Three Questions to Ask about 9/11
There are many questions that come up about the official government story for what happened on 9/11/01 as well as many of the details about the incident as documented by many independent researchers. Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report poses three that those who still believe the official "government" story might ask themselves. Another I might add, "mother should I trust the government?".
1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed?
The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention."
"2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded?
In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called "American military preeminence" would be laid out in detail."
"3. If primarily Saudi hijackers with Saudi money and Saudi organization perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, why has the United States waged war or threatened war with every nation in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and its allies?
Not only has the United States made no moves against Saudi Arabia for its apparent role in the 9/11 attacks - spanning the administrations of US President George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump - the United States has sold Saudi Arabia billions in arms, provided military support and protection to Saudi Arabia's military and government, partnered with Saudi Arabia in its ongoing conflict with Yemen - all while US government documents and leaked e-mails between US politicians reveal Saudi Arabia is still a state sponsor of Al Qaeda - the organization officially blamed for the 9/11 attacks."
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/09/september-11-2001-questions-to...
Comments
All the warmonger imperialist liars are out peddling the 9/11
lies today, including Trump and Pence, their first time in office to commemorate what Dick Cheney and friends pulled off that day.
I was kind of waiting for this day, it proves Trump is gone, he's officially one of them, not that I didn't know that already. But this should settle the deal for many.
@Big Al Oh that's right...today
Oh that's right...today is 9/11 isn't it.
Sorry just been so focused on personal matters that today almost slipped by. I was wondering why there was a 9/11 thread.
I think out of your list Al, number 3 should be the easiest and largest flag for people to get...and yet they don't.
Hijackers were Saudi...and yet 70% if I remember right of the American people believed Iraq did it. But the government and TV told me the Iraqis did it.
Don't forget that the details about the Saudis' involvement was
covered up for 15 years and only recently released. Now why would this have been allowed to be covered up if there wasn't something to hide?
Bandar Bush was photographed at the WH with George and Richard the day after and then the whole family was flown out of the country while all other flights were canceled.
The Saudis can now be sued by the families whose members were killed by them.
There's just too many issues that don't add up, including who was allowed to be on the 9/11 commission.
Too many things that don't add up,
to many inconsistencies to the official story, too many strange and suspicious connections, too many questions, too many past actions, too many lots of things. For those wanting a paper signed by Dick Cheney ordering the attack, they aren't going to get it. For those who look at most of the evidence that has been presented over the years, it's hard not to conclude there was deep state involvement.
Same with the JFK murder.
Big Al, have you read this article about Mueller and 9/11?
I didn't know about his roll in covering up for the Saudis, especially Bandar Bush who was the Saudi ambassador when the attacks happened.
Why Did Robert Mueller Obstruct Congress’s 9/11 Probe?
Thank you, Big Al
These are questions we all should be asking, along with what really caused Building 7 to collapse.
If we remember, these very questions were prohibited over at the other place.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
No problem gg.
Ya, over 16 years later they still won't talk about it. Shows the power of societal pressure, kind of like peer pressure only different.
Figured someone should put something up, it is 9/11, no use ignoring it.
@Big Al
And thank you for doing so! Nothing about the 'official story' vs their responses and what actually happened makes sense.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Building 7.
Regardless of anyone's conclusions regarding the September 11th attack (including my own), I have never heard ANY explanation of its collapse and fall that convinces me that its straight downward fall was because it was 150 yards away from the Twin Towers.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
Cynic!
Just because there is no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude bringing down a skyscraper, let alone in a manner identical to a controlled demolition, you label the careful work of the 9-11 Commission some kind of conspiracy.
fire
1. There was no example in the history of engineering of a fire of that magnitude in any skyscraper, especially one based on as large scale of burning liquid accelerants. 9/11 was the first one meeting both criteria. The 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building involved only a tiny fraction of the fuel that the 9/11 incidents did. The perpetrators of the crimes deliberately chose planes flying nonstop to destinations well west of the Mississippi River so they would be carrying as much fuel on board as possible.
2. The World Trade Center buildings, especially the Twin Towers, were built without internal interstitial load-bearing walls in order to maximize the potential for profit. The Empire State Building has these. With the design of the Towers being what it was, a vertical collapse from fire weakening of the connections between the floor structures and the facades and core is the natural result, no conspiracies required.
If the 9/11 Commnission's results are a cover-up of anything, it's shitty avant-garde "engineering".
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
We didn't know then
as well as we know it now, how complicit the MSM has been with these shenannigans. It didn't begin to dawn on me how severe the problem was until I saw how CNN had completely staged the toppling of Saddam's statue. Some claim the footage of planes crashing into the towers has lots of CGI going on and say there were no planes at all.
The one I find most ludicrous is finding one of the highjacker's passport, relatively intact, in the rubble. It's the silly, stupid lies that make you take a second look at the bigger picture.
My ex-boyfriend saw the planes hit in person
He was at work on the roof of a building about 30 blocks away and saw the whole thing happen.
Check out this picture from the plane that hit the pentagon
Rarely seen 9/11 photos from Pentagon show aftermath of terrorist attack
I'm not able to copy this picture that shows that the plane that hit the pentagon was American Airlines.
It's the 3rd picture in. Just a bit too convenient, IMO.
Another thing to notice in these pictures is that all the workers are wearing masks. Remember that Christine Whitman told the people that were working at ground zero that the air was safe to breathe. Many of those people have died from the contaminated air. For years congress would not authorize money for the workers who were sick. They were treated just like returning veterans.
@snoopydawg
From the link:
The US government does seem to have difficulty finding good tech support...
Looking at the Pentagon shots, I'm again impressed at the nicely circular holes shown in the walls, as I would have expected at least the bricks to have been damaged outside of the impact hole. But then again, the building had only just been renovated.
According to this:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_renovations.html
Only here (emphasis mine):
https://www.army.mil/article/65490/Pentagon_survivors_tell_their_stories/
So there don't seem to have been any alarms or, as mentioned in the first article, automatically opening fire-doors mentioned at all in the second article, involving some of the escapees from the newly renovated wing?
(Below quote from first article)
The Pentagon, like Wall St., kept running, even though many people working there didn't, which struck me as typical priority-setting. The essential infrastructure for 'business as usual' survived where many people didn't, with many dying later to achieve this.
I keep thinking of the 9/11 warnings famously ignored by the Bush Admin, particularly one involving then-President Bush telling one messenger that he'd 'covered his ass' by giving him such a warning not all that long before the disaster struck... and of how the slow murder of a half-million children was considered 'worthwhile' by Albright... and so many other nightmares created by such monsters...
I'd put nothing past any of them.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
too convenient for what, exactly?
there is no doubt in the mind of any person thinking rationally that American Airlines flight 77 flew into the pentagon. a photo of a bit of metal with the AA serial number is an insignificant additional datum above/beyond the numerous eyewitness accounts from dozens of people who actually saw the plane hit the building, nevermind the eyewitness accounts from hundreds of people who saw the plane flying low and fast towards the building and the no-witness accounts from exactly 0 people who claim to have seen the plane flying away afterwards.
anyone entertaining one single teensy weensy shred of doubt that AA 77 flew into the pentagon, killing everyone on board, has quite simply abandoned reason with respect to these events.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
On the contrary,
there is obviously considerable doubt, in the minds of many rational people, as to exactly what occurred at the Pentagon and elsewhere on 9/11. The fact that you scornfully dismiss all these doubts, and consider anyone who has them to be utterly irrational, is not a convincing argument for your point of view.
Your analysis (and the official one) might be correct. Or it might not be. There is considerable evidence that could support either conclusion. But it seems quite clear to me that the 9/11 Commission's so-called "investigation" of the matter was a sham, and that as such, it raised many more doubts and questions than it ever answered.
native
There may be doubt -- little of it particularly rational --
about exactly what happened at the Pentagon, but there can be no doubt by anyone thinking rationally that American Airlines 77 flew into the Pentagon. If you doubt that American Airlines 77 flew into that building, you are mistaken, period. That's the entirety of it. It is as sure as anything can be sure. If you can be persuaded to doubt this, you can be persuaded to doubt quite literally anything, if it only suits your suspicions and internal motivations to be of doubt.
It is, in fact, my first test whenever someone attempts to engage me in a conversation about alternative hypotheses concerning any/all of the events of 9/11/2001. If the person doubts that American Airlines 77 flew into the Pentagon, then there is nothing left to talk about with respect to anything else, because, in regards to 9/11, the person is evidently immune to straightforward factual evidence. To doubt that AA77 flew into the Pentagon is precisely as irrational as to doubt that 20 children were shot dead at Sandy Hook, or that millions of Jews died in the camps of the holocaust, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that the earth is round, or that the twin towers were struck by jet airliners, or even to doubt that the twin towers ever actually collapsed. It's rather more irrational than doubting that CO2 emissions are causing global climate change, though of course they are.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
That's no stranger than other disaster findings
Check any report of natural or man-made disasters, and you'll find oddities by the score. Tornado takes out this house, spares that one, drops a teddy bear (or whatever) from the first house into the road, etc.
Strange things happen under extreme conditions.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Read my comment again.
I am replying to a comment about building 7. It wasn't hit by an airplane. It had minor fires transmitted from the other two buildings. The fire in building 7 gave off black smoke. It was not a hot fire. It was on one side of some floors of the building. There is nothing that happened to building 7 that would explain its collapse in a manner identical to a controlled demolition. It's not clear what would have made it collapse at all.
Patriotic physics dictates that the laws change
when they hate our freedom, or something like that.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Yep
Yep building 7 is the fly in the ointment
it was not only not hit by an airplane that day, but there was the statement "let's pull it"
The other thing that happened that day was a foreign tv news show was on live and the anchor woman told everyone that building 7 had just collapsed. However, while she was saying this, the building was still standing and didn't collapse for another 20 minutes.
Then there are the stock options on the airlines that were put in place days or months before 9/11/2001.
People were told to stay home that day.
Certain government employees were told not to fly commercial beginning in June 2011.
That event has been hashed and rehashed for 16 years, and there are so many other details that shows that this was a false flag attack or a "New Pearl Harbor".
But as you stated, this is the nail in the coffin for me:
"Operation Northwoods"
Another fly in the ointment
is the fact that the Pentagon itself was attacked, yet no one scrambled. There were plenty of USAF assets nearby, yet none did anything. Imagine, the very seat of US power is attacked, and yet the response is crickets.
No one talks about this, but either all of their models were wrong, or they were told to stand down, or something. They were either incompetent or complicit, or both.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Absolutely. The planes were allowed to fly for over an hour
In one of the most restricted air space and not one military jet was scrambled. Some reports have stated that the military was practicing a drill that day and that's why they weren't scrambled. I call bs on this. How much time was there between the 4 attacks? After the first tower was hit, those jets would have been told of it and they would have been scrambled.
The other thing to notice is that during the London, Boston and other "terrorist" attacks, the authorities were also doing drills. This can't be a coincidence.
Another question to be asked is why were all the surveillance videos around the pentagon gathered up by the FBI? What did those videos show hitting the pentagon? And where was the plane engines, seats, bodies and most importantly, the plane's black box?
The area of the pentagon that was hit just conveniently held the data for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld said was missing. And does anyone believe that there wasn't another backup for the files somewhere else?
@snoopydawg
Plus I recall that essential documents required to hold the chemical industry accountable were conveniently destroyed in 9/11, which spared the perpetrators the consequences.
Sorta like Bush 2 destroying the EPA libraries with similar results, in sparing them regulations, and with the same things happening with Mini-Me-Bush Harper, when he was cheated in as Canadian Prime Minister by US business interests after going to the US and promising them more drained from Canadians than anyone else would consider.
It's a trend, isn't it? The Psychopaths That Be always want the same destructive things, and tend to recycle the same propaganda/suppression tactics.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Dumbya at the switch
With Dumbya the Shrub at the switch, there's plenty enough incompetency to cover all....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Dumbya wasn't at the switch that day
Cheney was in charge right after the attacks because George was still sitting in the classroom. He sat there for almost 10 minutes after he was informed that the first plane successfully hit the tower.
Then he flew around for the rest of day just incase he was in danger.
Cheney's nastier, but more competent?
Someone who goes live-skeet shooting and winds up peppering his shooting partner's face with smallshot is certifiably NOT competent.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
You can be . . .
NOT competent and considerably more competent than W.
@snoopydawg
'Cause if terrorists are flying around in airplanes, the safest place for a prime target - the Vice President - to be is clearly in an airplane, in the air, right up there with them and easily smashed with one of those suicide planes. One might almost think Cheney knew that he wouldn't be personally targeted...
Edited to add an 's' that didn't go through.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
It was Shrub who did all the flying around
from one "secure hiding place" to another. Cheney went to ground and stayed put. I remember being certain that he was hiding under Mount Weather (the "super-secret" hideout in the Blue Ridge that everybody knew was there - it's now "officially" used by FEMA). But there are many holes he could have dived into.
Shrub surfaced first, grandstanding with his little megaphone and telling Americans to "go shopping".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
There are so many flies
in that 9/11 ointment, hardly any space is left for the ointment. It's more like a jar full of pickled flies.
native
@native
When the ointment consists of bull manure, that percentage of flies must be expected, I suppose.
Bears and Clintons shit in the woods; Bushes shit in the ointment, I guess?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
All I know is,
I don't believe a single word of what the USG has to say about the issue -- with the exception of Senator Graham and a very few other stalwarts.
native
@native
I know that you must be right, because I agree with you, lol. Funny how often this happens...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@gulfgal98
Oh, yes, at least some of us remember this. Made me wonder at the time, although they were certainly deeply concerned about not being labelled a CT site.
So there was no wonder as to why so many Bernie supporters - prior to The Decree (and later en masse bannings) were flagged and/or attacked for posting Hillary speeches, even with no text at all, just the video of what Her said - that being CT and all...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Remember also
about how TOP wouldn't let us talk about electronic vote rigging? Despite the abundant evidence.
Psssst, Big Al ~~~
I believe in conspiracies.
I believe 9/11 was conspired to co-opt democracy from the 99%.
I believe the 1962 plan was only the beginning.
I believe the 2000 plan was the call to action.
I believe 9/11 was performed to perfection by our government to begin the transition to American-made facism.
Look where we are 16 years later. America is STILL asleep at the wheel. Thank goodness so many Americans have their devices to keep them nominally awake. Those without devices are poor and homeless and not a bother to the 1% as planned.
I believe we are victims of the 1%, but we have allowed this to happen because they gave us the fairy tale of the American Dream to keep us busy while they conspired to co-opt everything out from under us. Look how many people have not recovered. Look how many people, me included, are one disaster away from losing their home.
I've worked hard all my life and feel like I have nothing to show for it. It's part of the plan.
I believe in conspiracies.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
It's like this:
Who are people trying to kid anymore? All this stuff if out in the open, we know it, everyone knows it, but few still want to talk about it.
Amazing.
It's so much easier
to look the other way and say nothing and remain complicit. I was not made that way. I must speak my truth.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
"All this stuff
is out in the open, everybody knows but no one wants to talk about it".
Yeah.
A commenter at Zero Hedge put it thusly; You know your mom is having sex, but you don't want think about it.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
There are far too many false flags going on
After reading Alligator Ed's essay on Charlottesville, I decided to do more research on my own. As a result, I am thoroughly convinced that the car ramming the anti-Nazi protesters was a staged event using crisis actors. I have thought about posting all the analyzed videos and testimony here, but am not sure what good it would do now, except to challenge folks to be more skeptical and less likely to rely on what they see or hear via the media.
Skepticism, even if proven to be false later, is healthy.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
What about Heather Heyer?
I have heard about the crisis actors who were used in other events, especially the Boston bombing. One or two people were seen at other events.
I do agree with you that C'ville was a planned event and that the police were told to stand down. But what actually happened to Heather then?
Heather Heyer
was reported to have died from a heart attack, not from being hit by the car. It is very possible that part is true because photographs of her prior to the event show a woman who was very obese and who smoked. Just because other parts of the event were staged does not mean that all participants were actors or that she did not die. It is quite possible that she may have been a real victim in a staged event.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Heather Heyer
was reported to have died from a heart attack, not from being hit by the car. It is very possible that part is true because photographs of her prior to the event show a woman who was very obese and who smoked. Just because other parts of the event were staged does not mean that all participants were actors or that she did not die. It is quite possible that she may have been a real victim in a staged event.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Just a reminder
how shocked we all were at events and what transpired after 9/11. The Shock Doctrine was hard at work in America while we still clung to the American ideals we had been taught and wanted to be true, that we wanted to actualize.
We didn't LET anything happen. They manipulated the public, which lacked the cynicism necessary to see through the illusions.
But since then, the public has become increasingly cynical and disgusted by the corruption that has become almost openly shameless and arrogant. They have us where they want us. We are powerless until we rise up as a united people. So the plan is to keep us divided and at odds with each other. Fox laid the groundwork for that.
@gustogirl
Considering the amount of propaganda pumped into the American public and the length of time involved, it's amazing that so many people are not utterly brainwashed and are capable of critical thinking. And on these must our hopes rest - and renew.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Raggedy Ann
And I believe you to be painfully and tragically correct.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Allright. But..
This crap has gone on for centuries.
The Levant. Spain. France stops the Hordes invasion.
I'm not buying this.
They, yes, they/we are still at fault for our sins. And "them"? Free Pass?
"They" continue this obsession. "They" still have a "religion" that seeks out to destroy those that believe in the Trinity.
Allua Akbar, does not mean "God is Great" it means "My God is greater then your God"
Your answer to "them"?
Or it's just all our fault?
Yea!
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
No "our" about it to me Ed.
I'm not with them, so the question is "was it all their fault"? And no, there were various players, Israel Mossad, CIA, MI6, Saudi Arabia, etc. Plenty of blame to go around which is why the entire world remains mum about the real truth.
Ya, it has been going on for centuries. Still works.
Then speak the truth
It ain't all "us'.
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
rich fuckers vs. the rest of us
All of this!
At worst, the 9/11 arch-crime was caused by the rich fuckers in charge of our predominant religion and our government conspiring with the rich fuckers in charge of the single entity that is the government and religion of Saudi Arabia, with a little help from some specialist criminals imported from Egypt, to gin up the American people into parting with ever more enormous amounts of their blood and treasure to support Saudi Wahhabism against its many (and reasonable) adversaries.
The vast majority of Americans have no dog in that fight.
It only costs the vast majority of us. There is no benefit, only loss. But the class of the wealthiest and most powerful in both societies, ours and the Saudis, profit handsomely.
It turned out exactly as Hermann Goering laid out:
And if you can show them being attacked, as what happened on 9/11, all the better.
The fact that there was a large pool of our erstwhile "allies" who wanted to destroy major parts of our culture (female equality, open society, Trinitarian religion) made it even easier.
It still boils down to the same thing: a ginned-up war that is still a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight".
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Please don't malign an entire religion
with misrepresentations such as:
Muslims do not believe the Christian or Judaic God is different from their own. They,like all western religions, believe there is but one god. Muslims, like Christians and Jews, draw on the Abrahamic tradition. The three religions are inextricably entwined.
there is no god but God.
which of His works would you deny?
primary issue is the divinity of christ, iirc.
certainly the god of Abraham.
would love to see the tenets of Islam debated full on.
Isis vs. Baptists!
this Sunday live! bring it on.
what do our "leaders" have to say on any serious subject?
not much, I bet.
there are smart people out there, but they don't run the show today.
sad. hugely sad.
Yeah, the misinformation (disinformation?)
smeared across the US about Islam is by now ingrained. The whole US needs a course in comparative religions, but then who would we have to hate?
Great video on 9/11
brought to you by BitChute (5min):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/V4bSS5Bwn38V/
Yes, Virginia, I do believe in conspiracies!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
@Raggedy Ann
Thanks! The whole nonsense stinks to high heaven, and it's good to get a giggle out of it, now and then, considering the horrors involved with which Americans have - and the world has - to live, while they can...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
okay.
1. Yes. "I dismiss them". There. Done.
2. Because global hegemony is their religion. Of course they drew up a plan for it. They would have acted on that plan, to whatever extent they could -- including endless propaganda -- even if 9/11 had never happened.
3. Because the Saudis are already under their hegemonic control, so lashing out at the Saudis over the actions of certain Saudi citizens would have been pointless to them. With respect to your own interpretation of events, and Question 3, I would ask you this: If 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by evil genius masterminds capable of organizing and executing a rather extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy, with the intent of justifying military action against Iraq and the Taliban and whomever else, why did they choose Saudi citizens to carry it out? Point 3 argues against the false flag hypothesis, not for it.
The general flaw in almost all of the false-flag hypotheses (apart from questionable interpretations -- and even denials -- of the available physical evidence) is that they posit explanations and motivations that are substantially more improbable than the standard hypotheses. For example, there's a conversation about Building 7, up above. Folks zero in on Building 7 as evidence that something nefarious happened on the part of American authorities -- but I've never seen any reasonable explanation for why the false-flag conspirators needed to destroy Building 7, whereas I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Building 7 collapsed after having large chunks of the neighboring tower fall on it, damage it severely, and set it on fire.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
engineering flaws
And reasonable non-conspiracy explanations, well supported by physical evidence, exist for the Twin Towers, too. (Read: shitty avant-garde "engineering")
In my own humble opinion at least, those who maintain that these crimes were planned actions of the US Government need to bring direct evidence of that claim, i.e., precisely who from the US Government arranged it, when, and how. Circumstantial crap just won't cut the mustard here.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
What do you want? A smoking gun?
Have you thoroughly compared the information, data, and testimonies from independent research vs. the government story supported by Bush, Cheney and now Trump?
What do I want?
I made it clear what was required. And it is required, will or nill either of us.
Direct evidence is required here. Names, times, places of the exact Americans (and their exact overt acts) who supposedly arranged this hideous crime. I say it is required will or nill either of us courtesy of the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
source
And if this is a military operation, an act of war, then any and all Americans involved therewith are guilty of Treason. It isn't really my fault that the Constitution itself sets the evidentiary bar as high as it does. I must say I agree with it, though.
In my humble opinion at least, it is the single biggest flaw in the entire history of Western jurisprudence that circumstantial "evidence" is ever allowed to establish a conviction by itself. Western logic has always demanded direct evidence corroboration for acceptance of circumstantials; this should be applied everywhere. Consider all the innocent people this country incarcerates. Nearly all were convicted on circumstantial-only evidence.
All I'm guilty of here is demanding that same standard for the 9/11 crimes. And the Constitution apparently agrees with me.
My narrative of what happened on 9/11 is, and remains, that which can be constructed from facts directly evidenced and that only. That we were attacked by a gang of criminally fanatical Wahhabi Muslims from Saudi Arabia and Egypt is not in question; that has been well and thoroughly proven with direct evidence.
To get back to your question, Big Al, I'd like to see the same quality or better direct evidence for any supposed American involvement.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I think the point is
we citizens should be demanding answers to the incredible amount of discrepancies and questions around the entire event from our government. It's incumbent on the government to prove it's case and it failed miserably while lying and making shit up repeatedly. Talk about circumstantial evidence. And it used that to launch illegal wars, a fascist police state and laws against our liberty.
Imo and a lot of others that have studied and researched this issue, the "circumstantial" evidence is so significant, taking into account the history of false flags, intelligence agency activities, the run up to 9/11 and the aftermath, it's impossible to not see deep state and intelligence agency involvement. And there is plenty of direct evidence that points to that involvement.
there is no event of any significance
within the realm of human experience for which i could not fairly trivially "discover" a non-stop stream of "discrepancies" that someone or other might become persuaded were in need of explanation. every single such purported discrepancy ever put forth to me by proponents of the false-flag hypothesis either:
a. represented no discrepancy at all, within my own understanding of events
or
b. might possibly represented a discrepancy, but any alternative explanation depended even more/worse discrepancies.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
You've got your mind made up,
fine.
So have I and many others. In fact, most American citizens and the vast majority of world citizens don't believe the official story.
So we go on.
the only things i've made my mind up about are that
a. you haven't provided anything approximately like proof that the official narrative is false in any respect of consequence,
and
b. you haven't provided anything approximately like support, nevermind proof, that any element at all of your alternative narrative is true.
believe whatever you want to believe, but i'm afraid i'm normally constrained by a rather rigorous epistemology.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Paranoid government begets paranoid citizens
Rampant paranoia becomes a survival mechanism, and everything becomes suspect. The most important question is, how does one stay sane in a society that is increasingly insane?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
beats me.
my 401k money is all in money market, not because that's bulletproof (as some folks discovered to their surprise back in the Greatest Motherfucking Economic Crisis in American history), but because the financial markets themselves are so irrational that i simply cannot stand to be invested in them, even though i'd have made many thousands of dollars in the last 7 years had i just bought index funds.
we all have zones of cognition where our emotional investment completely overrides our ability to rationally process information. for most of us, most of the time, these zones are local and personal -- like, parents who refuse to admit that their kid is a bully, or has below-average intelligence, or whatever. when people develop such a zone with respect to some distant and complex set of events and institutions and individuals, epistemological hell breaks loose in the body politic.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I wish you'd . . .
apply your rigorous epistemology to the government's 9-11 report. I don't know whet happened. I believe the 9-11 commission did a shoddy job. It appears that some of the people selected to participate were appointed to ensure it did a shoddy job.
If you'd care to amuse yourself you could dig up photos of molten steel at the bottom os the twin towers. Then you could look up the temperature it takes to make structural steel go molten and the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Don't forget to allow for the fact that quite a bit of jet fuel was blown outside the buildings during the initial moments of the crashes.
You seem to have one standard for the people who guaranteed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another for their critics. Sorry, but when one side has tens of millions of dollars and the power to subpoena and the other is relying on volunteers it's the former that bears the standard of proof you demand.
the whole "temperature of burning jet fuel" argument
is a classic example of the sort of flummoxation that bedevils the minds of the false-flag advocates. many other materials were burning in those buildings -- indeed, the jet fuel itself was long gone by the time either tower fell. apart from which, what exactly do you mean by "melted"? do you mean, a big blob of what was once a beam, then became a puddle, until it hardened into a big disk? because, no, i haven't seen a picture of that. on the other hand, if what you mean is "steel that must have melted, because it's all warped and misshapen and twisted and stuff," well, here, read all about it. money quote:
the kind of reasoning i see at work amongst those who are certain that our own government orchestrated 9/11 is identical to that i see amongst climate change denialists, holocaust deniers, and all such obsessed with alternative narratives. one particular characteristic of that reasoning is a tendency to throw out mutually contradictory assertions of fact (or hypothesis), as if what matters is the aggregate weight of such assertions, rather than the coherency of the narrative they represent.
another characteristic is the tendency to latch onto a point of question and, in response to rebuttal, extend it into the realm of the absurd. originally, the "melted steel" argument was only about the buildings collapsing. when it was pointed out that the steel didn't have to actually melt for the buildings to collapse, the new argument became something about steel melting in the abstract -- yet as I have said, large puddles of melted steel were not, to my knowledge, abundant at Ground Zero.
yet another characteristic is the tendency to assert that certain things are "impossible", when they are quite possible indeed, but outside the experience or knowledge of the person making the assertion. this happens all the time, and not just in oddball conversations about whether a flag can ripple on the moon, in the absence of atmosphere. there's (sadly) nothing unusual about scientists asserting that something is impossible, simply because they've never heard of it happening and they haven't thought deeply before making the assertion.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
your answers are like mine, UntimelyRippd!
Big Al asked:
and you answered:
Indeed. The main difference in our answers is that I went into some detail as to why. To wit, the complete and total lack of direct evidence corroboration to this particular circumstantial. And a circumstantial is all that it is without such corroboration.
Big Al's Question 2:
Your answer smacked the ball out of the park here too, UntimelyRippd:
Question 3:
Your answer, excellent as always:
Again, smack-on. Especially with that annoying lack of direct evidence of American involvement in 9/11 at all.
Your comment contained another paragraph which I've already answered in another comment.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
yeah, i think we're very closely aligned here.
what you are calling "direct evidence", i've been thinking of as "positive evidence". all i ever get from the false-flag claimants are examples of "negative evidence": "I think X doesn't match the official narrative. How do you explain X?" "I think Y doesn't match the official narrative. How do you explain Y"?
i rarely have any trouble constructing plausible explanations for X and Y, provided X and Y are valid premises, and i simultaneously never get anything resembling positive evidence for the alternative explanation -- i only get relatively implausible explanations with no supporting facts. the single most extraordinary example is the fascination people have with the premature reporting of Building 7 having come down. I simply do not understand how or why this is supposed to be evidence of anything other than an error in reporting during a rapidly evolving and brain-rattling crisis. I have never seen anyone even attempt to draw a causal line between "false-flag attack" and "someone on British TV erroneously reported that Building 7 had already fallen ... TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY FELL!" They all just act like the chain of causation is obvious to anyone who hasn't had the wool pulled over their eyes. I mean ... like I said, it's usually trivial for me to provide sensible explanations for supposed discrepancies, but in this case, I can't construct even a silly explanation that supports the false-flag hypothesis.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
similar concepts
Quite similar concepts.
We both seek affirmative evidence (your "positive evidence") which directly supports the various claims (my "direct evidence").
And, much like yourself, I've yet to see anything which would directly and affirmatively support the claim that the US Government caused 9/11 as some sort of "false flag" event. As I pointed out earlier, circumstantials and suspicions won't cut it here. Those who want to present 9/11 conspiracy theories as some sort of "truth" need to cone up with the same caliber of evidence the Constitution demands for such: actual affirmative facts demonstrating exactly what overt acts were committed by which Americans and when to further this crime.
Carl Sagan said it best:
And, like it or not, the claim that the US Government was directly involved in the 9/11 incidents is a very extraordinary claim indeed, and requires extraordinary direct affirmative evidence.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
You must be shitting me.
That the government was involved somehow, or rather those controlling the government, would somehow be involved would be "extraordinary".
Do you have any idea what our government does and has done, the lies it tells, who is controlling it? It doesn't appear so.
Like I said before, the extraordinary claims are coming from our government, which you evidently fully believe.
It's comforting to believe the Govt is evil and criminal
because the alternative is that it is/was chock-full of an appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school.
That level of incompetence is, and should be, a lot scarier.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven
Isn't there a hell of a lot of evidence of planned and enacted criminality within the US government already, which has accumulated over numerous years? Even international law has been broken in the most appalling and disgusting fashion. 'Incompetence' cannot cover 'legalized' kidnapping and torture at home and abroad, as one example. Or the 'legalization' of governmental propagandizing of its own citizens, as another.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
This is getting into rather deep waters
because it's not necessarily an either-or choice - could be incompetence and malevolence coexisting (maybe even cooperating). But considering that even the people who think they "know" the "truth" about 9/11 are usually wrong on some of the details (including getting Cheney's and Shrub's actions completely backward), I remain skeptical. Of all sides.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven
Very true, on both counts, and skepticism is certainly required.
But we do already know that evil is involved, whether excused or masquerading as incompetence, such as The Most Experienced And Competent Presidential Candidate Ever Hillary claiming that as Secretary of State, Her was completely unable to understand or follow basic national security protocols integral to Her job, while benefiting enormously from her inability to understand that taking large amounts of money from those Her caused the State Department to facilitate wasn't going to look good.
Some of this might be simple incompetence, but too much outright evil - including 'legalizing' kidnapping, torture and internationally illegal attacks on other people's countries to steal their resources, while 'legalizing' governmental propaganda against their own people to cover up such as this by disinformation campaigns in a captured-via-Presidential-deregulation media market - simply cannot be covered with that claim...
The American people have a right to the full results of honest, openly and independently conducted and thorough investigations into all suspect areas of their governance.
It's their country and public service, after all.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Multissimo grazie, donna mi!
This is my attitude as well.
It's been assumed -- wrongly -- that I just buy into the government narrative because I won't give any credence to the conspiracy theories without any direct affirmative evidence to support them. As I've already stated, circumstantials and suspicions won't suffice here.
But I am no more willing to buy the government's version of events supported only by circumstantials and suspicions, either.
And the supply of raw direct affirmative evidence, available to ordinary Americans not in some abusable position of authority, in any direction, doesn't exist. Or at least not that I've ever been able to find. Everything available to us ordinary folks is hopelessly polluted with somebody's self-interest, and well spun.
So, your attitude of being skeptical of all published narratives is well justified. And I thank you for pointing that fact out for us.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
What about,
with respect to your position,
what about CUI BONO? An awful lot of loot has been expended on wars and research and development and a new anthrax research lab and homeland fascism that would not otherwise have been spent. PNAC off the edge of the world as to expenditures, secrecy, and power. Does any of this constitute evidence of complicit motivation and direct involvement, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other horse's asses involved in the industrial entities that benefit? Just happenstance?
cui bono
Still circumstantial -- and therefore still worthless for the purpose without the direct evidence I called for.
Not just happenstance, but still not evidence of the proposal that the 9/11 attacks were a US Government plan, either. Only direct affirmative evidence will do here.
No one has ever provided the evidence directly connecting the two.
This does not mean the government's version of events isn't crap, by the way. That both narratives are festering sacks of liquid crap is quite possible; and, in fact, most likely. As I pointed out to Big Al, that's really where my orientation lies. I don't think that any 9/11 narrative available to us Serfs falls within a Texas country mile of what really happened there.
Nor do I expect to live to see the appropriate facts made available to us. We still don't have the whole picture regarding the 1%er actors in the Pearl Harbor attacks. And I don't expect that information to ever be available to me, either; I fully expect to die of old age first.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Well,
I'm the one who called them horse's asses. But that doesn't mean, from my point of view, that they're incompetent.
They're the most powerful people on earth. The PNAC and the Council of Foreign Relations and the list of other acronymic associations are running our domestic and foreign policies, and what they do benefits themselves and their client potentates. They do harm on a scale that only gets worse, and worse.
In a spirit of exasperation that resembles what Big Al has said to you, I want to say, what would it take to make you acknowledge that they're responsible for what happened? What resources do we not provide, including a black budget with no limitations, to prevent it from happening? When Don and Dov announce on the day before that they've lost track of $2 trillion in DEFENSE spending, are we meant to feel sorry for them? Are we supposed to feel guilty for spending too much money for them to handle effectively?
No! My answer to that question is that they are guilty, knowingly, connected to the policy and private industry ends of the spectrum of planning and plundering that define this event, from providing WMD precursors to rogue governments to owning a company that pillages the American taxpayer by inventing systems to remotely control passenger airline flight. Don Rumsfeld and Dov Zakheim are, like Bush, Cheney, and the Saudi royals, industry figures running our government for their purposes, openly.
They're not stupid, they're not incompetent, they're selected and recruited to be on boards of directors of key player industries, and they are very open about it. They have worked very hard to explain their position in support of the value of such an attack on the United States in the PNAC documents. They ADVOCATED this attack as an essential to their belief that they, not the world's people, should enjoy the fruits of the labor of the world's people. They have explained why this was necessary from their perspective. They expect you to understand it.
that level of incompetence
Especially since direct affirmative evidence abounds for the latter case, as it did in 2001.
For 2001, Exhibit A is George W. Bush (of course).
Today, it is the holder of the same position: Donald J. "Chump" Trump, whose fame includes business bankruptcy. Of a casino.
In addition, today, we have the ilk of Louie Gohmert, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne "I can have a gun but you can't" Feinstein, etc.
And directly addressing the "appalling degree of incompetence, so great that they couldn't organize a sing-along in a nursery school", I present the performance record of the Congress itself. Q.E.D. !!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides
Yet it seems that these incompetents are enacting the wishes of their corporate/billionaire paymasters, which somehow seems to work out to their benefit, which leads me to suspect that the incompetence is conditional upon the PTB et al benefiting from the adverse circumstances inflicted upon others.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Amen.
You have stated this better than anyone I've read trying to state it during the last 16 years. Succinct, and right on.
@Linda Wood
Lol, cherish the moment; succinct is not normally me!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
A 9/11 commisioner...
all but accused the government of a coverup.
Is that not evidence in itself that something is wrong with the official story? After all, if the official story is so true, what need is there to cover anything up?
Or does you rather fanciful understanding (based on a mangled Carl Sagan quote) of what constitutes legitimate evidence allow you to ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.
Moreover, if the government is indeed suppressing evidence (likely) how can you be so quick to dismiss alternative narratives. Maybe you simply haven't found the evidence you claim you need because you haven't been allowed to see it.
Or maybe you just don't want to see it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Of course they're covering *something* up
The question is, are they covering up a Nefarious Evil Plan, or the egregious extent of their shockingly abysmal incompetence? (When dealing with government, any government, incompetence is totally to be expected. Extreme incompetence, however, is not quite so usual.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
According to Graham...
the Feds are covering up proof of Saudi state complicity, not incompetence.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
That's not either-or, either
The Feds wouldn't want to admit that they'd been played for suckers, would they?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Pages