9/11 was an inside job.

What we have to understand about the sinister clique who did this crime, is that like a butcher who makes sure they get every piece of the hog, from the snout to the gristle, these criminals, like pigs at the trough, will greedily get every advantage out of this crime they can fathom.

Indeed, from the wars they started through 911, to the financial crimes and advantages of a few, and intelligence, political and geo political advantages, all the way to the police state apparatus they created, and all the other myriad benefits these sinister criminals have gotten from 911.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I remember when we had good investigative journalists. I grew up reading Jack Anderson a syndicated investigative journalist. I also watched 60 minutes where they were always investigating politicians and businesses and exposing corruption. All caught on tape and sometimes catching them in the criminal act!

I don't know if those of us who are in their 50's or older have noticed, but ever since Nixon's crime was exposed by two Washington investigative reporters, bold investigative reporting has become non-existent. It seems like our government has threatened and put a stop to investigative journalism.

Case in point. The lies leading up to the Iraq War. The attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi. The Savings and Loan scandal. The bail-out of the banking industry. Above all, the numerous questions still unanswered surrounding the 9/11 attack.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Its not nonsense though is it, if it were nonsense you would not be here trying to convince us all 16 years later that it is nonsense.

Then the Flat Earth theory is not nonsense either, because that has been talked about for far longer than 16 years.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Its not nonsense though is it, if it were nonsense you would not be here trying to convince us all 16 years later that it is nonsense.

Then the Flat Earth theory is not nonsense either, because that has been talked about for far longer than 16 years.

I haven't seen you in flat earth threads making a case for its existence, then again I don't look at flat earth threads either.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
I haven't seen you in flat earth threads making a case for its existence

This is the exact opposite of what I was driving at, but anyway.

911 Lest we forget.

a reply to: slider1982
The truther side even more so

No planes,death rays,mini nukes, holgrams everything turned to dust,free fall speed just to name a few.

Yet despite all these questions, we are no closer to finding justice for those killed that day, it's makes their loss even sadder.

However the families of the victims have been paid off by the VCF-

At the end of the process $7 billion was awarded to 97% of the families; the average payout was $1.8 million. A non-negotiable clause in the acceptance papers for the settlements was that the families were to never file suit against the airlines for any lack of security or otherwise unsafe procedures.

a reply to: aliensanonymous

Different construction and no damage before fires the problem with people like you is a building is a building is a building.

Apples with apples

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: slider1982
The truther side even more so

No planes,death rays,mini nukes, holgrams everything turned to dust,free fall speed just to name a few.

Eh, some of that probably originated from the OS side in the form of disinfo. Can't rule it out anyway. Truthers don't share a unified theory and they don't universally entertain all of the above.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: aliensanonymous

Different construction and no damage before fires the problem with people like you is a building is a building is a building.

Apples with apples

It's funny because the argument about construction differences is usually used to show how ours is superior. The 'triangle of life' technique that made the rounds online citing a safe way to seek shelter in the event if a collapse instead of a doorway for instance, was debunked because the inferior construction of buildings compared to our standards, that doorways were safer etc.

Now apparently hasty Dubai construction is would need pre structural damage AND being completely engulfed in sustained fire to be comparable?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: slider1982
The truther side even more so

No planes,death rays,mini nukes, holgrams everything turned to dust,free fall speed just to name a few.

Eh, some of that probably originated from the OS side in the form of disinfo. Can't rule it out anyway. Truthers don't share a unified theory and they don't universally entertain all of the above.

Can you quote you where ever you dogged a conspiracist to provide evidence of something outrageous? Like nukes. A recovered sunken Russian missile used at the pentagon. The Towers succumbed to vaporization? Or do you hold conspiracists to a lower standard than an individual citing the accounts and evidence a jet crashed at Shanksville?

That problem has always been that there are too many conspiracies about 9/11. They can't ALL possibly be true. It was a great misinformation campaign.

The second problem is that many will say...well that ONE theory doesn't make sense so they must all be false. We know that's not true either.

We get more traction and information and good dialogue when we focus on one issue at a time.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: slider1982
The truther side even more so

No planes,death rays,mini nukes, holgrams everything turned to dust,free fall speed just to name a few.

Eh, some of that probably originated from the OS side in the form of disinfo. Can't rule it out anyway. Truthers don't share a unified theory and they don't universally entertain all of the above.

Can you quote you where ever you dogged a conspiracist to provide evidence of something outrageous? Like nukes. A recovered sunken Russian missile used at the pentagon. The Towers succumbed to vaporization? Or do you hold conspiracists to a lower standard than an individual citing the accounts and evidence a jet crashed at Shanksville?

Why would I? No conspiracy theorist has been able to subpoena evidence to flesh out their theories. So why would I ask them to provide me with such evidence?

My position has always been that the federal government has never proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and now they have had 16 years to do so. If the official story was prosecuted in a criminal court, there still remains reasonable doubt about the identities of the suspects, for crying out loud!

The official story would fail if prosecuted under U.S. criminal court standards.

Conspiracy theorists have no burden to prove their theories, and they are free to offer them in light of the fact that there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the official story. However, there is circumstantial evidence and motive pointing to other suspects that's far MORE compelling, to me, than what's offered in the official story.

Yeah, I definitely hold truthers to a much lower evidentiary standard than the federal government, because it is the federal government that has the burden of proof and conducted the investigation.

originally posted by: amazing
That problem has always been that there are too many conspiracies about 9/11. They can't ALL possibly be true. It was a great misinformation campaign.

The second problem is that many will say...well that ONE theory doesn't make sense so they must all be false. We know that's not true either.

We get more traction and information and good dialogue when we focus on one issue at a time.

Good points and the series of photos with buildings on fire tell me a lot. Thermite stories to debunk the part about no one seeing liquid metal and the counter the shills tell us that it was from jet fuel burning:

(17 sec mark on this one) "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60e

www.viewzone.com...

truthandshadows.wordpress.com...

www.google.com... qDWAhWF7yYKHcHMDk0QsAQIbw

originally posted by: [post=22659550]MotherMayEye


The official story would fail if prosecuted under U.S. criminal court standards.

Conspiracy theorists have no burden to prove their theories, and they are free to offer them in light of the fact that there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the official story. However, there is circumstantial evidence and motive pointing to other suspects that's far MORE compelling, to me, than what's offered in the official story.

Yeah, I definitely hold truthers to a much lower evidentiary standard than the federal government, because it is the federal government that has the burden of proof and conducted the investigation.


*******************************************************************************

Issue with formatting this reply, pardon me please.
REPLY:
The government lied and we need to know the truth whatever it is. The truthers are sure of the lies and have various theories because the Gov is withholding evidence such as the cameras at the Pentagon and I could go on a bit with other anomalous activity that stick out as untrue from the OS.

originally posted by: Justoneman
The government lied and we need to know the truth whatever it is. The truthers are sure of the lies and have various theories because the Gov is withholding evidence such as the cameras at the Pentagon and I could go on a bit with other anomalous activity that stick out as untrue from the OS.

Good gravy, GWB even lied about watching the first plane hit the North Tower on TV before the second plane hit. Well, either he lied or he was watching video footage/feed that the public never saw (which is an even more hinky scenario)!

There's so much reasonable doubt about the OS, you really have to wonder about the people who spend oodles of time defending it as undeniable truth.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Good gravy, GWB even lied about watching the first plane hit the North Tower on TV before the second plane hit. Well, either he lied or he was watching video footage/feed that the public never saw (which is an even more hinky scenario)!

Or he's an idiot and confused genuine memories with something he only saw on TV later that day. This scenario has the benefit of being based on a known fact. Anyway, I've never understood why this remark (by Bush) is meant to be significant.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Good gravy, GWB even lied about watching the first plane hit the North Tower on TV before the second plane hit. Well, either he lied or he was watching video footage/feed that the public never saw (which is an even more hinky scenario)!

Or he's an idiot and confused genuine memories with something he only saw on TV later that day. This scenario has the benefit of being based on a known fact. Anyway, I've never understood why this remark (by Bush) is meant to be significant.

I don't buy that. Sixteen years later and I still clearly remember where I was and how I watched the events unfold.

It's significant because GWB made up a story about how he found out the first tower was hit instead of telling the truth.

Would the truth implicate him somehow? Perhaps. And so it just adds more reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the federal government with regard to 9/11.

ETA: Also, if he confused the time of day he saw the first plane hit and it was, indeed, later in the day...he wouldn't have said "I thought, 'My what a terrible pilot.'"

So that explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

ETA 2: And he wouldn't have said he watched the video on a TV in the elementary school's corridor! He wasn't at the school, anymore, by the time the video of the first plane hitting the North Tower surfaced!

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Good gravy, GWB even lied about watching the first plane hit the North Tower on TV before the second plane hit. Well, either he lied or he was watching video footage/feed that the public never saw (which is an even more hinky scenario)!

Or he's an idiot and confused genuine memories with something he only saw on TV later that day. This scenario has the benefit of being based on a known fact. Anyway, I've never understood why this remark (by Bush) is meant to be significant.

Well was that and idiot act or sly like a fox act?

I think the so called secret government does exist and they would be well schooled in deflection regardless of what it took to get a 'believable" deflection. I remember the phrase "plausible deniability" from the old Daddy Bush era.