Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

Status
Not open for further replies.
If your imaginary scenario is correct then why doesn't it apply to the official conspiracy theory also? In other words, wouldn't it be absolutely certain that Muslim factions would have exposed 911 given that it was a "Muslim" conspiracy? Important to remember that no matter what type of theory you go with, 9/11 was a conspiracy.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here. Muslims the world over have provided evidence against AQ and other radical islamist groups. Likewise they've renounced the violent rhetoric espoused by those groups.

Yes, we can argue semantics. The term "conspiracy" is used very clearly in this context, that being the government conspired to orchestrate 9/11 or let it happen.

mynym said:
On a side note, I would also note that taking a lack of imaginary whistle blowers too far might begin to be a case of citing imaginary evidence. And ironically, that imaginary evidence about what simply must be given your way of imagining things could be countered with actual evidence about the "illuminati".... or perhaps just noting known patterns with less entertaining and nefarious connotations, i.e. the members of secret societies that tend to consider themselves more illuminated and superior to everyone else. Imagine it this way, what's the first thing that people do on a reality show in Honey Boo Boo America when the issue is survival. On Survivor, they form secret societies based on secret oaths and so forth. You don't need to engage in the theatrical productions typical to some secret societies to do that. When people get kicked off the island and they cry and so forth do they expose their secret alliance? Usually not, not if it's not in their interests to do so. You have to wait a few episodes for that. Point being, when you consistently have members of secret societies incorporated as members of the ruling class you may not necessarily know what's going on with "absolute certainty".

Especially if they've perfected ways of taking a leak on journalists, managing public relations, creating a world in which perceptions are reality and so forth. It's curious to me how "the base" of the Left imagine things. Apparently they can generally be led by gatekeepers like Chomsky to imagine that Bush lied about WMDs, lied about this, lied about that, his administration is utterly corrupt and so forth... but when it comes to 911... apparently his administration told the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Shrug. I'll have to think about it more but I'll probably never come to a conclusion of "absolute certainty" as you seem to be able to based mainly on imaginary evidence. (I.e. imagining that there would be whistle blowers. And that's mainly because I can imagine that there wouldn't be.)

So you're saying that that the most deadly attack on American soil being orchestrated by the government itself is more likely than the existence of whistleblowers following such a thing. Meanwhile, the impartial, methodical, unbiased Internet-truther community has figured it all out. Right.

I'll say it again: there were several whistleblowers in the intelligence agencies throughout the 2000s, exposing everything from budgetary indiscretion to tortue. It's a shame that the Obama administration is prosecuting them so aggressively, but you don't seem to be grasping the implications accompanying the facts that: they came out at all, weren't silenced by "disappearance", and some of them have even successfully defended themselves. Manning blew the whistle big time for something much less. There were so many people within the government and military during the Bush presidency that wholeheartedly disagreed with Bush. There is simply no way there would not be whistleblowers of some nature.

mynym said:
There isn't zero doubt in the matter given that the entire internet is being spied on and it would seem that even CIA chiefs can be sifted out of the streams of information to be targeted or blackmailed based on that. It would seem to me that if one kept the conspiracy to a minimum like Osama did according to the official story and you also had access to that information and had links to those writing the code for the "threat disposition matrix" to assassinate your operatives without trial and so forth if necessary that it could be done. You're imagining that it couldn't be done and I'm imagining that it could be. That's all this seems to amount to. Interesting debate, though.

There is zero doubt in the matter. Petraeus' "clever" technique of hiding his email correspondance was saving the emails as drafts in Gmail for his biographer to view.

The example is moot, anyways. The higher-ups in the intelligence agencies are always under intense scrutiny, for example in Petraeus' case they were concerned the writer could blackmail him.

Tor, despite being initially funded by the DoD, has been the bane of the FBI cybercrime unit's existence in recent years. But that's just Tor. There's absolutely nothing the government can do to spy on properly encrypted information. There's absolutely nothing they can do to spy on communications over uncontrolled infrastructure without a physical presence.

mynym said:
Fair enough. There are theories with different degrees of explanatory power. I haven't come to an "absolutely certain" conclusion and so forth.

It's likely that most people in the military wouldn't have the same level of caring that Manning did. After all, they're being trained to be psychopaths.

Manning is a PFC in the Army. He received the same training as anyone else in the Army. Have you spoken with anyone in the military? Most people are not there to destroy and kill. If what you're saying is true, we would have simply glassed the middle east and been done with it by now. Similarly the humanitarian arm of the military would not be the largest and most capable such effort in the world, it wouldn't exist at all.
 
I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here. Muslims the world over have provided evidence against AQ and other radical islamist groups. Likewise they've renounced the violent rhetoric espoused by those groups.

I'm getting at the fact that it wouldn't take the entire government conspiring just like it wouldn't take all Muslims to have a successful conspiracy if the official theory is correct. (And it may be correct.)

The term "conspiracy" is used very clearly in this context, that being the government conspired to orchestrate 9/11 or let it happen.

This is the general way I would imagine it:

Although I might modify that theory a bit because dual citizens and the biases of the Zionist faction weren't included in that imaginary scenario. To answer your question about "the government".... "There you go again, inditing the entire government!" Etc. Instead of saying "the government" I'd imagine that it might be a small faction having to do with secret societies often interested Zionism (or Sionism, in the Templar's verison? Skull and bones = the old pirates, etc.) and so forth. There is historical precedent for that and it's something that the ruling classes have always been interested. But now that everyone is modern, they're only interested in investing in the infrastructure here at home our sake... etc. Just kidding. There's a lot of evidence that they're still interested in all the crap that they've always seemed to be interested in. So I doubt that you can understand 911 without understanding different factions in the ruling class, secret societies and so forth. (Anonymous has to do better research than the "Don't taze me bro'!!!" guy, though. Although, ultimately, it is probably the sort of thing that will wind up getting you tazed. Just saying.)

So you're saying that that the most deadly attack on American soil being orchestrated by the government itself

No.
Meanwhile, the impartial, methodical, unbiased Internet-truther community has figured it all out. Right.

Not at all.

But as far as ludicrous generalities go... I would note that the imaginary scenarios of conspiracy theorists would seem to have more predictive power than the abject bunk typical to the government. So why not hire them and give them billions in paper ponzi to play war games with? I'm sure they'd have fun with it... and at least they can apparently imagine a scenario that's likely to happen.

but you don't seem to be grasping the implications accompanying the facts that: they came out at all, weren't silenced by "disappearance", and some of them have even successfully defended themselves.

Perhaps not in every case:
The response of the Blair regime to this report was to promote a witch-hunt to ferret out the source inside the government who had leaked such embarrassing material to Barnaby Mason. Officials of the British Defense Ministry allowed journalists to read them lists of persons suspected of being the leaker, and were willing to confirm the identity of their prime suspect as soon as the journalists mentioned his name. In this way, the Defense Ministry in effect betrayed one of its own employees, Dr. David Kelly. A few days later Kelly was found dead in a forest near his home, with his wrists slashed. His death was quickly ruled a suicide by Blair. After Kelly’s death, a UN diplomat recalled that he had asked Kelly back in February 2003 what would happen if Tony Blair went through with his plan to join Bush in attacking Iraq. “I will probably be found dead in the woods,” was Kelly’s prophetic reply.
(9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley)
And if you pay attention over time, you might find that it seems to have something to do with Zionism. In other words, Americans may wind up fighting wars based on the type of false flag events being openly proposed by low level Zionists and so forth to the detriment of American interests while Wikileaks seldom seems to release any information detrimental to Israeli interests or Zionism.
There were so many people within the government and military during the Bush presidency that wholeheartedly disagreed with Bush. There is simply no way there would not be whistleblowers of some nature.

I wonder, what is the total number of people in the American government that would have to be totally in on the conspiracy in order for it to work in your mind? It seems to me that the number would be small, especially given that one could include the international networks of banksters, mercenaries and so forth. I wonder, how many people did it take to conspire to bring the joint operation of Iran Contra about?

The example is moot, anyways. The higher-ups in the intelligence agencies are always under intense scrutiny, for example in Petraeus' case they were concerned the writer could blackmail him.

Fair enough. I would just note that if they can spy on the director of the CIA then they can also spy on low level government employees and whistle blowers. (Although, I'm not sure how many low level employees would have to know about a joint operation like Iran Contra... or hypothetically, 911.)

There's absolutely nothing they can do to spy on communications over uncontrolled infrastructure without a physical presence.

Thus the juxtaposition of the SWAT team raid at Megaupload and the prosecution of Aaron Swartz with the attitude of prosecutors toward the bankster class, I'd imagine. (Still waiting on the SWAT team raids at their offices, etc.) Just imagine when the ruling class finally gets a handle on some of these new technologies and develops better ways of incorporating them into their police $tate. Glad to be living in a time when they can't handle it, though.

In any event, this whole thing seems to be running on full faith and credit in abject corruption at this point. There again, I guess it always has to one degree or another. But... can you smell the fumes of the fuel these days? The fact that 911 truth exists (abject cynicism?) is probably as much an effect of a decline in full faith and credit in the current world order defined by the Almighty Dollar (You know, the pyramid scheme of paper ponzi with the little all seeing eye on the top.) as it is a cause of decline in faith. (Although it is interesting that a bunch of little all seeing eyes may be opening in "the base" to look back at the eye at the top... and begin to wonder why it's observing them, etc. Perhaps wondering and the ability to imagine things is the key to understanding many of the wonders of the world.)

If only one could control the destruction of the Right and the Left as the current pillars of politics and the psychology of the brains between people's temples in order to do away with current faiths and build up a new order in the world, eh? (I'm not big on the fear loop but it's true that we may be reaching the end of a cycle of sorts soon. It happens. It's sort of like excrement in that way.)

Have you spoken with anyone in the military?

In a word, yes.

Most people are not there to destroy and kill.

Trying to train people to be psychopaths or seeking to instigate and use psychopathic tendencies isn't the equivalent of total success... some still wind up being innocent as doves but wise as serpents in the end.
 
I'm getting at the fact that it wouldn't take the entire government conspiring just like it wouldn't take all Muslims to have a successful conspiracy

I think you need to clarify what version of the theory you are talking about when discussing how many people would need to be involved. Because there's a vast difference between, for example:

A) Small cell of deep CIA operatives encourages and supplies some CIA assets to hijack and fly planes into the buildings.
and
B) Planes are flown in by remote control and buildings are rigged for explosives, FBI and CIA looks the other way.

Most debunkers are debunking the controlled demolition theory (B), because it's the most obviously wrong theory.

The "they were helped" theory (A) is essentially impossible to disprove, seeing as many of those involved are now dead.
 
(Bradley Manning, an emotionally unstable, low-level soldier with TS/SCI clearance, managed to leak more confidential information than ever before in US history, including higher-ups in various intelligence agencies working in direct collusion with the USSR).
And is now facing indefinite detention in solitary confinement, where he steadily deteriorates, for exposing a large amount of low-level intelligence that, beyond making America look bad, has had little to no measurable impact on much of anything politically/economically/militarily, and is being held in such a state to the celebration of many, some of whom feel he should be executed. Oh yeah. That's a real supportive society you've got where whistle-blowing is concerned. Why would anyone hesitate?

This long and NO ONE has come forward or left a message in a suicide note? (how could any sane person survive knowing that that set charges that killed thousands of innocents? ) I don't know any one that could.
This idea seems to be rooted in the premise "I'm a good person, the people I know are good... and so my community is good, my country is good, my side is good. Bad people are not on my side, so they aren't in my country, they aren't in my community, and I don't know any of them." You feel its impossible that people on 'your side' could engage in such a crime, or fail to be riddled with guilt in the wake of it... while at the very same moment claiming that people on the 'other side' are infinitely more capable of committing evil acts guiltless. The belief that 'there MUST be whistleblowers' fits in with this notion, as if at least one person involved in such a plot would have to have been a good person, and would have to have felt obliged to reveal the crime to which he was a party, because no group of people on 'our side' could ever be so completely twisted/uncaring. It's this attitude which has impeded the call for re-investigation from the start.

I plot and plan the deaths of people from a tent.
That's horrible. I sincerely hope you can find other work as soon as possible, and stop participating in the killing of people.
 
Your comparison is invalid. Germany was a dictatorship in which all information was controlled. I realise you would argue that is the same now, but it remains that you can write what you like without fear of being murdered by the State. Secondly, 80,000,000 were not involved or even aware of what was really happening in their name and thirdly, the people doing it did not actually consider it to be a crime.

If you are suggesting that all the people I have described, are in fear of their lives for speaking out, or losing their jobs or reputation and those things override any sense of decency and humanity they have, then I suggest you are incorrect. The reason they do not speak out is because there is no evidence of what you suggest, not that they belong to a herd.

Yeah "wir haben es nicht gewusst". If you have read your history you should now that was just an excuse, it would become the excuse of the 20th century.
Even a couple of university students figured out what was happening.

Another example..there is a wealth of evidence in plain sight of the greatest financial coup d'etat in human history namely the multi-trillion dollar worldwide bank bailouts.
And what do we see? People just go along with it... and the bankers can't stop laughing. It shows you can do a lot with masses of people, herds of people.

Humanity is a herd. And one obviously can do a lot of things with herds.

If you can supply me with evidence that explosives were in ANY way involved in 911, I will write a paper for peer review in "Explosive Engineering".
But evidence must be based on fact, and not 'it kinda looks like controlled demolition.'

Funny... now I have to provide evidence of explosive use.. have you ever heard of the fact that NIST didn't do a trace chemical analysis for accelerant & explosive residue on the WTC 7 dust?
Did you know NIST didn't test the WTC 7 steel because it was "gone"...
Did you know even Mick doesn't know of a single piece of physical WTC 7 evidence that NIST investigated...

Maybe you should spend some time examining what the official government institution charged with the 9/11 investigation did and didn't do.
 
Maybe you should spend some time examining what the official government institution charged with the 9/11 investigation did and didn't do.
Ahh, but you see, there was no cause for investigation, as it's been entirely obvious to everyone involved right from the start it was the inevitable result of an office fire, and thus no examination of the physical evidence was necessary whatsoever. Duh.
 
Also... as far as leaking things on the internet they make a good point in their fictional scenario: "The Press? But we would run the story. You? This is wild eyed crap, bird cage liner... right up there with Elvis is an alien and two headed babies."

Because the internet still tends to fall more toward the side of two headed babies, etc.

With respect to Wikileaks:
At first we did not have many files on Israel and we were afraid of attacks from the east coast of the United States. If we had published information on 'sensitive' countries from the outset, we would have suffered attacks that would have forced us to deviate from our path. --Assange
Content from External Source
So who is to say that they might not sit on information about 911 being a joint operation similar to Iran Contra if they were still... afraid?
 
Serious issues need to be ROOT issues. Things like the Iraq sanctions are in some ways the end result, and not an issue in themselves.

But they are tangible issues and issues, unnecessarily costing the lives and suffering of millions and yet posters on here regularly downplay, dismiss and/or deny them. It is no coincidence that the same posters who do that are the ones who vehemently deny the conspiracy theories. There is a distinct link.

For me the key issue is the role of money in politics, which then leads to the military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes, and corrupt revolving door politics, which leads to unnecessary wars, and an insane domestic prison population.

Are you suggesting that if you no longer perceived the level of bunk around that you do, you would use your resources to oppose corruption in politics, the military industrial complex, the warmongering and the oppression of the American proletariat by use of excessive police force and persecution and the 'for profit' prison regime?

As an outsider, I get the distinct impression that Americans in general seem very proud of their prison culture.
 
Are you suggesting that if you no longer perceived the level of bunk around that you do, you would use your resources to oppose corruption in politics, the military industrial complex, the warmongering and the oppression of the American proletariat by use of excessive police force and persecution and the 'for profit' prison regime?

No, not at all.

I'm suggesting that there are thousands of people who might be more effectively opposed to those things if they were not distracted by baseless conspiracy theories like "a missile hit the Pentagon" or "Obama is a Muslim".

So I feel that, given that I like debunking, and I'm good at debunking, then the most effective way I can help is to turn a few hundred people away from baseless conspiracy theories, and hopefully turn some of them towards the REAL conspiracies.

Admittedly I've ben focussing more on the turning away, perhaps because it's easier and more fun. But I've been thinking for the past few weeks that I need to start a more holistic approach. Not simply "that's not true", more "that's not true, but this is ..."
 
I think you need to clarify what version of the theory you are talking about...

True, it would all need a lot of thought to get it more rigorously specified based on evidence and subject to falsification. I haven't read enough books and articles and so forth yet. And even then my theory might still be pretty stupid given how complex and hard to fit into a theory everything usually turns out to be.

In any event, it would ultimately be nice to believe the official story and the official conspiracy theory. Interesting, though... it doesn't seem to have been rigorously specified as to exactly what took place as far as what's specified in the conspiracy theory about Muslim radicals (i.e. at the political level that Chomsky's referring to). But given that the debate about WTC 7 and so forth is more questionable than I originally thought after reading Griffin's book it may be that other more political theories are "incorrect" too. Not so much incorrect as perhaps not proven to the extent that proponents of those theories say. Nothing against being a proponent of a theory, that's as it must be.
 
The example is moot, anyways. The higher-ups in the intelligence agencies are always under intense scrutiny, for example in Petraeus' case they were concerned the writer could blackmail him.

How is it moot? It just shows the heavy surveillance that is carried out even on Petraeus. How many other's email accounts have been examined in this way. If someone was collating evidence to whistleblow, they could easily be discovered and the consequences are dire. How many may have been headed off at the pass so to speak.

And why on earth need he resign over and extramarital affair when politicians and the elite are indulging in all sorts at the Bohemian Grove, sex and drugs and anything they like basically. I wonder what their wives and families think when they hear of the goings on there.
 
Admittedly I've ben focussing more on the turning away, perhaps because it's easier and more fun. But I've been thinking for the past few weeks that I need to start a more holistic approach. Not simply "that's not true", more "that's not true, but this is ..."

I think that approach would add enormously to the credibility of the site.
 
I think that approach would add enormously to the credibility of the site.

Certainly a bit. I think it's something of a general failing in the skeptical communities that they tend to be mostly on the offensive. A lot of skeptics just do it for fun. There's nothing actually wrong with that (so long as it's honest polite debunking), but it sometimes comes across as just nit-picking, without a coherent goal.
 
Do you think the Federation of American Scientists is a good source?


(...)or these navy guys they should know.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/al-queda evolve.htm


[...]

The "source" was not the FAS- so your lengthy critique of some scientists who are members is entirely irrelevant...the source was OBL in a letter printed in Pakistan's second largest newspaper.

The letter was translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS)- The FAS merely linked to the report in their archives.

Here is another quote from OBL- interviewed in Pakistan

Muslims need a leader who can unite them and establish the "pious caliphate". The pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan. Interest-free banking will be started here. Allah's rule will be established. We are against communism as well
as capitalism. Accumulation of wealth in a few hands is un-Islamic.
Content from External Source
http://thesis.haverford.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10066/4735/OBL19970318.pdf?sequence=4



Indeed, the idea of restoring the Caliphate is a reoccurring theme throughout the AQ spectrum and evidence of this idea can be found from numerous sources and comments such as Zawahiri etc...:

http://triceratops.brynmawr.edu/dsp...pp=10&sort_by=0&page=1&query=Caliphate&etal=0

http://publicintelligence.net/osc-al-qaeda-master-narratives/

Indeed, those Navy guys should know...as it says in the link you provided:

Over time, the cornerstone of Al Qaeda's religious and political rhetoric has remained consistent: Muslims should view themselves as a single nation and unite to resist anti-Islamic aggression on the basis of obligatory defensive jihad....Bin Laden argued that the Islamic world should see itself as one seamless community, or umma, and that Muslims were obliged to unite and defend themselves. Turning his focus to the internal politics of the Islamic world, Bin Laden urged Muslims to find a leader to unite them and establish a "pious caliphate" that would be governed by Islamic law and follow Islamic principles of finance and social conduct.
Content from External Source
 
That's horrible. I sincerely hope you can find other work as soon as possible, and stop participating in the killing of people.

What exactly do you think the military does?
 
Funny... now I have to provide evidence of explosive use.. have you ever heard of the fact that NIST didn't do a trace chemical analysis for accelerant & explosive residue on the WTC 7 dust?
Did you know NIST didn't test the WTC 7 steel because it was "gone"...
Did you know even Mick doesn't know of a single piece of physical WTC 7 evidence that NIST investigated...

So the not testing of evidence of explosives is evidence of explosives?

That is simply evidence of a lack of testing, but if that is your only hobby-horse then you have nothing.
 
What exactly do you think the military does?
Quite often horrible things, using explosive devices against people being one of them... which is why I truly hope you find another calling. Please, feel free to ignore this question if it's too personal, but I'm curious after your mindset: do you experience guilt in relation to your occupation? How does it effect you to know your work results, at times, in the loss of life?

So the not testing of evidence of explosives is evidence of explosives?
Not examining the physical evidence IN GENERAL of an unprecedented and highly unusual complete structural collapse is indicative of a highly inadequate investigation... an investigation which happened to have been, without question, the most important of the modern age. The specifics of testing for explosives aside, the physical evidence of the building 7 collapse was generally overlooked, NIST admittedly composing its Building 7 collapse scenario, six years in the making, from footage, news reports, and the opinions/hypothesis of experts. An investigation which fails to review or consider the physical evidence of a crime is a failed investigation. The investigation of 9/11 being a failure is not something that should be shrugged off with an 'oh well'. It should be called out, punished, and a new investigation with far broader powers/access should be initiated.
 
if they were not distracted by baseless conspiracy theories like "a missile hit the Pentagon"

Yeah those silly conspiracy theories... We could all clearly see the boeing 757 in the HD video the government released short after the event... oh wait..

There's nothing actually wrong with that (so long as it's honest polite debunking)

If you are FOR honest debunking why don't you admit NIST's investigatory error?

So the not testing of evidence of explosives is evidence of explosives?

No BombDr not testing for evidence of accelerant & explosive residue points to a pseudo-scientific investigation.
Pseudo-scientific investigation & terrorist crime of the century should never be allowed to meet in the same scentence.
 
An investigation which fails to review or consider the physical evidence of a crime is a failed investigation. The investigation of 9/11 being a failure is not something that should be shrugged off with an 'oh well'. It should be called out, punished, and a new investigation with far broader powers/access should be initiated.

"failed" is a subjective opinion- "incomplete" would probably be more accurate.

But you are conflating the lack of physical evidence review of WTC7 into the "investigation of 9/11 being a failure"...again, an extrapolation and/or exaggeration that is suspect.
 
And is now facing indefinite detention in solitary confinement, where he steadily deteriorates, for exposing a large amount of low-level intelligence that, beyond making America look bad, has had little to no measurable impact on much of anything politically/economically/militarily, and is being held in such a state to the celebration of many, some of whom feel he should be executed. Oh yeah. That's a real supportive society you've got where whistle-blowing is concerned. Why would anyone hesitate?

Yes, I think it's a shame since some interesting things were brought to light by his leaks. But the reference was intended to show that anonymous leaking, even on a large scale, is quite possible(though admittedly much more difficult in the wake of that incident). Manning remained anonymous until he got cocky in talking with Adrian Lamo. But regardless, it's understandable why he's being treated as he is. He was in the military, and that "low-level intelligence" did actually threaten the lives of troops in Afghanistan. Units and full names were included along with their locations at specific times.

The dozen or so other intelligence agency whistleblowers throughout the 2000s have mostly fared better than Manning in their treatment, being civilians. They also didn't try to remain anonymous. Despite how hostile to whistle-blowing you may perceive the atmosphere in the US to be, it didn't stop them. One could argue that it might deter them if they had insider knowledge of something as big as the supposed 9/11 plot, but again, these are people that are well aware of what they can do to remain anonymous.

His post-mortem was revealed recently, indicating his wounds were definitely self inflicted[/URL](but maybe it's propaganda). Let's just keep in mind that his whistleblowing - dealing with very specific corrections to the WMD dossier - was never stopped from reaching the outside world.

He gave himself up to his superiors as the source, anyways - he was anonymous for quite some time, just like Manning.

Also... as far as leaking things on the internet they make a good point in their fictional scenario: "The Press? But we would run the story. You? This is wild eyed crap, bird cage liner... right up there with Elvis is an alien and two headed babies."

Because the internet still tends to fall more toward the side of two headed babies, etc.

With respect to Wikileaks:
At first we did not have many files on Israel and we were afraid of attacks from the east coast of the United States. If we had published information on 'sensitive' countries from the outset, we would have suffered attacks that would have forced us to deviate from our path. --Assange
Content from External Source
So who is to say that they might not sit on information about 911 being a joint operation similar to Iran Contra if they were still... afraid?

Being in the intelligence services, they would be aware it's fully possible to leak such information and remain anonymous. Manning demonstrated this electronically, and Kelly demonstrated the ability through the traditional whistleblowing process. There are even recent initiatives by press organizations to encourage disclosure of information to them, whatever it may be, while enforcing source anonymity and plausible deniability for themselves. A great example is the New Yorker's Strongbox, built on Aaron Swartz's DeadDrop software.

Regardless, what they leak doesn't have to be published by some press organization. When it's out there, it's out there - and if it's independently verifiable, press organizations will pick it up on their own. The truther community would be all over it.

How is it moot? It just shows the heavy surveillance that is carried out even on Petraeus. How many other's email accounts have been examined in this way. If someone was collating evidence to whistleblow, they could easily be discovered and the consequences are dire. How many may have been headed off at the pass so to speak.

And why on earth need he resign over and extramarital affair when politicians and the elite are indulging in all sorts at the Bohemian Grove, sex and drugs and anything they like basically. I wonder what their wives and families think when they hear of the goings on there.

It's moot since as the CIA director, he's under immense scrutiny by other agencies. He resigned under pressure because they were worried he could be blackmailed or otherwise extorted because of his affair.
 
"failed" is a subjective opinion- "incomplete" would probably be more accurate.

But you are conflating the lack of physical evidence review of WTC7 into the "investigation of 9/11 being a failure"...again, an extrapolation and/or exaggeration that is suspect.

Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million
Budget of 'World Trade Center', the tasteless Hollywood film staring Nicholas Cage that portrayed the events of 9/11: $65 million
There's a problem here. If you agree the investigation was incomplete, how can you call it a success? Are you calling it a success? If not, what else can it be but a failure?
 
And why on earth need he resign over and extramarital affair when politicians and the elite are indulging in all sorts at the Bohemian Grove, sex and drugs and anything they like basically.

I was just watching a documentary on gangs/tribes and it reminded me of our elite: Guatemala's Gangland

Bear with me... because tribal patterns of this sort may have some explanatory power with respect to how conspiracies among different factions or groups of psychopathic conspirators could, indeed, exist. (Bin Laden and the Islamists aren't the only people capable of conspiring in the world...)

Poor people like those in Guatemala establish tribal/gangster/mafia systems in a less entertaining way and with less theatrical productions than Bohemian Grove types, Skull and Bones types, Masonry and so on and so forth. Interesting to note that it was a flood of deported gangs apparently produced by Corrections Corporation of America that caused the problem in the first place. Poor people can't afford the same types of entertainment and theatrics and their lives are more brutal but the basic outline seems to go like this:

Step one: selection and initiation into the gang/tribe/secret society by doing something for or killing someone with/for the gang/tribe (or perhaps merely entertaining yourselves with the theatrical production of a mock human sacrifice, that must be fun.)

Step two: give initiates into the tribe "top secret" missions to complete that will be profitable for the gang, use the "infant"try and initiates. Sacrifice them first (see step one) as necessary to maintain your tribe... but you're the mind of your growing body politic so you probably shouldn't sacrifice yourself for them.

Step 3: generally create more psychopaths by establishing a fear/terror based system of rule based on fearing all the other gangs ruled by other terrists.... etc. And so on.

If psychopaths are allowed to rule for long enough you might even wind up with some sort of a literal pyramid type structure built as a monument to the ignorance of the people that failed to stop them. For instance, the pyramid schemes of the Aztecs and their "war games" at the base of the schemes that were established and maintained by the psychopaths and priests of knowledge in their day. Notice how those who imagine themselves as illuminated priests of knowledge closer to the sun at the top never seem to conclude that they need to sacrifice themselves to keep it moving across the sky. If they did, then I bet they'd find a way to minimize the sacrifices required to maintain their empires.

In any event, I might say that entertaining yourself with mock human sacrifices or having frat type initiations and ceremonies celebrating the "cremation of care"* and so forth might be a good idea... if these weren't the type of "top secret" networks (inc.) involved in sending out the "infant"try to profit for themselves in reality later. After all... holocausts are sacrifices made by fire and war apparently makes for one hell of a sacrifice once the auxiliaries incorporated into schemes of this sort get going.

The point is... given the history of the sacrifices involved in creating civilization (Such as it is.) and so forth I'm not sure why it's so unbelievable ("They don't care, unfathomable!") that an elite tribe/gang that fancies itself as a global ruling class might create 911 or join with another tribe to create it based on parallel interests. (These days even low level think tank types are proposing false flags and wars/sacrifices of choice, an attitude that's probably trickling down on them from the more psychopathic elite types closer to the all seeing eye where everything is "top secret.")

*A satire of what members of the Bohemian club/tribe would probably think about it: "But we were just entertaining ourselves with the idea of cremating our cares and worries. It's stressful having this much of the bankster's paper ponzi, you know?" Uh huh. But even if your goal was ultimately to defeat an enemy or a business competitor the best way to do that would be to care enough to empathize with them and see things through their eyes as fully as possible. Even Jesus shared communion with the banker of the 12 before his time was up and the number went back to 11. And through communion with him He shared communion with the root of all evil, symbolically speaking... and so on.
 
The point is... given the history of the sacrifices involved in creating civilization (Such as it is.) and so forth I'm not sure why it's so unbelievable ("They don't care, unfathomable!") that an elite tribe/gang that fancies itself as a global ruling class might create 911 or join with another tribe to create it based on parallel interests. (These days even low level think tank types are proposing false flags and wars/sacrifices of choice, an attitude that's probably trickling down on them from the more psychopathic elite types closer to the all seeing eye where everything is "top secret.")
.

It's not unfathomable. There's just no good evidence of it happening.
 
Didn't Mick just point out how wrong Tarpley is on many accounts?

Fair enough... someone could easily develop a conspiracy theory that he's being paid by the Russians, etc.

It seems to me that there aren't any "pure" sources, so you have to read and compare everything for yourself. Overall, it seems to me that crowd sourcing is probably about as close as it gets. Debatable. But no, I don't discount NIST or Tarpley or Griffin or ae911 or the 911 Commission merely because they're probably wrong or may be wrong on many accounts.
 
There's just no good evidence of it happening.

I don't know that it happened anyway. But what would be good and convincing evidence that it was a conspiracy... but not the one that the official story is based on?

You don't believe the testimony of Jennings, the janitor and so forth or you think that they were mistaken. But I'm assuming that you would believe a CIA or FBI whistle blower? Of what sort... and what type of testimony could they give to change your mind?
 
Incomplete.
But not in need of completion? The official account being based on a clearly incomplete investigation is acceptable? Why?

If a murder were being investigated, there were weapons, fingerprints, and DNA on the scene, but because the the wife of the murdered party had been fighting with her husband publicly, and had told a friend how she wanted to kill him, the case was closed and she was found guilty without any examination of any of the physical evidence, would that not be a failed investigation?

How is concluding the WTC 7 collapse was 'fire and OBL', based on videos, news reports, and expert opinions, without any examination of the structural steel/dust/debris, any different? It's a conclusion based on appearances, not physical evidence, in a situation where the physical evidence was readily available.
 
You don't believe the testimony of Jennings, ?

I am curious as to why you think the account of Barry Jennings lends credence to the idea that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Any "explosions" he heard were hours before the eventual collapse...

And considering this comment, it is understandable why there could have been very loud noises that sounded like explosions:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
Content from External Source
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/anin-depthlookatconspiracistclaimsaboutw
 
"failed" is a subjective opinion- "incomplete" would probably be more accurate.

Don't go hiding behind semantics... But I am glad you agree that with an incomplete investigation there are obvious grounds to reopen the investigation.
 
But not in need of completion? The official account being based on a clearly incomplete investigation is acceptable? Why?

Is it perfect? no.

Does it explain every detail unequivocally? no.

But it does do an adequate job.
 
They didn't look for explosive residue, because they had already had the cause. You want a gunshot victim tested for poison, just in case that he had been poisoned.

There was NO reason to think the building had been imploded, NO EVIDENCE of that. Nothing, Nada, Zero. The fires and damage explained it.
 
He was in the military, and that "low-level intelligence" did actually threaten the lives of troops in Afghanistan. Units and full names were included along with their locations at specific times.
I've heard this said often in the media, but with no examples given. Was there any actual documented instances of soldiers/Afghanis being endangered as a direct result of the leak? Or is it just something Pentagon officials and Karzai said loudly?
 
They didn't look for explosive residue, because they had already had the cause.
So initial assumptions preclude the need for investigation of the physical evidence?

You want a gunshot victim tested for poison, just in case that he had been poisoned.
No, I want a general autopsy performed on the gunshot victim, instead of having his body shipped to China to be rendered down into an additive for Lo Mein.

There was NO reason to think the building had been imploded, NO EVIDENCE of that. Nothing, Nada, Zero.
The equivilant of plugging your ears, closing your eyes and going 'LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOU!' There's plenty of evidence. Oodles, in fact. You choose to ignore it supposedly because it's not solid enough for you, whereas the account you unquestionably agree with is built on equally shaky evidence.
 
The equivilant of plugging your ears, closing your eyes and going 'LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOU!' There's plenty of evidence. Oodles, in fact. You choose to ignore it supposedly because it's not solid enough for you, whereas the account you unquestionably agree with is built on equally shaky evidence.

The evidence I base my understand on is:

A) Planes flew into the buildings, causing damage and starting fires
B) WCT 1&2 collapsed after the fires had burned for about an hour
C) Their collapse is physically consistent with a progressive collapse
D) WTC7 was damaged by the collapse of WTC1 and several fires were started
E) WTC7 collapsed after the fire had burned for several hours
F) The collapse looks like an internal collapse around the column with longest spans, followed by the skin buckling.

So what exactly is "shaky" about this? It seems incredibly solid to me. Damage + fires + understandable collapse.
 
If a murder were being investigated, there were weapons, fingerprints, and DNA on the scene, but because the the wife of the murdered party had been fighting with her husband publicly, and had told a friend how she wanted to kill him, the case was closed and she was found guilty without any examination of any of the physical evidence, would that not be a failed investigation?.

A more apt analogy would be if there was a murder by gun and they had 1000s of eyewitnesses, a confession from the murderer, the gun and shell casing had been recovered but somehow the investigation was a deemed a "failure" because the deceased was not tested for explosives simply because his wacky Aunt claimed he was killed by bombs and not a gun.
 
I would say that I am LOOKING at the evidence and that the 9/11 truthers aren't. Please don't insult me and those that follow evidence instead of opinions and conspiracies.

Y'all's scenario is complex and is not grounded in any facts or even reason.

I have over and over asked 3 simple questions

1) Who planted the explosives?
2) When were they planted?
3) In the case of WTC 7 how did they survive the fires for hours.

Building implosion is not a widely taught skill, there is a very limited number of folks with the skill to do it. I would have taken a month or more to rig those buildings. That is a FACT.

Please answer these. Without a reasonable answer to those, the whole 'they should have tested for explosives' question is a moot point.
 
F) The collapse looks like an internal collapse around the column with longest spans, followed by the skin buckling.
LOL, seriously? The first time you saw the WTC 7 collapse, did you sit back, stroke your chin, and say 'Well, that looks to me like an internal collapse around the column with the longest spans, followed by the skin buckling...!' That's what NIST told you happened, 6 years after the fact... not what it looks like. What it looks like is a terribly rapid collapse that clearly strongly resembles a demolition. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise.

So what exactly is "shaky" about this?

an internal collapse around the column with longest spans,
Corpus delicti. Show me the failed column, the source of the collapse. Can't? Why's that? Oh, because it's been destroyed already? What an incredibly solid investigation. :rolleyes:
 
A more apt analogy would be if there was a murder by gun and they had 1000s of eyewitnesses, a confession from the murderer, the gun and shell casing had been recovered but somehow the investigation was a deemed a "failure" because the deceased was not tested for explosives simply because his wacky Aunt claimed he was killed by bombs and not a gun.
Spin the analogy however you want. Still no autopsy.
 
Please answer these. Without a reasonable answer to those, the whole 'they should have tested for explosives' question is a moot point.
So a suspect, timeline, and full synopsis of the crime's execution is required before one investigates the physical evidence of a crime?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-conspiracy-solved/
This guy has some very interesting/compelling ideas on all of those subjects. I don't necessarily think he's right, but he makes some very interesting connections/accusations. I don't actually think you're going to take the time to watch it, but hey, there you go. Maybe now you can stop beating that horse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top