9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunked

[jackwanders]

Why was Bush and Cheney(NORAD Expert) asked questions together behind closed doors and not under oath by the 9/11 Commission? Why didn't Bush make public the questions that were asked towards them? Don't the families have a right to know?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/29/ltm.05.html

"I say we're expecting it. We're expecting it to happen, although we will not be seeing it because it is behind closed doors, and there'll be no recording of the event."

Where did those trillions missing from the Pentagon go? Rumsfeld couldn't seem to answer that question. America is still waiting....

Questions and links. Questions and links. At least barksnbites is thinking for himself, or at least writing as if he is. Frankly, I'll take either one.

[barksnbites]

Jack31081: First, you now need to show that if the attacks did happen quickly, that the reaction by the American public would not have been as intense as it was.

The point is that the American people drew exactly the conclusions the perpetrators wanted them to draw, without having to sell them on the idea of foreign invasion. (You are aware, I hope, that we're in Iraq not to take their oil, but probably to keep their oil off the market?) The American people connected with 9-11 visually, personally and emotionally. They experienced it.

Jack31081:Second, let's say you're right. Let's say we needed a prolonged attack to really "reel" everyone in. Why attack the Pentagon? Why crash a plane (or appear to crash a plane) in PA? Those are extraneous events that do not further the purpose behind the attacks.

No. An attack on the Pentagon might seem far less significant to me, and maybe to you, (assuming you're not in the military,) but I can assure you that most of the military interpreted it as declaration of war. Right? Needless to say, the plane (yes, I believe the Pentagaon was hit by a large plane,) struck an area under re-construction. The plane crash in PA might have unfolded as the official story claims. Not all 9-11 truthseekers agree on what happened in Shanksville. Flight 93 might be the most controversial area of research. It's entirely possible that a/another hijacked plane was headed for DC. If you look into the background of the 'hijackers' deeply enough though, I think you'll aggree that at least most of them, if not all, would have believed they were taking part in yet another drill on the morning of 9-11. Lord knows, there were plently of drills going on that day, more than one of them relating to situational crises involving the mock hijacking of planes. There's no question that these drills caused incredible confusion, and that the confusion of purposes/communications relating to the drills was a contributing factor in the 'failure' to stop the attacks. Compartmentalization is the key - most Norad, intel and military types who were called upon to act saw genuine confusion that day. (No need for a vast conspiracy.)

Jack31081: In fact, the Pentagon attack only sucks money away that could have otherwise been used in the invasion, or to pay off Halliburton, or whatever your brain wants to come up with.

My brain is constantly reminded of how all U.S. military expenditures are driven by taxpayer dollares. It's not as if any of these bastards reached into their pockets and made some kind of investment. Also, many important case-related documents were destroyed in lower Manhattan, and I've heard the same is true with the Pentagon strike, but I haven't looked into this.

[jackwanders]

No. The FBI and CIA are compartmentalized, CIA especially. The same can be said of 'al qaeda.'

In order to sell the 9-11 fraud to the American people, the perpetrators had to convince a number of Arabs and extremist Muslims of their own involvement, however remote or intangible - not too difficult to do with the likes of Osama bin Laden and other "former" (?) operatives in tow. By the same token, lower-level CIA and FBI were led to believe that a serious attack was imminent and that the government-as-usual wasn't listening. The oft-repeated mainstream accusation that "Bush knew" is an attempt to focus our attention on the 'failure to stop the attack,' while diminishing public interest in the actual details. Despite Osama's denials, there are a great many Arabs/Muslims who still believe that he and 'likeminded' people orchestrated it. Yes, there are real Islamic terrorists.

The sick irony of 9-11 is that these terrorists could start acting on their own, if the manner in which many of them were used becomes public knowledge. They'll stop waiting for instructions that never seem to come, and just act. This is perhaps a more compelling reason - more compelling than mere intimidation - why we never get any 9-11 truth in mainstream media circles, why so many in government, intell and etc have held their tounges.

The programs that interview 9-11 truthseekers are usually corting 'ex-cia,' 'ex-government' types who are spreading disinfo and trying to destroy the movement. Sad to say, most people who believe 9-11 was an inside job don't recognize the shills within their own areas of common support. Very few people actually research things. What passes for research these days is usually just repetition of one thing or another.

See, now this is a theory that at least has some meat on its bones. It's not exactly a secret that the CIA, especially in the early days, loved to sort of poke and prod other groups to take action when the CIA couldn't do what they wanted directly.

To say that the terrorists were given their "marching orders" so to speak either by the CIA or someone influenced by the CIA is at the same time a wholly more plausible scenario than controlled demolitions and pentagon missle strikes, while at the same time being wholly less provable, since the nefarious doings took place not on 9/11, in front of millions, but months and years before. However, that's not to say it's probable. The CIA likes to have foreign groups beat up on each other, not the American populace. I still say there are equally effective ways of instigating an invasion of the middle east without resorting to killing thousands of your own citizens.

[barksnbites]

Jack31081: It's not exactly a secret that the CIA, especially in the early days, loved to sort of poke and prod other groups to take action when the CIA couldn't do what they wanted directly.

I don't think anyone, if seriously asked, could put their finger on a point in time when CIA funding for 'al qaeda' actually stopped. As late as 1998 a New Jersey man named Magdy El Amir (at some point changed his name to Elamir) ran a smattering of HMOs in that state, and was reportedly charged with funneling large amounts of the profit to 'al qaeda.' That in itself isn't really news anymore, admitedly, but the painful part is that his defense lawyer was none other than Michael Chertoff, current director of Homeland Security. I'm not kidding you, and that's the reason why Elamir isn't being prosecuted - some 'al qaeda' are well above the law with the best of 'em.

We don't hear about these sorts of things in the mainstream press, do we?

Actually, that particular example is rarely spoken of in most 'alternative' circles - plently of other 'juicy tidbits' to distract people with.

Jack31081: To say that the terrorists were given their "marching orders" so to speak either by the CIA or someone influenced by the CIA is at the same time a wholly more plausible scenario than controlled demolitions and pentagon missle strikes,....

To say that the first possibility is plausible doesn't negate the plausibilty of the second, that the towers were brought down with demolition charges. To me, both events seem mutually exclusive. To anyone seriously considering the possibility of controlled demolition, I'd recommend they also consider the possibility that some of the core braces and even some of the core columns might have been unbolted in key places to weaken the structure. This would have been a far more inconspicuous plan of action, though it wouldn't surprise me if a combination of things were used. Regarding the Pentagon 'missile'(? -no) strike, let me say that there are a great many people in the 9-11 truth movement who've habitually misrepresented the damage pattern at the Pentagon, as seen in the pre-collapse photos. The small 16' center hole they rave about is actually confined to the second floor, though many of them don't realize this thanks in part to that infamous photo of the column 14 area, the one showing the water/foam spray obscuring the lower and much larger portion of the visible damage. The damaged area on the first floor was most certainly 90+ feet wide. The Pentagon "no-planers" also claim the columns to the right of the center hole were blown outward, when on closer inspection it's plain to see they were forced or bent sideways and even curved in some cases to match the forty-five degree angle from which the plane approached. Though most Pentagon "no-planers" are well-intentioned, I cannot say the same for the higher-profile 9-11 'activists' who've promoted the theory that a large plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. As I said, they consistently misrepresent the damage pattern, knowingly, I believe, ....they ignore the fact that the unbroken windows were actually 2" think, bulletproof and either punched out of their sockets or stayed put, that the Pentagon was a hardened structure, and so on. Making matters worse, our government has released two crappy videos of the 'crash' that are clearly faked, and these have contributed as much in promoting the red herring as anyone.

Jack31081: .....while at the same time being wholly less provable, since the nefarious doings took place not on 9/11, in front of millions, but months and years before. However, that's not to say it's probable. The CIA likes to have foreign groups beat up on each other, not the American populace. I still say there are equally effective ways of instigating an invasion of the middle east without resorting to killing thousands of your own citizens.

Don't forget that American citizens will soon be part of a North American Union, if the principles in this administration and any future Democratic administration get their way. Moreover, I think it's safe to say that Bush's commitment to the war on terror and his commitment to protecting our borders are equally as fraudulent as the other. You cannot seperate the two. Think about this, and look more carefully at the legislation they've cranked out since 9-11. The patriot act has the power to criminalize any American citizen, for any reason, and the Military Commissions act of 2006 robs them of their habeas corpus rights. It's important to remember that the workers in the twin towers were not in the same class as the internationalist elites who comprise the upper tiers of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the World Trade Organization, G8, PNAC and etc.

JFK was a citizen too. Couldn't they have done away with him in a less conspicuous manner, instead of facing the likelyhood that any old person could have shot a movie of the critical event, a movie that blows the official story to smitherines? (?) Probably they didn't want to. The Kennedy assassination wasn't just a coup, it was a message - a very powerful one. (If you doubt that JFK's murder was a conspiracy, read the words of Fletcher Prouty, former liason between Kennedy's Joint Chiefs and the CIA. http://www.prouty.org/ Please visit this site. There was never a doubt in his mind - he's the guy they sent to the South Pole right before Kennedy went to Dallas. On his way back he picked up a newspaper in New Zealand that had a complete bio of Oswald - the prime suspect - before Oswald was even charged with the assassination. Of course, there's a lot more to it....

Edited January 22, 2007 by barksnbites

[MacOSXMan]

Jack Ruby's words were quite stunning too. ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTli19k_eYU

The Kennedy assassination wasn't just a coup, it was a message - a very powerful one. (If you doubt that JFK's murder was a conspiracy, read the words of Fletcher Prouty, former liason between Kennedy's Joint Chiefs and the CIA. http://www.prouty.org/ Please visit this site. There was never a doubt in his mind - he's the guy they sent to the South Pole right before Kennedy went to Dallas. On his way back he picked up a newspaper in New Zealand that had a complete bio of Oswald - the prime suspect - before Oswald was even charged with the assassination. Of course, there's a lot more to it....

[I am Reid]

LOL, you keep quoting yourself.

[Azusa]

LOL, you keep quoting yourself.

lulz

[MacOSXMan]

:rofl: yeah sure lol

LOL, you keep quoting yourself.

[barksnbites]

WinMacsta06: Jack Ruby's words were quite stunning too.

They were. Thanks for the vid link - and reidMcweed can't deal with any of this, apparently, so he's taken the low road - lower then the entrails of a slug in a wheel rut, imho. (I borrowed that.)

Evidence of conspiracy and cover-up are all over the JFK assassination, and the way some people catagorically deny any possibility of a such dirty dealings is totally beyond me. Then again, you and I are more likely to read about things than simply react to them, whereas most people do just that. (ReidMcweed take heed.)

I appreciate all the fine work you've done in this thread, WinMacsta. Exposing the 9-11 farce is truly a thankless job. All you can expect to do is "plant seeds." By the time they've grown, people will have moved on and changed their user names. No one ever admits to naivite on such a grand scale. Actually, the 9-11 fraud is the most in-your-face psy-op ever conceived. I guess I can give people a pass for not seeing it. ...I didn't see it at first.

McWeed, has it occured to you that a person who studies a subject is more likely to know a bit more about it than someone who forms opinions inspired by the mere illusion of consensus?

Television isn't 'free,' btw, it comes with a very heavy price, especially if you just sit there and stare aimlessly at the darn thing. Your brain is doing less when watching tv then when you're sleeping. Now I feel like someone's mom, staring into the glazed eyes of a stoned and quivering 14-year old, shaking his shoulders. "Am I reaching you, McWeed?"

[I am Reid]

You know what I need to do

I need to just bring up 'Bill O'Leily" right now, becuase obviously i have been proven wrong. Im also going to post some random pictures of goats, and maps of D.C. with a star in the middle. Then when im all done with that and every one just ignores me im going to copy and paste some articles from prision planet that have nothing to do with anything, but i figure since nothing else i post dosnt have any point i might as well just post those aswell.

Sounds like a plan to me

[MacOSXMan]

I heard aliens play football on the moon ;) ... no wait you think the moon doesn't exist! :rofl:

You know what I need to do

I need to just bring up 'Bill O'Leily" right now, becuase obviously i have been proven wrong. Im also going to post some random pictures of goats, and maps of D.C. with a star in the middle. Then when im all done with that and every one just ignores me im going to copy and paste some articles from prision planet that have nothing to do with anything, but i figure since nothing else i post dosnt have any point i might as well just post those aswell.

Sounds like a plan to me

[punktematrix]

You can't impeach someone for civillian deaths in a war. It's a war for cryin out loud.

:yes: They really need to sit back and look at themselves, because they are really really funny to see what they think they believe. Conspiracy nutjobs are good entertainment.

Yes, yes that reminds me of watching your posts get torn to shreds in the evolution vs creationism threads. Pot, kettle, black. :whistle:

[I am Reid]

Yes, yes that reminds me of watching your posts get torn to shreds in the evolution vs creationism threads. Pot, kettle, black. :whistle:

You've been here how long?

Opppps, again

[punktematrix]

You've been here how long?

Opppps, again

OH NOES! Someone has been a reclusive basement nerd longer than me! ALERT THE MEDIA!

[I am Reid]

OH NOES! Someone has been a reclusive basement nerd longer than me! ALERT THE MEDIA!

Yeah, that makes sense. I joined this site all of 1 month before you(winmacsta), and yet you still have more post then me.

Really, how many accounts do you have. Its not as if these other people found this topic on google and registered. Becuase oddly enough "barksnbites" joined the 21st, and his first post was in this topic, and this is the ONLY topic he has posted in. I would guess that 99% of the users for this site came here orginally for tech help, and later went into other section. Yet somehow this guy registered and came right into the this section and has only posted here. Its pretty damn obvious you made more then one account, just so you could quote yourself. I mean really, if you were going to do it you could have at least changed your writting style, that alone is a dead giveaway.

Edited January 23, 2007 by reidtheweed01

[punktematrix]

Hehe how cute. You seem to think that I'm your arch nerd enemy. I think the fumes from the plastic on your mom's couch have given you brain damage.

[barksnbites]

Reidtheweed: You know what I need to do

What you need to do is debate. If your point of view means anything to you, then argue it.

Reidtheweed: I need to just bring up 'Bill O'Leily" right now, becuase obviously i have been proven wrong. Im also going to post some random pictures of goats, and maps of D.C. with a star in the middle. Then when im all done with that and every one just ignores me im going to copy and paste some articles from prision planet that have nothing to do with anything, but i figure since nothing else i post dosnt have any point i might as well just post those aswell.

Sounds like a plan to me

Haven't you ever wondered why so many of our national symbols and official insignias are undeniably Masonic?

In a country where religious symbols are being prohibited left and right, doesn't it bother you just a little that Masonic symbolism is not only officially endorsed, but goes totally unmentioned as well?

Some would say it doesn't matter, that Masonry isn't a religion anyway.

They couldn't be more wrong.

Don't overlook the Washington Monument. It's right in our faces, and not by any accident. When pressed on the subject, most Masons deny that it's an Egyptian phallic symbol. Yet it's generally admitted that oblisks are indeed phallic symbols ....in Masonic literature that was never intended for public consumption. The Washington Monument is a bold statement, a reminder to Masons especially that their superiors are in charge and are powerful enough to throw their most audacious relic in our faces, and never a word is spoken about it. Why? Because the organs that shape public opinion would prefer that it not be questioned as such. Think about that.

[barksnbites]

Reidtheweed: Really, how many accounts do you have. Its not as if these other people found this topic on google and registered. Becuase oddly enough "barksnbites" joined the 21st, and his first post was in this topic, and this is the ONLY topic he has posted in. I would guess that 99% of the users for this site came here orginally for tech help, and later went into other section. Yet somehow this guy registered and came right into the this section and has only posted here. Its pretty damn obvious you made more then one account, just so you could quote yourself. I mean really, if you were going to do it you could have at least changed your writting style, that alone is a dead giveaway.

McWeed, you couldn't be more wrong. My writing style is very different from WinMacsta's, for one thing, and my posting on this thread and no others means nothing and doesn't support your 'theory' at all. I was curious about infowarsforum, stopped in and considered registering there (since I used to post at the old, original prison planet forum UNDER THE USERNAME BARKSNBITES911, before they shut it down,) ...and when I saw a post by a guy named Brian who asked for help over at neowin in the area51 metropolis section, I checked it out. Actually, I don't even know if I'm in the "metropolis" section. I looked for it with a few simple searches using "Brian" and "9/11" but wasn't sure if I landed in the right place. Post me a link to a 911 thread with Brian on it if you'd like. I noticed a thread about 9-11 and went for it. That's all there is to it. I don't know if WinMacsta is Brian.

Edited January 23, 2007 by barksnbites

[jackwanders]

What you need to do is debate. If your point of view means anything to you, then argue it.

Not necessarily. Is it useful to argue against god's existence with a Catholic priest?

[MacOSXMan]

haha what kind of weed have you been smokin'? I'd like to know! :laugh:

Yeah, that makes sense. I joined this site all of 1 month before you(winmacsta), and yet you still have more post then me.

Really, how many accounts do you have. Its not as if these other people found this topic on google and registered. Becuase oddly enough "barksnbites" joined the 21st, and his first post was in this topic, and this is the ONLY topic he has posted in. I would guess that 99% of the users for this site came here orginally for tech help, and later went into other section. Yet somehow this guy registered and came right into the this section and has only posted here. Its pretty damn obvious you made more then one account, just so you could quote yourself. I mean really, if you were going to do it you could have at least changed your writting style, that alone is a dead giveaway.

[barksnbites]

Jack31081: Not necessarily. Is it useful to argue against god's existence with a Catholic priest?

Yes, but only against the feasibility of a universal proof of God's existance, in other words a "proof" that would satisfy opponents of the church. Policy should never be justified by events as circumspect as 9-11, nor by an offical story which simply claims "the Arabs did it," yet we're asked to accept it with blind faith. Unfortunately, there are many 9-11 skeptics who've embraced "inside job" so completely that they'll believe any ###### and bull story that blows up their skirts. Needless to say, the shadowy sides of our government knew that a great many people wouldn't buy the 9-11 farce, websites were created to snare the skeptics and a great many have fallen for their tricks - one of many reasons why we haven't succeded yet, after five long years.

[kevbo]

Yeah, that makes sense. I joined this site all of 1 month before you(winmacsta), and yet you still have more post then me.

Really, how many accounts do you have. Its not as if these other people found this topic on google and registered. Becuase oddly enough "barksnbites" joined the 21st, and his first post was in this topic, and this is the ONLY topic he has posted in. I would guess that 99% of the users for this site came here orginally for tech help, and later went into other section. Yet somehow this guy registered and came right into the this section and has only posted here. Its pretty damn obvious you made more then one account, just so you could quote yourself. I mean really, if you were going to do it you could have at least changed your writting style, that alone is a dead giveaway.

now who's the conspiracy theorist?

[The Gunslinger]

Not necessarily. Is it useful to argue against god's existence with a Catholic priest?

Too true, some arguments can never be won, even though you support your claims with a mountain of proof...

now who's the conspiracy theorist?

:rofl:

But Reed makes a very compelling argument this time around (Cant believe I just typed that) :blink: ...

[Verum]

www.patriotsquestion911.com

Senators and MP's comments on 9/11

[ZonoBurk]

I think it's just easier for people to believe planes hit it (because they were seen) than to believe that your own government is involved. I do not trust the government, but we do not have any solid proof that they actually were involved. The government are experts at covering this mess up, so I expect not to have any solid proof.