>> ^hpqp:

I'm not in the least surprised that they let it play out. Put someone like that in jail too early and he'll receive a non-existent sentence (if any), and then vanish off the map, to do damage out of authority's reach.
/devil's advocate


So let's goad him and give him real explosives to see if he's serious. The world is full of mindless dupes. Manipulating them to commit terrorism only serves one purpose -- to sell fear to the public.

Boston: FBI Thwarts Own R/C Bomb
Another case of FBI entrapment, proving the only terrorism Americans must fear, comes from within the bowels of their own government.
By Tony Cartalucci

The United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claims to have thwarted their own "drone" bomb, in yet another farcical case of entrapment and fear mongering aimed not at ending the "War on Terror" but perpetuating the mythological, unending conflict. FBI agents apparently strung along another subpar malcontent by providing him with materials, including a model airplane, real C4 explosives, and small arms. Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, was approached by undercover FBI agents and tasked first with building remote detonation devices he was told would be used in Iraq against US troops. FBI agents went as far as falsely telling Ferdaus that one of his devices had killed 3 US troops. The grand finale was assisting Ferdaus in a spectacular, Hollywood-style attack we are told by FBI agents, would have involve simultaneous assaults on both the US Capitol and the Pentagon involving drone bombs and multiple gunmen.

Photo: Your FBI at work - sneaking around the United States, constructing drones made of toy planes like the one above, building bombs, handing out weapons and live explosives to prospective "terrorists" then stopping them "just in time" for sensational headlines to get Americans wringing their hands in fear from what Media Monarchy calls, "terronoia."

According to an AFP report, FBI special agent Richard DesLauriers claimed the sting operation proved ''a committed individual, even one with no direct connections to, or formal training from, an international terrorist organisation, can pose a serious danger to the community.'' DesLauriers fails to explain where, if not from the FBI or other federal agencies, Ferdaus could have acquired C4 explosives for his alleged plot. Additionally, DesLauriers fails to explain how Ferdaus can be considered acting as an "individual" with no "direct connections" to an international terrorist organization, when FBI agents were posing as just that, supplying him with motivation, supplies, explosives, logistics, and weapons.

If convicted, Ferdaus faces 15 years in prison for supporting a foreign terrorist organization and an additional 40 years on other terror related charges. In order to support a foreign terrorist organization, Ferdaus would have to have believed, by necessity, to be in contact with one, again undermining FBI special agent DesLauriers' statement. Ironically, Ferdaus is being arrested, held, and awaiting trial that could see him locked up for most of his life, while the US State Department, Department of Defense, and the White House itself are verifiably supporting foreign terrorist organizations, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), listed as #26 on the State Department's own list, as well as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) in Iran, listed as #28 by the US State Department.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.

Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Hanover_Phist:
I'm always amazed by how ridiculous the official story sounds. Especially the Pentagon part.

I know what you mean, it's the first time I ever heard of a plane being hijacked. Crazy!


LOL if that's all you got out of this, I suggest you actually watch it and listen to it.

Oh, that's right the public doesn't want to know about the inconsistencies in the "official story" because that would mean there was shenanigans involved. Because we all know our Government is above lying to, and hiding things from us. /s

Before writing this, I did consult a diary I kept at the time. The diary had to do with my first year of teaching.

That morning I was driving to an elementary school to teach students who qualified as “Talented in Art.” I was tuned into a radio morning show – the kind that tends to be obnoxious and silly. However, the tone was very different that day. It took me a couple of minutes to register what I was hearing while navigating I-10. I switched to another station that usually is more serious. The first tower had been hit.

Once at school, I went right into teaching my scheduled group of kids. Afterwards, I was in the hall when a teacher told me the news about The Pentagon. Right after that the principal passed by and instructed us to not say anything to students. In the school library, teachers were glued to a television. The rest of the day they checked in to update themselves.

During the end of school announcements, we were informed that the school system would be closed the next day.

I'm always amazed by how ridiculous the official story sounds. Especially the Pentagon part.

My wife and I were getting ready to go to the labs at grad school. The week before, some idiot had crashed into the statue of liberty with a single engine plane, so when I saw the first tower on TV, I thought it was another careless pilot.

Then, live, the second tower was hit, which stunned me. And I was floored when the towers just collapsed.

I lived in the DC metro area, so we also were hearing about the pentagon, with speculation about the white house and capitol being targets.

I remember feeling a deep sense of loss.

NORAD on 9/11: Ordered to stand down

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab.


But that misses the point: it's fun to imagine a crazy, wacky conspiracy with layer upon layer of complexity. Because really, it's not about the "truth"; it's about imagining the world really is like a crazy political/spy thriller. Then you get to imagine all sorts of crazy things:

- missiles being shot into the Pentagon
- remote controlled jetliners hitting building
- secret explosives planted to bring down skyscrapers

etc etc.

Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab. In the case of 9/11 it could be millions of people - journalists, politicians, scientists, firefighters, demolitions companies, the military, the police, the CIA and FBI, TV news reporters, office workers, cleaning staff, maintenance crews, NIST, eyewitnesses, plane pilots, camera crews, sound and video editors, the President and his staff, ambulance workers, the Pentagon staff, air-traffic control, explosives suppliers, airport ground crews... There'd almost be more people on the "inside" of the conspiracy than the outside.

>> ^Spacedog79:

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?
I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.
>> ^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.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.