.


If you want me to make more claims, be more specific on what you want to hear claims about.

Again? How many times do I need to do it? You making it very obvious that you have no argument, just "it is not possible for the government to be involved". You showed that you can't back it up, you just ask me to ask you even though I already did.
Drop some links or examples anytime you feel like it.


Smilies again. Does that mean you are missing the point again? Yep you are. If you want me to explain it in simple words, just ask. But maybe reading it all again a couple of times will also help. Nice going on ignoring all the rest of my post, but its understandable.

I will refrain from posting smiles until you make your preference known... You may choose lol or haha. What did I ignore by the way?
edit on 10-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Nice going on ignoring all the rest of my post, but its understandable.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is what you're referring to.



Not sure how you are connecting one thing (my analysis of the motive of conspiracy believers) to the other (me not being able to make good decisions that affect other peoples lives). But I guess that is your modus operandi. Realize by the way that this analysis is not just made up by me. I have read it before from people who have actually studied the subject on an academic level. I think it explains the phenomena quite well, although other factors also play part.


I am more than happy to explain it to you..

Your analysis of the motives of "conspiracy believers" is not only wrong but also dangerous because if people take you seriously and actually believe your "analysis" would mean that "conspiracy believers" are mentally ill and unable to think for themselves. And the most disturbing thing in your "analysis" is your belief that idea of innocent people being sacrificed for an agenda of our government officials actually makes them feel good.

I am unable to imagine any down to earth person claiming something like that. So as far as I'm concerned putting you in charge of other peoples lives is irresponsible and dangerous.

And who are these mysterious people that studied the subject?



I already gave my opinion about this earlier in this thread. You don't need to assume, you just need to read.


Please post a link to your reply.




Maybe you should rely less on your common sense then, and stick with the facts instead.


What are the facts?



I don't expect you to ask what I believe, but you are complaining that I am not sharing what I believe. You wrote "Well that's the thing... I'm not sure what you claim except that everybody is wrong and you are right.". I gave you advice of how to solve this "thing", but if you don't care what I believe anyhow, there isn't even a thing to begin with.


Why are you telling me to read and not make assumptions but you yourself didn't read that I said I care why you believe what you believe?


I don't care what you believe but I care why you disagree with what I believe




Huh? You don't care what I believe but at the same time you do appreciate it when I state what I think happened exactly? I am not shy to share what I think, but please be more specific what you want to know.


I would appreciate it because I thought there was (but not anymore in my opinion) a chance that I might learn something from you.

How about you start with attempting to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong that the Government is capable of doing things like 9/11 and cover it up for a long time.



I can't help that you ignore the consequences of your conspiracy theory. Yes, people at OEM had to be aware of the conspiracy, else they would not have a reason to plan that drill on that day. Its not all that I have left, but it is on extreme large hole in your conspiracy theory.


Here's another claim that require explanation if you want me to believe you. Why would they have to be aware of the conspiracy?



So you decided not to give an honest answer to my question but instead ignore it.


I answered it. Did you see that I wrote I'm unable to even imagine something like that?



See my previous post to see what I think about the evidence. It seems to me you already read it as you replied to it. But read it again, and you probably would not need to ask this question.


I read what you think and it contradicts your other statements. You said that you have other evidence that would make the bandana, passport and suitcase irrelevant even if it's fake. Also you said that the FBI could've planted it.

But If they in fact planted the evidence wouldn't it make other evidence loose credibility? If this happened in any other trial the case would be dismissed. Also If a witness gets caught lying in any legal case, this witness if no longer a witness.



According to your theory, yes, FBI is in on it. And you agree they didn't have any significant function. They were just in on it for the fun of it. The more people in your conspiracy the merrier. You smell red flag I smell bs.


I replied to this in the post above.
edit on 10-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I'm not the one accusing thousands of people of being "in on it" in fact no one except you post that nonsense.


At least you agree it is nonsense. I can't help that you are unable to oversee the consequences of your theories.


Now here is a claim that you should present evidence for. What makes you totally positive about it?
It's like pulling teeth with you. You've been here long enough to know that personal opinions are just that, personal opinions but if you want them to be taken seriously you need to at least explain why you have those opinions.


The is plenty of evidence that the USA can go to war without a 911 like event: Korean War, Second Indochina War, Invasion of the Dominican Republic, Invasion of Grenada, Gulf War, Bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan etc. Just a quick selection of incidents from Wikipedia.


My theory is very simple and in fact happens everyday. I deal with them everyday... Innocent people do not lie, destroy or plant evidence to cover up what was happening prior to a crime. That's what guilty people do.


And along the way you completely miss out on the fact that you are making large groups of people accessory. You just deny it.



Would you like me to use lol or haha when I'm laughing at you?


You may use whatever means you like to make a fool of yourself.


Do these secrets involve the killing of thousands of fellow citizens? Do you comprehend the difference between keeping secret killing thousands of fellow citizens or keeping secret something that does not involve killing thousands of fellow citizens?

This one is my favorite. To me it proves that they are capable of anything and they can keep a secret for a long time.
By the way this is how you make a claim and provide an explanation for how you came to have your opinion.


Lets look at the differences:

~3000 vs 83 death
Murder vs experiments
on USA citizens vs not on USA citizens
People involved remained silent vs people involved did not remain silent.

How is this helping your case in proving that a large number of people would be able to shut their mouths when being part of a plot involving the murder of thousands of fellow citizens?


Do you see how you just assumed something without asking me for a link? Why did you complain when I made assumptions earlier?


When I say "probably" it is not an assumption, it means something has a high probably. I base it on the track record in this thread, where you are constantly missing the point.


The OEM was one of the participants in a multi-agency drill (the first of its kind) organized by an agency in which Cheney was the director. I gave you links didn't you read what it said?
What was so special about September 12 before the September 11 attack?


So you are saying that Cheney forced the date for the drill and the people of OEM had no say in it? Can't wait for your evidence.


Is the red bandana that came of the terrorists head inside United 93 and ended up in court as official piece of evidence real or planted in your opinion?


All facts point in the direction its real (see below)


In my opinion it is not real, and the reason I have this opinion is when I looked at a picture of the bandana it looks to me like it's brand new or straight out of a washing machine. Very hard to believe that they found it at the site of a plane crash.
Again this is how you make a claim and explain it. Are you paying attention?


I am paying way more attention than you are. I already explained why I think it is real. You either ignored that part or you did not understand it. A short summery:

a)there is no motive to fake it
b)it corroborates with other evidence
c)no evidence its fake
d)it would cause a huge risk of exposure for your conspirators to call up the FBI and say "hey, we are planning to kill a couple of thousands of american citizens, and we need you guys to plant some evidence that confirms certain people are on the planes we plan to crash in the WTC towers. Those people are actually on that plane but we want you guys to plant some extra evidence just so to make sure everyone believes it."

Yeh, that is how silly your theory is. All you have to say against this is "but to me it looks too clean".



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

I never said AA was in on it, you did remember? I have no reason to believe the list isn't real and I have no reason to believe that the terrorists were on board. All I see is the names of the terrorists but no prove whatsoever that they were on the plane. I don't expect you to understand but others will. You know sometimes tickets are paid for but people don't make it on the plain. Like the suitcase for instance.


Funny how you earlier would accept a passenger list as evidence, but rejected it because "passenger list released didn't have these people, only after people asked did they release a new list". When you were shown how that is nonsense, you just made up another reason to not accept it as evidence. Basically what you are saying is that no evidence whatsoever can convince you, because it can all be faked or explained differently. And your conspiracy can live on forever, no matter the evidence.


Again? How many times do I need to do it? You making it very obvious that you have no argument, just "it is not possible for the government to be involved". You showed that you can't back it up, you just ask me to ask you even though I already did.
Drop some links or examples anytime you feel like it.


Again, I only provide evidence for claims I actually make, not the ones you make up. I did not make that claim, so you won't get evidence.


I will refrain from posting smiles until you make your preference known... You may choose lol or haha. What did I ignore by the way?


Like I said, its your choice of how to make a fool of yourself.


Originally posted by maxella1
I am more than happy to explain it to you..

Your analysis of the motives of "conspiracy believers" is not only wrong but also dangerous because if people take you seriously and actually believe your "analysis" would mean that "conspiracy believers" are mentally ill and unable to think for themselves. And the most disturbing thing in your "analysis" is your belief that idea of innocent people being sacrificed for an agenda of our government officials actually makes them feel good.

I am unable to imagine any down to earth person claiming something like that. So as far as I'm concerned putting you in charge of other peoples lives is irresponsible and dangerous.

And who are these mysterious people that studied the subject?


How do you connect "mentally ill" to "unable to think for themselves"? Do you understand that many people with mental illness are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves, even taking part of society without external aid? Do you understand that mental illnesses come in all kind of types and degrees? Reading your black and white view of human behavior psyche makes me hope that you are not in a position where you can have an affect on peoples lives.

Again (how many time do I need to repeat everything I write), its not the "gov did it" that makes people feel good, its the "I figured it out". And these mysterious people are not so mysterious. A simple visit to Wikipedia is enough.

en.wikipedia.org...


Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm


or


Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea.


Sounds familliar?


Please post a link to your reply.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


What are the facts?


The fact is that I think that the items you name are completely irrelevant as evidence.


Why are you telling me to read and not make assumptions but you yourself didn't read that I said I care why you believe what you believe?



I don't care what you believe but I care why you disagree with what I believe


No, you did not say that you care why I believe what I believe. You quote clearly says that you care why I disagree with what you believe. For that I in no way have to share what I believe myself what happened. I just have to point out why your belief is a pile of nonsense.

You are not just a terrible reader, you don't even know what you write yourself. You contradict yourself in a single post.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

I would appreciate it because I thought there was (but not anymore in my opinion) a chance that I might learn something from you.

How about you start with attempting to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong that the Government is capable of doing things like 9/11 and cover it up for a long time.


How can I convince you that the huge amount of people that have to be part of your conspiracy (people faking evidence, people removing evidence from ground zero, people planning drills, people installing bombs etc) makes your theory totally unrealistic?

It is the reason you will not give an honest answer to the question "Is this how you would have planned it?" because you know it is just completely silly.


Here's another claim that require explanation if you want me to believe you. Why would they have to be aware of the conspiracy?


Because else they would not plant fake evidence. Else they would not plant the bombs. Else they would not plan a drill. Else the would not destroy evidence. (etc. I just made a selection of the conspiracies I know you believe in. Undoubtedly you believe a lot more nonsense).


I answered it. Did you see that I wrote I'm unable to even imagine something like that?


Huh? You are unable to imagine something like that, but still you are constantly talking about how it was done by others? Well, if you are unable to imagine something like that, you kind of agree that there is a large chance that everything you have to say about it is nonsense, isn't it?


I read what you think and it contradicts your other statements. You said that you have other evidence that would make the bandana, passport and suitcase irrelevant even if it's fake. Also you said that the FBI could've planted it.

But If they in fact planted the evidence wouldn't it make other evidence loose credibility? If this happened in any other trial the case would be dismissed. Also If a witness gets caught lying in any legal case, this witness if no longer a witness.


No, evidence stands on its own. Especially when its from different sources. Else it would be easy to win any case. Just fake some evidence in support of your crime, tell the judge its fake, and voilla, case dismissed. Does not work like that now does it?

Sure it may be a reason to review other evidence, see if that is faked too. But if that review shows it isn't than it is just a strong as it was before. Or at least should be, in practice human emotion probably gets in the way of objective judgment.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




The is plenty of evidence that the USA can go to war without a 911 like event: Korean War, Second Indochina War, Invasion of the Dominican Republic, Invasion of Grenada, Gulf War, Bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan etc. Just a quick selection of incidents from Wikipedia.




Korean War
As for the charge about North Korean aggression, it was based on no credible evidence, keeping in mind that North Korean troops being present in the South does not necessarily mean North Korean aggression. They may have entered there in reaction to a prior South Korean incursion into North Korea. The South may have done this for the purpose of provoking a North Korean counterattack and thus drawing the U.S. military into Korea so as to guarantee the South Korean regime's political survival. There is, in fact, much circumstantial evidence for precisely such provocation, as I will show presently.

Second Indochina War
The Geneva partition was not a natural division of Vietnam and was not intended to create two separate countries. But the South government, with the support of the United States, blocked the Geneva scheduled elections for reunification. In the context of the Cold War, and with the recent Korean War as a precedent, the U.S. had feared that a reunified Vietnam would elect a Communist government under the popular Hồ Chí Minh, either freely or fraudulently.

Invasion of the Dominican Republic
President Johnson declared that he had taken action to forestall the establishment of a "communist dictatorship" in the Dominican Republic. As evidence, he provided American reporters with lists of suspected communists in that nation. Even cursory reviews of the list revealed that the evidence was extremely flimsy--some of the people on the list were dead and others could not be considered communists by any stretch of the imagination.

Invasion of Grenada
For Reagan, Grenada was an unmitigated success: a defeat of Communism and Castro, and a warning to the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Fortunately for Reagan, by the time of the 1984 election, the Grenada success replaced the bitter memory of the massacre at Lebanon.


Cold War is over. Search for a new enemy begins..



Gulf War

In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83 Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."


Bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan
Having delved straight into a unilateral military response for the two bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Washington's foreign policy in the Middle East came under scrutiny. There were many criticism of double standards, an over-reaction and being counter-productive to real substantial efforts to deal with the threat of terrorism as violence to resolve violence may not always be the answer. Some have additionally criticized the USA's approach to countering terrorism saying that not enough cooperation exists between Washington and governments in the area.

Do you see how history makes it clear that 9/11 served the neo-cons well? I doubt that you do for some reason.
I'll get to the rest of your post later.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thanks for your post, it pretty much confirms that most of those conflicts were started based on weak lies. None of them were started based on a 911 like event. And your doubt is ungrounded, as I am aware that 911 served certain people to forward their agendas.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thanks for your post, it pretty much confirms that most of those conflicts were started based on weak lies. None of them were started based on a 911 like event. And your doubt is ungrounded, as I am aware that 911 served certain people to forward their agendas.


I'm going to a stop going back and forth with you.

Here's my position: History shows that all governments have no problem to sacrifice their own citizens for an agenda, they find ways to lie, provoke, and cover up all kinds of sick activity. When the cold war ended they found terrorists but people saw terrorism as a law enforcement problem not as a national security threat. The neo-cons realized it and that is evident in the PNAC. And just like Eisenhower warned us in his exit speech the military industrial complex hijacked our government. And this becomes clear if you look at the activities of Halliburton and Lockheed Martin just to name a few.

9/11 served and still serves as an example of the terrorism threat to all nations, it proves that they are more than a gang of criminals capable of terrorizing people on a smaller scale (a bomb here and there). The world saw that they are able to attack the only remaining super power Nation on its own land not once in one place but three targets in multiple cities as a coordinated military style airborne attack. That is why we gave up our civil rights in exchange for protection and that's why the military industrial complex is a very profitable business. We are reminded of 9/11 every time the issue of "war on terror" comes up in any debate. It's a tool that works perfectly every time.

And to me the cover up , the stonewalling of investigating 9/11 by the government implies that they are protecting this tool every way possible. The questions that so many people have haven't been answered, too much of the story doesn't add up. If we are to believe that they only screwed up why there ware no consequences for screwing up? Some of the people that screwed up got promotions instead of getting fired.

And I believe that the bandana is fake, I can't prove it obviously but seriously think about it. Why use fake evidence if you have enough real ones? It's my opinion only.

As for what I think your position is, and correct me if I'm wrong.. You think that no motive for the inside job exists. The government is unable to pull it of. And the government is unable to keep a secret even if they wanted to.

I disagree and I explained why.
edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join