It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anomalies

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


The FBI are in on it now?

The list is growing.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Well since they are the ones that won't release any of the information and they are the ones that went around to all the businesses around the pentagon and confiscated all the security tapes, then yes they are in on it.
And they are in no way new to this conversation. I usually just use the term alphabet boys and when i say that i mean the cia/fbi/dhs whoever you want to put in there. I have incorporated them this whole time.
Don't forget the CIA was part of yours, so I know the possibility of a gov agency involved in a conspiracy is possible in your logic.
Just seems to only be there when it is convenient for your side of the argument.

You know the guys that received all the warnings about the attacks and took agents off the trail of some of the suspected terrorist. Ya I'd say those guys had something to do with it.
And if it was just incompetence then why are they not charged with criminal negligence? The attacks they were too incompetent to stop lead to the deaths of american citizens. People they took an oath to protect.
Why was no one fired? Was it because they were just doing what they were told? To stop trying to stop an attack they knew about?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Well since they are the ones that won't release any of the information and they are the ones that went around to all the businesses around the pentagon and confiscated all the security tapes, then yes they are in on it.
And they are in no way new to this conversation. I usually just use the term alphabet boys and when i say that i mean the cia/fbi/dhs whoever you want to put in there. I have incorporated them this whole time.


So all these guys at the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, in the navy, NIST, FEMA, the FD, the Pentagon, all these guys number a handful?


Don't forget the CIA was part of yours, so I know the possibility of a gov agency involved in a conspiracy is possible in your logic.
Just seems to only be there when it is convenient for your side of the argument.


I'll say it again - mine didn't happen! It was an example to show you how simple it would be compared with the preposterous complications and expense of a 9/11 plot.


You know the guys that received all the warnings about the attacks and took agents off the trail of some of the suspected terrorist. Ya I'd say those guys had something to do with it.


And yet there's only a couple of dozen guys on the inside. Riiiight.



Why was no one fired? Was it because they were just doing what they were told? To stop trying to stop an attack they knew about?


You're saying nobody lost their job because of 9/11? Can you prove that?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Well since they are the ones that won't release any of the information and they are the ones that went around to all the businesses around the pentagon and confiscated all the security tapes, then yes they are in on it.
And they are in no way new to this conversation. I usually just use the term alphabet boys and when i say that i mean the cia/fbi/dhs whoever you want to put in there. I have incorporated them this whole time.


So all these guys at the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, in the navy, NIST, FEMA, the FD, the Pentagon, all these guys number a handful?


Don't forget the CIA was part of yours, so I know the possibility of a gov agency involved in a conspiracy is possible in your logic.
Just seems to only be there when it is convenient for your side of the argument.


I'll say it again - mine didn't happen! It was an example to show you how simple it would be compared with the preposterous complications and expense of a 9/11 plot.


You know the guys that received all the warnings about the attacks and took agents off the trail of some of the suspected terrorist. Ya I'd say those guys had something to do with it.


And yet there's only a couple of dozen guys on the inside. Riiiight.



Why was no one fired? Was it because they were just doing what they were told? To stop trying to stop an attack they knew about?


You're saying nobody lost their job because of 9/11? Can you prove that?


Maybe more then a handful of alphabet boys but all they needed was 19 and 1 guy leading the charge right? If 20 people outside our government were able to pull off the attack then seems pretty possible it would only take 19 and 1 from inside to do the same job.
I guess that kinda shrinks the list back down huh?

Your presented an alternative theory about how the events of recovering or finding wmds in iraq could have happened and the gov was part of your break down

I am presenting an alternative theory about how events leading up to and the morning of 911 happened and the gov is part of my breakdown.
See the resemblance? According to you neither happened so at that point you are arguing semantics with your self. But the idea of the government being involved is still there in both scenarios. That is why I don' get how you can be ok with them in your example but not in mine.
I laid it out in hypothetical list format just like you

I should just ignore your question like you did mine about criminal negligence. Think that is the second time your avoided that.
I can't find an article anywhere about some one losing there job over just 911. I imagine if you are asking me then you are ready to back you own question up.
Plenty of people have gotten fired for expressing a different view about what happened on 911.
Haven't seen a firing form "incompetence theory" we are laid out in OS, can you show me where there was one?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Sremmos80


Maybe more then a handful of alphabet boys but all they needed was 19 and 1 guy leading the charge right? If 20 people outside our government were able to pull off the attack then seems pretty possible it would only take 19 and 1 from inside to do the same job.
I guess that kinda shrinks the list back down huh?


No. Because what actually happened doesn't require absurdities like faked plane crashes, missiles, explosives and so on. It's those (utterly preposterous) ideas that need the manpower.






I am presenting an alternative theory about how events leading up to and the morning of 911 happened and the gov is part of my breakdown.
See the resemblance? According to you neither happened so at that point you are arguing semantics with your self. But the idea of the government being involved is still there in both scenarios. That is why I don' get how you can be ok with them in your example but not in mine.
I laid it out in hypothetical list format just like you


Yours was crazy, mine less so. Even though mine was fairly un-crazy they still didn't do it. So I am sayo
ing that the CIA are not involved. You are claiming they killed Americans, faked plane crashes, blew up buildings, bribed other govt workers, fired of missiles. Dude, you need proof, not me.

By the way can you explain how I'm "arguing semantics with myself". Do you even understand what that means?


I should just ignore your question like you did mine about criminal negligence. Think that is the second time your avoided that.


You've cut to the heart of my argument. You win.

Oh no hang on, I'll just answer it, even though it's off topic. The answer is that I don't care, it was ages ago, I'm not american. If I was I'd be fairly pissed off that more wasn't done.


I can't find an article anywhere about some one losing there job over just 911. I imagine if you are asking me then you are ready to back you own question up.


Not really. you're saying that it's a disgrace that people weren't fired over 9/11, but you you're not even sure that's true. I'd say it's you who has the problem.


Plenty of people have gotten fired for expressing a different view about what happened on 911.
Haven't seen a firing form "incompetence theory" we are laid out in OS, can you show me where there was one?


I have no idea what that even means. But of you're saying it's up to me to placate your anger over something you haven't bothered to find out, then I doubt I'm going to bother.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
er.


It just requires 19 people getting past the most powerful counties combined defensive effort for years despite being fingered out as possible terrorist long before the attack.
I brought up the fact of 1 missile being fired in the middle of a war game/terrorist attack, no absurd man power needed there.
Explosives, Turner Construction company, working the floors and massive elevator renovations leading up to the 11th and even reports of construction.
And you do understand that what caused the global collapse was never investigated right? Only what caused the onset of the collapse?
They didn't look for the proof that you call for, hence truthers wanting a new investigation with the existing evidence.




Yours was crazy, mine less so. Even though mine was fairly un-crazy they still didn't do it. So I am sayo
ing that the CIA are not involved. You are claiming they killed Americans, faked plane crashes, blew up buildings, bribed other govt workers, fired of missiles. Dude, you need proof, not me.



What makes something 'less crazy' then the next? Your opinion on it? Framing a country into having WMDs that would involve the UN is just as crazy as 911, seeing as how the outcome of your scenario leads the US to the same place, war with Iraq


That is a good response, you don't care... Obviously you do if you continue to respond to me. And just because you are not american doesn't mean you can't feel the gravity of what I am implying. It was criminal and no one paid for it. Usually signs of a cover up.



Not really. you're saying that it's a disgrace that people weren't fired over 9/11, but you you're not even sure that's true. I'd say it's you who has the problem.

I just stated I did the research and didn't find anything... Do you have any research that differs from that?


What I mean by that is whistle blowers get fired from there current jobs when they speak out against 911 and then asking again for you to refute the statement and lack of findings of firings regarding the incompetence that you are ok with believing happened. If there was incompetence, why did no one pay for it? If it wasn't incompetence then how did the terrorist pull off the attacks?
edit on thTue, 04 Feb 2014 16:40:51 -0600America/Chicago220145180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Sremmos80
er.


It just requires 19 people getting past the most powerful counties combined defensive effort for years despite being fingered out as possible terrorist long before the attack.


Combined defences? It's not like every man woman and child in the military, law enforcement and secret services was looking for these guys. Or even that there was a system that could effectively be expected to stop them.

That's what you should be annoyed about. The guys who got away with being crap at their jobs (who you say you are angry with) must love you lot focusing on your explosives and missiles. It helps them get away with it.


I brought up the fact of 1 missile being fired in the middle of a war game/terrorist attack, no absurd man power needed there.


Except for a warship, a load of guys to actually give the order and fire it, and then keep it totally covered up. No missile missing from the procurement, no record of live fire and not a single word from anyone involved even though they just blew up their own HQ.


Explosives, Turner Construction company, working the floors and massive elevator renovations leading up to the 11th and even reports of construction.


You are underestimating the amount of work needed to wire a building. And also the nature of charges,which are, for example, highly volatile and can be set off by electromagnetic fields (like those made by computers). I guess they just used magical ones. That somehow survived plane impacts.






What makes something 'less crazy' then the next?


In this case, the resources going into one are minimal and the chance of getting away with it high. AND THEY STILL DIDN'T DO IT.

The other requires vast amounts of resources, complicit naval, military and civilian personnel in their hundreds, missiles, thousands of explosives, agents planting plane parts and DNA, disappearing planes, bought-off NIST and engineering and science professionals... and a mystical silence where not one person ever talks.

The second one is crazier.



Your opinion on it? Framing a country into having WMDs that would involve the UN is just as crazy as 911, seeing as how the outcome of your scenario leads the US to the same place, war with Iraq


It may be as foolish (although I'd disagree). But it doesn't require the same craziness to believe it possible.





That is a good response, you don't care... Obviously you do if you continue to respond to me. And just because you are not american doesn't mean you can't feel the gravity of what I am implying. It was criminal and no one paid for it. Usually signs of a cover up.


I genuinely don't care that much. And I agree there was a cover up.



I just stated I did the research and didn't find anything... Do you have any research that differs from that?


No, but I'm not the one angrily claiming it to be true. You're like a guy complaining that a bank got robbed and that the perpetrators were never caught, but admitting that actually you're not sure if they were ever caught. It kind of seems like the anger might be a bit more important than the actual facts. Usually a sign of a cover up, at least in the personal sense of covering up something from yourself.



What I mean by that is whistle blowers get fired from there current jobs when they speak out against 911 and then asking again for you to refute the statement and lack of findings of firings regarding the incompetence that you are ok with believing happened. If there was incompetence, why did no one pay for it? If it wasn't incompetence then how did the terrorist pull off the attacks?
edit on thTue, 04 Feb 2014 16:40:51 -0600America/Chicago220145180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


There was incompetence. They got away with it because you live in a stupid country that lets powerful people do pretty much what they like.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80
er.


It just requires 19 people getting past the most powerful counties combined defensive effort for years despite being fingered out as possible terrorist long before the attack.


Combined defences? It's not like every man woman and child in the military, law enforcement and secret services was looking for these guys. Or even that there was a system that could effectively be expected to stop them.

That's what you should be annoyed about. The guys who got away with being crap at their jobs (who you say you are angry with) must love you lot focusing on your explosives and missiles. It helps them get away with it.


I brought up the fact of 1 missile being fired in the middle of a war game/terrorist attack, no absurd man power needed there.


Except for a warship, a load of guys to actually give the order and fire it, and then keep it totally covered up. No missile missing from the procurement, no record of live fire and not a single word from anyone involved even though they just blew up their own HQ.


Explosives, Turner Construction company, working the floors and massive elevator renovations leading up to the 11th and even reports of construction.


You are underestimating the amount of work needed to wire a building. And also the nature of charges,which are, for example, highly volatile and can be set off by electromagnetic fields (like those made by computers). I guess they just used magical ones. That somehow survived plane impacts.






What makes something 'less crazy' then the next?


In this case, the resources going into one are minimal and the chance of getting away with it high. AND THEY STILL DIDN'T DO IT.

The other requires vast amounts of resources, complicit naval, military and civilian personnel in their hundreds, missiles, thousands of explosives, agents planting plane parts and DNA, disappearing planes, bought-off NIST and engineering and science professionals... and a mystical silence where not one person ever talks.

The second one is crazier.



Your opinion on it? Framing a country into having WMDs that would involve the UN is just as crazy as 911, seeing as how the outcome of your scenario leads the US to the same place, war with Iraq


It may be as foolish (although I'd disagree). But it doesn't require the same craziness to believe it possible.





That is a good response, you don't care... Obviously you do if you continue to respond to me. And just because you are not american doesn't mean you can't feel the gravity of what I am implying. It was criminal and no one paid for it. Usually signs of a cover up.


I genuinely don't care that much. And I agree there was a cover up.



I just stated I did the research and didn't find anything... Do you have any research that differs from that?


No, but I'm not the one angrily claiming it to be true. You're like a guy complaining that a bank got robbed and that the perpetrators were never caught, but admitting that actually you're not sure if they were ever caught. It kind of seems like the anger might be a bit more important than the actual facts. Usually a sign of a cover up, at least in the personal sense of covering up something from yourself.



What I mean by that is whistle blowers get fired from there current jobs when they speak out against 911 and then asking again for you to refute the statement and lack of findings of firings regarding the incompetence that you are ok with believing happened. If there was incompetence, why did no one pay for it? If it wasn't incompetence then how did the terrorist pull off the attacks?
edit on thTue, 04 Feb 2014 16:40:51 -0600America/Chicago220145180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


There was incompetence. They got away with it because you live in a stupid country that lets powerful people do pretty much what they like.


Combined defenses would be the alphabet agencies as they take care of threats outside of the US. And there WAS a system able to stop them THE US WAS WARNED ABOUT THE ATTACKS AND TOOK AGENTS OFF THE CASE... They had/have a system to stop this, it is what every one is complaining about.
All those questions your brought up would all be part of said war game, war games that you know were going on that day. War games involving planes getting hijacked. And you assume again that they would know that it was the missile that was fired that hit the pentagon. But every since the morning they were told it was a 757 and speaking out against the gov when you are a part of it is no bueno and gets swept under the rug very easily.
I am also very open to it being a UAV that was crashed into the pentagon

Plenty of opportunity to place the explosions with the amount of construction crews, again all the way to the morning of the attacks, to place those explosives. And you do bring up a good point that the planes would have to hit floors with out them, but again Turner Construction did the work on almost the EXACT floors that were hit.. Maybe don't need explosives there since you are using a boeing commercial airliner as your bomb.. Did that part elude you? Remember we are lead to believe that a plane can severe the core, don't need explosions there


Twin towers were full of asbestos, as you well know that is banned now. Silverstien bought 220 floors filled with a banned insinuation that he knew he would have to spend BILLIONS to renovate each floor. Now he buys it in july, gets it insured for 3.5 billion and then 911 happens and he trys to get 7 billion in a loop hole but settles out for 4.5 billion. So in the dumb luck that filled that day, a billionaire became richer, towers that should have never globally collapsed did, the passport of one of the terrorist survives the most worst aviation disaster in years, a third building (owned by the same person) falls, again breaking laws of physics and proving that high rise fires will destroy a building. Even though prior to that day it has never happened before.
To me that sounds crazy as all hell, so i guess "crazy" is all perspective
That right there is the smoking gun for me, this guy didn't get where he was by getting rich off of dumb luck...

I love that you don't care but you still think there is a cover up.... And if you think there was a cover up why are you regurgitating OS? You can't question something and then use the same thing you are questioning as your source...
Either you believe ALL of the OS or none of it. It is an criminal investigation, I don't want lies and hidden numbers.

I told you that I did the research and did not find anything, obviously i can't say i am 100% sure no one got fired. I am sure some low level agents got fired and i bet they didn't tie to 911.
I am talking about the heads of the dept. The ones ignoring warnings and taking agents off the case. How is that any where near the same thing as bank robbers getting away? I never said I didn't know who should get fired, I said no one did.
Does this bank robbery involve the head of the banks opening the back door and vault? Then I could see how it would be the same.
Yes powerful people get away with what ever they want in this country... And I am saying the powerful got away with 911 in their own country.
So does that help you realize why the event happened in the US not in Iraq?

And if you think there was a cover up can you please explain what you think happened? I did for you so i expect you wouldn't have a problem with that.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Sremmos80
I love that you don't care but you still think there is a cover up.... And if you think there was a cover up why are you regurgitating OS? You can't question something and then use the same thing you are questioning as your source...
Either you believe ALL of the OS or none of it.


That's kind of crazy. You're saying that just because you think there was a coverup of agency failures you have to also disbelieve that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Why can't you believe some bits and not others? And why do you even think there is an "OS"? What the FBI says is different from what the government said, which is different from what, say, the Guardian newspaper says. Yet they are all mainstream sources.




And if you think there was a cover up can you please explain what you think happened? I did for you so i expect you wouldn't have a problem with that.


I think that the US and its agencies couldn't imagine an attack of this nature. So they had in place a structure that didn't allow for inter-agency cooperation, nor did they take jihadi terrorists particularly seriously. Added to that security on domestic flights was lax. Al Qaeda-trained operatives exploited this to hijack four planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in PA, the latter after a passenger revolt.

Having the most horrifying and spectacular terror attack ever to happen go off largely without a hitch under their noses was hugely embarrassing for the authorities and they made certain that the subsequent investigations would exonerate them as much as possible.

That's about it.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Nobody got fired....period. That is for sure...because it would be admition of guilt...which was unthinkable. The appearance of innocence had to be kept.

Imagine someone being fired for it...he would be officially made guilty for not performing on duty and 3000 people died...and thus become a target for a whole lot of whack jobs and not to mention private lawsuits against the institution which employed the person. There would be a hellraiser so to speak. It would trigger a domino effect.

No. You just have to think logically. They couldn't fire anyone.

That's the beauty of the entire story. It's so damn sick that even those that maybe were involved or only knew about it...wouldn't ever dare to publicly admit it. The consequences could be rather ugly. For everybody. Not just those involved.

Of course, you would wake up the other morning and find out that the Wall Street had crashed..nose dived...and you can fill in the rest...



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80
I love that you don't care but you still think there is a cover up.... And if you think there was a cover up why are you regurgitating OS? You can't question something and then use the same thing you are questioning as your source...
Either you believe ALL of the OS or none of it.


That's kind of crazy. You're saying that just because you think there was a coverup of agency failures you have to also disbelieve that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Why can't you believe some bits and not others? And why do you even think there is an "OS"? What the FBI says is different from what the government said, which is different from what, say, the Guardian newspaper says. Yet they are all mainstream sources.




And if you think there was a cover up can you please explain what you think happened? I did for you so i expect you wouldn't have a problem with that.


I think that the US and its agencies couldn't imagine an attack of this nature. So they had in place a structure that didn't allow for inter-agency cooperation, nor did they take jihadi terrorists particularly seriously. Added to that security on domestic flights was lax. Al Qaeda-trained operatives exploited this to hijack four planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in PA, the latter after a passenger revolt.

Having the most horrifying and spectacular terror attack ever to happen go off largely without a hitch under their noses was hugely embarrassing for the authorities and they made certain that the subsequent investigations would exonerate them as much as possible.

That's about it.


When I say OS, I mean the commission, and the NIST report which is the official story.

And yes I do, a cover up is usually a lie about something, so if you agree they are covering even part of it up then how can you trust any part of it? This was a mass murder, should be no covering to "save face".
IMO that is more disrespectful to the people that died for no reason that day, and all that died in the subsequent war that followed.

They were doing war games THAT MORNING of planes getting hijacked and used as a weapon, so how can you say that they never though of an attack like this? That is OS hoopla. If this really came down to agencies just not talking, then why haven't there been HUGE reforms?
No firings, no reforms, shoot people got promoted from that day, doesn't sound like the agencies did anything "wrong" that day
Are you sure they were jihadi's?? You have a record when they did the walk to mecca?
We funded al-quidea, they would be no where near what they are now if it wasn't for us helping them around the first desert conflict. And OBL... Wonder why he isn't so buddy buddy with the bush family like the rest of his.... Weird right??
And i guess we should all go into caves and hid from the US gov, it takes YEARS off the aging process



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Like I say, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you. And I agree that it's disgraceful that more wasn't done. I do think there have been pretty big reforms though, from the formation of whatever your country calls the JIC, to the elevation of terrorism to the top priority for law enforcement and agencies.

The thing is, at vital points your thesis relies on things that are either extremely unlikely or factually incorrect. Which is why the world continues to operate as though what I think is correct. This may be a source of comfort to you, I suppose - it certainly is for most Truthers.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Like I say, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you. And I agree that it's disgraceful that more wasn't done. I do think there have been pretty big reforms though, from the formation of whatever your country calls the JIC, to the elevation of terrorism to the top priority for law enforcement and agencies.

The thing is, at vital points your thesis relies on things that are either extremely unlikely or factually incorrect. Which is why the world continues to operate as though what I think is correct. This may be a source of comfort to you, I suppose - it certainly is for most Truthers.


UM more then half of the US thinks the OS is bull... I haven't seen a poll internationally but if they are like you then they "dont care" any way and will be willing to accept the Commission, which have you read btw? I only ask because you didn't mention it in your sources of the "official story" when you said one didn't exist
The JIC and the elevation of terror hasn't stopped a thing, still have had 2 mass murders and a bombing, all suspects with prior contact to FBI or another agency. You don't live in the US as you said, so you can't see how those "reforms" have done nothing to prevent "terror".
The commission and NIST report are both extremely unlikely and at parts factually incorrect that use phenomenons as used to make correct .
Agree to disagree... sure



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
So the other day I had a member on this site make a very good point about 9/11 that at first, for a second really did challenge my beliefs of what happened that day. This thread will make more sense if your read all of it so please don’t get half way through and jump in with a knee jerk reaction.

Anway....

To explain, I am personally a proponent of the official narrative of what happened that day, yet I do have some questions. One such example of this is that I do find it strange that NIST would refuse to provide all of the data that went into their computer modelling. Anyway when discussing this the member (whose name I forget) quite rightly asked me a interesting question, if I have some doubts about one part of the official narrative then how can I still maintain that the official narrative as being the “truth”?

Anyway this got me thinking, broadly speaking I believe the official narrative of what happened on 9/11 as stipulated in the 9/11 commission report and that NIST are correct in their views regarding how the buildings fell. If one would like we could call this the “official theory” of what happened that day. Now in science no theory can ever explain everything there are at times anomalies what some may call “residue problems”. In other words I accept that when it comes to the official theory there are some isolated anomalies which it cannot adequately explain.

In my view something that 9/11 truthers do is taking these anomalies and then trying to construct a entirely new theory, a “alternative theory” which presents these anomalies as part of a deeper darker plot that is contradictory to the official theory that fits in with a preconceived notion of what really happened. However the problem is that these new theories do not adequately explain existing and established facts that the “official theory” explains.

Events at the pentagon can perhaps best illustrate my point, according to what we will call the official theory for the purposes of this thread American Airlines flight 77 was crashed into the pentagon. As proof of this we have the wreckage found at the site, eyewitnesses, limited CCTV footage and we even have the voice recorder of the plane that was found at the site along with the history of the flight leading up to the movement of impact. Yet despite all of this there are some anomalies with the impact at the pentagon as a few eyewitnesses at the time say that they thought they saw a missile hitting the pentagon.



This presents a anomaly within the official narrative, this man talks about something "like" a cruise missile . What truthers then do is take these anomalies and a preconceived notion that 9/11 was a “inside job” and put them together. Now they present an “alternative theory” based on these anomalies which then says that a missile hit the pentagon because this eye-witnesses said so. This alternative theory then seems to grow legs as it competes with the “official theory” to explain other facts. So the alternative theory morphs into something much more elaborate, the plane was switched and they launched a missile at the pentagon, planted all of the wreckage at the scene of the attack then killed off all of the real passengers at a undisclosed location and buried all the CCTV footage showing the missile.

We are thus presented with two schools of thought regarding what happened, the official theory and the numerous alternative theories. Yet if we then apply a principle of parsimony to the two schools of thought as to what really happened at the pentagon it is obvious that the theory that makes the least assumptions and can explain the most facts is the official theory. As such for my logical mind I can only say with confidence that the “official theory” must be the correct one as it is the one that can explain most of the facts.

There is a BUT in this idea; although I can say with confidence that the official narrative provides the most reasonable explanation of what happened that day I also must accept that it does not provide all of the answers to the anomalies and in these anomalies i must also be prepared to make attempts at seeking out the answers to them and adapt my views as such. This means that as more of these anomalies are solved or explained they should strengthen my conviction on the official narrative as they should corroborate with it. Yet at the same time as a individual who is passionate about the truth when these anomalies are explained in a way which seriously questions the official narrative I then must also question my beliefs.

I guess the best way I could summarize this thread is by saying that when it comes to 9/11 even those of us who believe the official narrative should accept that we do not know everything that happened that day. And in that grey area where the anomalies reside we should also accept it is possible that there could exist information that has the potential to radically change those views.

Anyway that was just an interesting personal reflection on my beliefs I had the other day.


edit on 23-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




There are simply too many questions...too many "Reasonable doubts" to believe we have the EXACT, PRECISE details of not only the events and what happened, but those who had foreknowledge of the event, and those who were a part of the event itself.

I guarantee you, maximum justice for 9/11, has not been executed.

I'll leave it at that.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Sremmos80


UM more then half of the US thinks the OS is bull...


I doubt that's true in the sense you think it is, but even if it is, so what? Vast numbers of people are pretty stupid. Most posters on this website spends plenty of time deriding the mass of 'sheeple', so I'm not sure why a majority would even be desirable if you think that most people's opinion can't be trusted.

And anyway, I didn't say a majority agreed with me (although I'm pretty sure they do, largely). I said that the world operates as though what I say - or something like it - is correct. This may be because it's fairly accurate and reasonable, or because there is a vast conspiracy suppressing the truth in manner brilliant enough to fool everybody except a few, or it may be because nobody cares that much.

Whichever it is, your side need to up their game, because 12 years on you are losing badly.



The JIC and the elevation of terror hasn't stopped a thing, still have had 2 mass murders and a bombing, all suspects with prior contact to FBI or another agency. You don't live in the US as you said, so you can't see how those "reforms" have done nothing to prevent "terror".
The commission and NIST report are both extremely unlikely and at parts factually incorrect that use phenomenons as used to make correct .
Agree to disagree... sure


I'm not sure how you would know. Because a terror event that was prevented by definition wouldn't happen.

And they are mainly concentrating on muslims because muslims carried out 9/11. There haven't been any comparable attacks since, despite two vastly divisive wars, so they're probably getting something right.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


You know you said that you think there was in fact a cover up, so i guess in that sense most do think like you do, so is that what you were getting at when you said the majority thinks like you? Because that fits right into what I am saying and against what you are quoting and trying to use against me... Kinda like the OS, just can't keep things making sense. Lots of double talk and back tracking.
I don't call the mass sheeple, again you putting words in my mouth. And by believing that 911 was a set up, they would be stepping out of that term. So yes the mass agreeing against what those sworn to protect use is a good sign. It shows they are done trusting the gov.

I love how you claim that they are only looking for muslims and that is why possibly nothing has changed. So giving them the incompetence route again?? Do you feel that is how national security should work? And yes we would know if the alphabet boys stopped anything major because they wouldn't shut up about it. Again you don't live in the US so you can't see how the changes have done nothing but make life hell for the joe public. We still are having attacks, sure nothing at the 3000 death toll but since when does the number of deaths change the nature of the attack? Boston Bombings most recently, carried out by radicals, or we are told any way, FBI classified it as a terrorist attack, they even talked to the bombers frequently. Not to metion the shootings that have taken place since, again with FBI frequent contact. So either the incompetence hasn't stopped or it was never there in the first place.
Can't wait to see what 2 sentences you decide you want to reply to and then ignore the rest



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


You know you said that you think there was in fact a cover up, so i guess in that sense most do think like you do, so is that what you were getting at when you said the majority thinks like you? Because that fits right into what I am saying and against what you are quoting and trying to use against me... Kinda like the OS, just can't keep things making sense. Lots of double talk and back tracking.
I don't call the mass sheeple, again you putting words in my mouth. And by believing that 911 was a set up, they would be stepping out of that term. So yes the mass agreeing against what those sworn to protect use is a good sign. It shows they are done trusting the gov.


I think that people in power may have lied about their competence in preventing 9/11, yes. Most people who aren't idiots think this. Most people who aren't idiots also give no credit to stupid theories about bombs, missiles, disappeared planes, faked phone calls and so on.

There are cover ups that are real, and demand investigation, and there are pointless rabbit holes which are of interest only to fantasists.


I love how you claim that they are only looking for muslims and that is why possibly nothing has changed.


I didn't claim that.


So giving them the incompetence route again?? Do you feel that is how national security should work?


No. Obviously. But it often does. National security is probably just as full of careerists and incompetents and red tape as anything else. Expecting the same government that does most things so badly to suddenly develop super powers with regard to one aspect of its work is fanciful.


And yes we would know if the alphabet boys stopped anything major because they wouldn't shut up about it.


Wrong. Because it's quite possible that advertising the prevention of one operation would jeopardise the ongoing efforts to stop another.


Again you don't live in the US so you can't see how the changes have done nothing but make life hell for the joe public. We still are having attacks, sure nothing at the 3000 death toll but since when does the number of deaths change the nature of the attack?


You're seriously claiming that a dirty bomb that killed half a million people would be the same as a shooting, say, which killed ten?

And as you say you haven't had an attack with a high death toll. So maybe they are doing something right. Finally.


Boston Bombings most recently, carried out by radicals, or we are told any way, FBI classified it as a terrorist attack, they even talked to the bombers frequently. Not to metion the shootings that have taken place since, again with FBI frequent contact. So either the incompetence hasn't stopped or it was never there in the first place.
Can't wait to see what 2 sentences you decide you want to reply to and then ignore the rest


I think if you look into the FBI's "frequent contact" beyond CT websites you might find it's made up.

But anyway, you've had one severe attack by muslim radicals since 9/11. Given that you've spent alot of time invading muslim countries I think your guys are doing a good job. And perhaps the homegrown shooters are because they've taken their eye off that ball?

It all fits my thesis without any of the contortions you have to go through to make it fit yours. Doesn't that say something to you?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




I think that people in power may have lied about their competence in preventing 9/11, yes. Most people who aren't idiots think this. Most people who aren't idiots also give no credit to stupid theories about bombs, missiles, disappeared planes, faked phone calls and so on.

There are cover ups that are real, and demand investigation, and there are pointless rabbit holes which are of interest only to fantasists.


So where do you draw the line on what was lied to you about then? What did they cover up and what did they not cover up? If it was just an innocent mistake that they were not prepared for, but running games for the exact situation the day of, then why cover it up? They are TOLD us what happened, why not SHOW?
I would appreciate it if you don't call me an idiot, I have not personally attacked you in any way, was hoping the same for you.
And for do your self a favor, again, look up when the tech was made available to make cell phone calls in the air. Might shorten your list of "idiots" that think those calls were faked.



And they are mainly concentrating on muslims because muslims carried out 9/11. There haven't been any comparable attacks since, despite two vastly divisive wars, so they're probably getting something right.





I didn't claim that.


Or really you didn't claim that? Hum must have read and quoted that sentence you posted wrong




You're seriously claiming that a dirty bomb that killed half a million people would be the same as a shooting, say, which killed ten?

And as you say you haven't had an attack with a high death toll. So maybe they are doing something right. Finally.


I never made such a claim, I only made a claim that there has been attacks that have been attributed to "terrorist" since. And death toll doesn't matter, if 1 or 100 dies it still carries the same weight. Especially when people are being lied to and dealing with cover ups. That you admit happens




I think if you look into the FBI's "frequent contact" beyond CT websites you might find it's made up.


Care to source that claim?




But anyway, you've had one severe attack by muslim radicals since 9/11. Given that you've spent a lot of time invading muslim countries I think your guys are doing a good job. And perhaps the homegrown shooters are because they've taken their eye off that ball?


FBI visited adam years before the shooting, he "hacked" their servers and they were dismissed by his mom. They had their eyes on him. Boston was done by Muslims and again previous contact with a drill going on that same day. And check into the BB family tree if you really want to see how deep into gov agencies these boys go. Oh and looks like you admit they are focusing on muslim radicals... again lol



It all fits my thesis without any of the contortions you have to go through to make it fit yours. Doesn't that say something to you?


It fits into the claim that our agencies can't stop a fly with a bazooka, every time anything happens they can just claim incompetence and blame the "inability" to talk to each other even though they have been in existence for decades....

Where is your breakdown of what happened? I gave you mine and then politely asked for yours... I am very interested to see what was/wasn't covered up. Do you think that can happen with your reply?
edit on thFri, 14 Feb 2014 16:03:50 -0600America/Chicago220145080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Oh and btw junior, they DID try and fake the WMD's in iraq and failed LOL
whatreallyhappened.com...
It even goes in to telling how the UN weapons instpectors were looking for FACTORIES and the ability to PRODUCE the WMD's. Remember how you said that wasn't what they were looking for?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Sremmos80
Oh and btw junior, they DID try and fake the WMD's in iraq and failed LOL
whatreallyhappened.com...


I know, that's the point! If this is new information to you then you are somewhat behind and I'm not surprised you're so confused. They created a series of quite flimsy hearsay and juiced up intelligence prior to the invasion - my point is that when they then got to Iraq they didn't bother to fake the WMDs they said had been there.

And yet they were capable of pulling off 9/11. That seems... odd.


It even goes in to telling how the UN weapons instpectors were looking for FACTORIES and the ability to PRODUCE the WMD's. Remember how you said that wasn't what they were looking for?


The weapon inspectors were looking for factories, yes. I didn't dispute that. The US and UK were also looking for any kind of WMD as they became increasingly desperate to justify their pre-war 'intelligence'.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join