Any opinions on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhMcii8smxk&feature=player_embedded#
Here are those recordings they were talking about between the double agent and the FBI supervisor, in '93.
What about your opinion of it - assuming you have one ?
Regards, onebornfree
As usual I’m always skeptical of the “official” story that comes from government. I found out over time that the truth is always in some underground bunker somewhere, all you have to do is look for it. I just haven’t dug up the Libertarian stance on 9/11 truth so I thought I might ask.
It sounds to me as if you already have the most important tool for investigating 9/11: a distrust of the governments story.
If you are seriously interested in investigating 9/11 then it seems to me that the only way to proceed is to meticulously review, but to be skeptical of, everything out there , regardless of the source, and most especially the governments story.
Somewhat ironically, it appears that for some reason, in the case of 911, many “libertarians” “anarcho-capitalists” etc. are incapable of distrusting the government version, and actually prefer to trust completely unknown [to them] supposed " eye witnesses accounts" which support the governments version, as opposed to hard science . [They also often refuse to see, or are incapable of seeing, the irony in this [:)] ]
Even when you get to the point of believing that some fact you have reviewed appears to be actually true, be prepared to throw that “truth” “out the window” down the road if/when more , better evidence is uncovered that consistently contradicts it.
I myself spent 8 years on a daily basis going over “the facts” of 911, throwing proven “facts” I “knew” out many a time in the process- before I got to the point of being reasonably sure about what did, and did not happen that day.
The only [almost] constant in my own research was to categorically reject the governments version on principle[:P] , while at the same time allowing that just this once, there was the teeniest, remotest chance that “it” was actually telling the truth this time around.[:)]
After 8 years I am fully confidant that no part of the government story is true, and that “the truth” is actually a whole lot darker than even your average “Loose Change” Alex Jones crowd “truther”, can get their collective heads around, let alone your average “libertarian” “anarcho-capitalist”, “anarchist” or “Austrian”!
But thats a whole other story.
regards, onebornfree.
You have one “Former FBI Agent-in-Chief” going on TV and saying his former employer is worse than the mafia… mmhhh. If they are so ruthless and dangerous why haven’t they killed him already? Believe me, I’ve been in Ufology for decades and that’s a typical claim. Yes, I know government and its branches are very dangerous and that’s exactly why these “whistleblowers” make me laugh. They are either out there spreading misinformation or they are in just for a good laugh and some money. Usually the latter.
But if you talk about 9/11 the official version doesn’t make any sense. The one part that really makes me scratch my head is how could four hijacked airliners be allowed to roam around around the skies of the US at leisure without anyone taking action. No interceptor was scrambled to make at least visual contact (a common procedure), no AEGIS cruiser trained its powerful radar on the targets… in short the whole air defense system failed so spectacularly as to defy belief. US citizens have a right to know why a system which was supposed to protect them from fleets of Soviet bombers didn’t work. Even if there’s no conspiracy they have a right to know what went wrong and they have a right to ask the true culprits are held accountable for their (lack of) action. This of course implies government exists only to protect lives and property. Which sadly isn’t the case.
Anyone know if those Airplane black box’s were found?
Which/what “airplane”(s)?
Regards, onebornfree
I think none of them were “officially” ever found. Even though firemen on site found fragments of bone from the deceased. I’m talking about the 2001 attack.
“I’m talking about the 2001 attack.” So was I [:)]
So again, I ask, in all seriousness : “what/which “airplane(s)”?” [i.e. be specific].
2nd [seemingly stupid] question: how do you know for a fact that “fragments of bone from the deceased” were found?
Regards, onebornfree.
Planes that hit the WTC. If they can found bone fragments how can they not “officially” find the black boxes that are built to withstand a plane crash of that magnitude.
That is a very good question, obviously those “facts” appear to make no sense.
What do you think this means?
Black boxes are obviously being hidden by the government. Must have some important information. Also there is the WTC 7 building that collapsed on it’s own and had a little fire damage. I read somewhere that in recorded history, there has never been a building that has collapsed due to fire damage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo The video also has other parts to it which are important. Also this video is confusing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
In my own investigations I found that It paid to keep constant track of ones own assumptions.
At this time 2 of yours appear to be :
[1] planes flew into the WTC buildings [and presumably you assume that 2 more flew into the Pentagon and into the ground in PA], so therefor there must be black boxes, or their remains, somewhere…
and [2] The news source you quote/link to is trustworthy and it story of finding victims bone fragments is therefor true.
Yes?
However, if you are serious about attempting to investigate what might have really happened on 9/11, I would humbly suggest that you make a firm commitment to not automatically believe or disbelieve any source at the outset- until as much evidence as possible, regardless of original source, has been closely examined and re-examined.
This means not automatically assuming the truth or veracity of :
[1] any/all supposed media “live” footage broadcast that day, whether or not its by a “network professional” [ie professional network media cameraman] , or by a supposed non-network "amateur.
[2] any/all media reports [e.g. TV, radio, newspapers,radio], including all purported “eye witness accounts”.
[3] any/all government or “ex” government sources.
Hard Science Still Rules!
On the other hand, it means automatically assuming that basic laws of physics [eg Newtons Laws of Motion] are constantly in operation and were not magically suspended that day. [;)]
In other words, hard science must always take priority over unsubstantiated heresay such as supposed “live” footage, government, media, or “eyewitness” “reports” etc. etc.. [;)]
If you or anyone els who reads this have further questions about my [strange?] suggestions, please feel free to private message me.
Regards, onebornfree.
There is no single libertarian stance. Like the population in general, there are three main categories when it comes to 9/11:
- Those who have not looked at or seriously considered the evidence.
- Those who know it was an inside job and say so.
- Those who know it was an inside job and keep it quiet because they are worried about what it will do to their credibility in the eyes of people in category 1.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/blackboxes.html
The Faked 9/11 “Live” Media Broadcasts
The single most important and perhaps most difficult fact to accept/understand about 9/11 is that the so-called “live” images that were broadcast on TV that day were not real images of real-time events as they happened, but faked, pre-fabricated computer generated images of planes , towers, explosions, smoke, and subsequent tower collapses- no different from any big budget Hollywood movie production - although lacking some of the finess/ attention to detail usually found in those “normal” big budget Hollywood simulations[:P] .
This important fact [ie total video fakery] has been exposed by the heroic, lone, 911 video researcher Simon Shack, in his stunning, relentless, video analysis of all available archived, so called "live"media video footage broadcast that day: “September Clues”
Thus, the engineer in the first video you linked to is [albeit unknowingly] reviewing/analyzing FAKED, computer generated,pre-fabricated movie imagery of the collapse of WTC building 7.[:)]
Obviously, in the original “Hollywood movie” script production written by the government/media coalition, WTC building 7 was not hit by a plane [ and in any event, no WTC building was in reality], so it had to be demolished at some point in time that day via controlled demolition - however, that demolition was not seen/recorded “live” on TV that day- a pre-fabricated computer generated simulation of its collapse was shown instead, as evidence of its collapse.
That is all the engineer is looking at [ie “analyzing”] - faked footage[:O] .[ Therefor, as is the case with all other WTC buildings, it is impossible to know exactly when the real collapse of building 7 occurred that day, since all you saw on TV was a simulation].
The second video you linked to [ which you found confusing] is merely irrefutable confirmation of the above fact [ie faked movie footage], and merely reflects the incompetence/confusion of the perps and their media sycophants[ in this case, the BBC] who screwed up and ran their computer generated simulation of WTC 7s collapse too soon in the timeline of their broadcasts [ ie before it “happened” ].
Media Guilt
If you can ever get your mind around the fact that the media is 100% complicit in the events of 911 in that it/they ALL broadcast faked, computer generated pre-fabricated imagery of planes flying through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings without even slowing down or disintegrating upon impact, and later that day broadcast pre-fabricated, computer generated simulations of the collapses of the buildings in the WTC complex [including building 7], then, [and only then] your confusion about the incongruities of building 7’s collapse, and your questions concerning the supposed missing black boxes from aircraft attacks that never happened, will be cleanly resolved.
I am happy to discuss my claims in private messaging with yourself or any other interested party should you have any questions about my assertions/statements here.
Regards, onebornfree.
Because there is no such system, hasn’t been since maybe the 60s or 70s.
Defense air bases are widely scattered, not on any particular alert status, and rely on civilian air traffic control for information on suspicious targets. Given the time between when they realized what was happening, and the rest of the impacts (what - 60 to 90minutes?), there is no way they could have had armed interceptors in the air, and accurately directed them to a target worth shooting at. AEGIS? They’re over in the Persian Gulf or something, they aren’t used here.
This wasn’t always so - yes, in the 60s they intercepted Soviet bombers regularly. Since riliable long-range ICBMs came online, there’s no need for either bombers or interceptors.
I think it’s asinine to say that people that don’t believe it was an inside job haven’t looked at the evidence.
I think the government may have had some general advanced knowledge, but to say they actually plotted and directed it seems silly. They’re not clever enough. It’s one thing to have a black flag operation overseas somewhere, but it would nigh impossible to pull one off of the scale of 9/11.
Thanks for bringing up september clues. I’ve seen it in the past and really put me a-back. That ‘matrix shot’ with all those different background and foregrounds overlayed are crazy unbelievable.
This is a really insightful one too; analyzing those fireman videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&fmt=18
I am not 100% convinced, but I am leaning towards it. I am however 100% convinced to never believe anything from the media at face value.
This is not true.
The Calgary Herald reported one month after the attack that NORAD had scrambled jet fighters to establish contact with errant planes 129 times in the year 2000. It also said: “Fighter jets are scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or ‘unknowns’ three or four times a day. Before Sept 11, that happened twice a week.” (source)
Or from a GAO report from 1994: “Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.” (source)