@spoco2

uh, which conspiracy theory? I donno which you are questioning. ehheeh.

enoch's theory was that the saudis were actually part of 9/11. for no good reason. (they hate our freedom)
false flag theory is that shadowy organization planned 9/11 to gain leverage on the saudis.

in either case Abu Z. is a real terrorist working with saudi support. But was he part of the 9/11 plot, or just a random terrorist?

>> ^marbles:

Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Never heard of it before.

>> ^marbles:
The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

It's not "our government" it's "rich and powerful people acting ruthlessly to gain more riches and power," and it's not just since the 60's, it's since civilization began.

So yeah, I think it's possible someone who's ostensibly "on our side" could've allowed/funded/ordered the 9/11 attacks for their own nefarious, selfish purposes.

I'm just saying even if you assume it was an inside job, it doesn't make sense that they'd use secret explosives and planes. Using both just increases their risk of being exposed, without increasing the impact of the plot.

Argument from ignorance.

Just because you can't believe something is possible doesn't mean it isn't.

If you think we aren't living in a 'Tom Clancy-esque' world then you are sadly deluded.

I don't care about the conspiracy theories anyway. What I care about is that I am not convinced that wtc7 was brought down by fire. It looks like a controlled demo so why wasn't it investigated as such?

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
Those "explosions" are the sounds of the towers collapsing. You'd kinda expect 100+ stories of building to make a lot of noise as it comes down. Go watch some real demolition videos if you want to hear what a real demo actually sounds like.
Also, a lot of what so-called 9/11 "truthers" point to as video evidence of explosions--the ejected smoke/air as the tower collapses--occurs after the tower has started collapsing. This is the opposite of the way normal demolitions work: explosions go off, then building comes down (usually starting at the bottom). The WTC towers collapsed from the top down; again opposite a normal demo.
And all of this still begs the question:
1) How would the towers be rigged in the first place, keeping in mind that rigging 250+ collective stories worth of skyscraper is no simple task?
And, 2) Why even bother rigging them at all since if this was a so-called "false flag" event, this just uncessarily complicates the whole thing by a factor of 100?
Of course, if you want to keep living in a Tom Clancy-esque spy thriller novel, all of this is irrelevant.

I guess the important thing is that Abu Z. actually thought he was working for the Saudis?

I also don't see any way to link Abu Z. to 9/11. Even if there was a link, I'd think that Abu Z. was a real terrorist involved in a false flag op. (the saudi's catching the blame from the successful false flag operation)

Your point on Obama not reversing the abuses of power from W. Bush.
Couldn't agree more.
It's scary to think that this country will never return to the rule of law and a non-imperialistic foreign policy.

1 more thing. You might expect our government would gather quite a lot of information about Al Quada after 9/11. I suppose you could say, "it's all classified" but really? No, Really all our government did after 9/11 was to bomb the taliban. (and nobody ever said the taliban did 9/11)

Robert Scheer makes the same point but isn't wearing his tin foil hat so you can't trust him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/how-little-we-know-about_b_953380.html

>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.

Those "explosions" are the sounds of the towers collapsing. You'd kinda expect 100+ stories of building to make a lot of noise as it comes down. Go watch some real demolition videos if you want to hear what a real demo actually sounds like.

Also, a lot of what so-called 9/11 "truthers" point to as video evidence of explosions--the ejected smoke/air as the tower collapses--occurs after the tower has started collapsing. This is the opposite of the way normal demolitions work: explosions go off, then building comes down (usually starting at the bottom). The WTC towers collapsed from the top down; again opposite a normal demo.

And all of this still begs the question:

1) How would the towers be rigged in the first place, keeping in mind that rigging 250+ collective stories worth of skyscraper is no simple task?
And, 2) Why even bother rigging them at all since if this was a so-called "false flag" event, this just uncessarily complicates the whole thing by a factor of 100?

Of course, if you want to keep living in a Tom Clancy-esque spy thriller novel, all of this is irrelevant.

Warning! More rude trollish massively copy and pasting stuff from websites below:

9/11 Truth vs Denial vs Pseudo-truths and Other Lies

David Watts on the Backfire Effect:

“The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.”

9/11 is a perfect example. Despite the mountain of contradictory evidence of the official story, most people’s belief that what they are being told by the authorities and media becomes even stronger. If people were able to assimilate the contradictory evidence, they would understand that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

“The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director

“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.” — Marshall McLuhan, Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar–a professor of English literature, a literary critic, a rhetorician, and a communication theorist.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.
I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.
What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.
If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.
The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"
You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...


Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Northwoods was a false-flag operation plan by the CIA in 1962. It called for terrorist attacks like hijacking planes, disguising US fighter jets as Cuban MIG fighters, and killing US citizens.

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."


The plan was on the desk of JFK and he refused. JFK was later assassinated. The following year LBJ used the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war in Vietnam. The people that questioned that incident were called conspiracy nuts. But the truth eventually came out, and it will for 9/11 also.

The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

WT7 had some government offices in it. CIA, Secret Service, Ongoing SEC investigation against large banks.

False flag attacks happen whether you believe in them or not. The CIA does coup attempts on a regular basis. Hitler planned the Reichstag fire. The burning of the Reichstag was so convenient, the Nazis passed their version of the patriot act, used it as an excuse to increase the power of the executive branch. I don't know who did 9/11, but I know who didn't do it!

They do like to complicate things, eh. It's like the Christians Trinity; are they three, or one? Argh!!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^hpqp:
@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.

But their insanity isn't even that basic. Even a false flag assault theory is MUCH simpler if you just declare the hijackers in the planes were part of the conspiracy, and that's still what took down the towers. The whole controlled demo stuff is just a recruitment tool to draw the insane and paranoid into the fold.

>> ^hpqp:

@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.


Dude, you need to play Deus Ex: Human Revolutions... F'in Illuminati be all up in that shit.

>> ^hpqp:

@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.


But their insanity isn't even that basic. Even a false flag assault theory is MUCH simpler if you just declare the hijackers in the planes were part of the conspiracy, and that's still what took down the towers. The whole controlled demo stuff is just a recruitment tool to draw the insane and paranoid into the fold.

@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.

>> ^marinara:

promote
Remember, we've spent 700 billion dollars on homeland security since 9/11. If you think that's not enough motivation (for a false flag attack) then you probably think we went into Libya for "humanitarian aid"


Thanks for the promote, but I'm afraid most people choose the blissful ignorance of illusion over embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality.

*promote

Remember, we've spent 700 billion dollars on homeland security since 9/11. If you think that's not enough motivation (for a false flag attack) then you probably think we went into Libya for "humanitarian aid"

bottom line of the info below the vid?
definitely converup involved... whether its false flag, greed, or covering up lack of competancy... its not on the up and up