Amazing I didn’t know about the September Clues Video
I would just find it incredibly hard to believe that you wouldn’t find more and more New Yorkers coming out saying that they saw a missile. Its a big city, and I’m sure there were thousands of people looking towards the towers. There is no way that anyone could think they could pull something like that off in front of so many people. There is no way that so many people could all be in on something, and the amount of planning possible to cover it all up, is on far too grand a scale. And for what purpose? Wouldn’t it have been cleaner and easier to just make up some evidence about Bin Laden having some Nukes, or maybe fake a beheading of somebody in the army that he captured or something.
I’m sure it was to change the mindset of the people. They could have easily done it cleaner and easier, but it could have been more about changing the whole mindset. Which of course would mean there could worse things to come, maybe not attacks, but something else.
That is my general experience. Most people I speak to, when I share my views on 9/11, tell me either they already agree with me, or they never really thought about it before and just figured all 9/11 ‘conspiracy theorists’ are nuts.
I thought this too once. I still can hardly believe they pulled it off. But if the evidence points in that direction, they must have done it somehow, right?
Given the history of the use of false flag attacks by governments though, even against their own subjects, it doesn’t seem quite so far-fetched. Don’t underestimate the government’s ability to lie and deceive. After all, they are a gang of thieves and their whole scam is based on deception. They survive and grow in power by exploiting fear and offering solutions to perceived problems.
If there can be definitive prove that 9/11 was a inside job (whatever that may be), it would a big blow to the state and it’s “power”. I figure the states downfall will have to come this way, to expose to system for what it is.
I agree. That’s strong evidence against the use of a missile.
There are possible scenarios that would not have required that many people to be ‘in on it’.
Be careful not to write-off all alternative theories of 9/11 because of this objection. If the evidence shows that there was (and is) a massive cover-up, then they must have done it somehow, right? We can work out IF they did it without knowing exactly HOW they did it.
The missile-theory is an extreme view in the 9/11 truth community, widely rejected. The most compelling evidence lies in asking the two key questions: What happened to NORAD, why didn’t they intercept the planes? And what brought down the three WTC towers in a way that so closely resembles a controlled demolition?
I think the death of the state will come from a thousand cuts, and that widespread knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job would be a major gash.
For definitive proof, how about the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe ?
well I would be willing to say that the ‘official story’ probably is not 100% accurate, but I would have a very hard time believing anything with missiles or a large amount of people lying about eye witness testimony or faking a bunch of amateur video and censoring hundreds or thousands of people.
I’m not saying the US wouldn’t necessarily try to pull off something a la Operation Northwoods, but those plans were relatively mild. Murdering 3,000 civilians in the most heavily populated city in the country isn’t the best plan.
Not all 9/11 conspiracy people are nuts, but there are certainly some nuts that are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Thinking that the US had some knowledge before the fact is a conspiracy theory, so is the idea that a missle hit the towers and that reptilian aliens were involved. One is a bit less nuts than the other.
What exactly is the evidence? My brother is an engineer and he completely blows off the engineering conspiracies. The rest just don’t make any sense to me.
Just because the government is corrupt doesn’t mean everything bad is a government conspiracy. The government benefits from lots of things (mass shootings, terror attacks, epidemics), it doesn’t mean they’re behind them all.
You can ignore those more extreme (and seriously flawed) theories and stick to the more fundamental questions like the two I posed above.
If you would find scientific evidence convincing, examine the destruction of the WTC - see which theory is more scientific, the fire-theory, or the explosives-theory. Ignore the implications and any objections you may have for now, and just look at the science of it.
If you like sifting through documents, news reports, eyewitness testimony and the official reports for contradictions, distortions and flat-out lies, you will find many relating to what really happened at NORAD and why none of the planes were intercepted. The tale of hopeless incompetence and coincidence described in the 9/11 commission report (which completely changed the timeline of events that had served as the official version for almost three years) is ridiculous when it is thought about in context and compared with the facts.
I could not agree more.
One is a lot more nuts than the other, don’t you think?
There are lots of forms of evidence, relating to lots of different aspects of the event. As I’ve said, I think the strongest evidence lies in finding out how those buildings came down, and how NORAD let us down so badly.
I’d like to hear what your brother thinks - perhaps invite him to join us? Is he familiar with Richard Gage and his organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ?
Agreed. And the way we tell the difference is by looking at the evidence and considering the arguments for and against there being a government conspiracy.
For one thing, the air space on the Eastern Seaboard surrounding the supposed events of 911 is one of the most heavily protected/defended airspace areas in the US, if not on the planet.
For another, as another poster points out ,USAF intercepts of commercial flights that strayed off course was mandatory, and frequent. The 1999 Payne Stewart incident is a typical example of what usually happened.
However, on 911, no planes were hijacked, [and none flew into buildings],so there were none to intercept.
Evidentiary Review Methodologies
Unfortunately, looking at “evidence” is not enough to gather useful information and reach a valid [to oneself] conclusion.
If you review all evidence with a pre-existing mindset- a bias- [for example: “the government is not “clever enough” to do this”], then you will accomplish nothing more than prove what he/she already “knows” [that the government is not clever enough to pull this off], regardless of how much “evidence” is reviewed.
Instead, it is absolutely crucial that all “evidence” be thoroughly reviewed with an honest attempt at a consistent " I do not know for sure one way or another whether or not the government or anyone else is capable of doing this - they may be, they may not" - type attitude.
Using such a mindset [ or “review methodology”], any and all “evidence” , would need to be reviewed, no matter how outlandish it might appear at the outset , ensuring no bias either for or against any evidence or theory, regardless of the supposed “wackiness” or “credibility” of the source.
“Libertarian” Review Methodology - Automatic Pre-bias Against All Government “Evidence”
“Libertarians” and similar might want to take things a step further, and assume an automatic pre-bias against all parts of the government’s story , effectively assuming an original “Bill of Rights style” jury review mindset, and subjecting all government “evidence” to “a higher standard of proof” , as required in US criminal trials, where, for example, all supposed witness testimony must be subjected to rigorous cross examination of the witness before the jurors can make any valuation of truth or falsity .
True " Scientific" Review Bias
At the same time, there would need to be a consistent, overriding bias towards the truth and undeniability of the fundamental laws of physics , which must be assumed to have been in operation at all times and to have acting equally on all physical objects claimed to be involved in the main events of 911, such as moving planes and 500,000 ton stationary towers.
These laws [Newtons Laws of Motion] and in particular Newtons 3rd law of motion, show that, given the real world construction/materials of each of the objects involved, it is scientifically impossible for plastic -nosed , hollow, aluminum -skinned planes to fly into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, without slowing down at impact, and without most [if not all] of the planes parts [ eg wings, tail section] shearing off at impact.
These laws are “iron clad” and cannot be [or should not be, in the reviewers mind] refuted by “eye witness testimony” or purported “amateur videos” that “prove” that planes can indeed[:P] fly into/through the buildings concerned .
It is not part of the scientific methodology to automaticaly assume the truth of such “eye witness testimony” in preference to long established irrefutable physical laws of existence, nor, I would suggest, is it part of a useful “libertarian” review methodology, where all pro- government evidence must/should be subjected to that “higher standard of truth” that it is so anxious to avoid [for obvious reasons [:D]].
Regards, onebornfree.
Yes, besides “September Clues” Mr Shacks close scrutiny of the world famous Naudet brothers purported “real” documentaries [“those fireman videos”] effectively destroys their credibility.
Of course, the most obvious visual clue to their falsity is the “in your face”, right under our collective noses laughable video depiction of an aircraft in complete denial of Newtons 3rd Law of motion [see previous post], and therefor able to magically disappear in one complete piece inside the North tower.
And pigs can fly. Such an event is only possible in Hollywood movies and “Roadrunner” cartoons, not in the real world, where the laws of physics are constantly in play. [:)]
“I am however 100% convinced to never believe anything from the media at face value.”
Yes, once the medias direct involvement in the 911 plot is accepted and understood, it is impossible to believe much of anything reported as news by the MSM.
I, for one , am almost positive that the recent spate of domestic terrorist incidents are all government manufactured “false flags” . This includes “the underpants bomber” plane incident, and the “libertarian Pentagon gunman” incident.
Regards, onebornfree
This is the kind of rubbish that discredits 9/11 skeptics, diverts their energies away from core issues, and discourages people from researching the subject. The mainstream media love talking about theories like these, so they can knock them down and say ‘nothing to see here - move on’. Misinformation fits hand-in-glove with the ‘debunking’ shows the media puts out from time to time. It’s information warfare 101.
For anyone curious about the errors of the no-planers, see Eric Salter’s critical review. But I suggest focusing your time and energy on the more plausible hypotheses.
Hey, too bad you guys don’t read your own sources, you might learn something interesting. Since there were a bunch of quotes taken out of context from this report, here are all of the relevant bits:
Report to Congressional Committees
May 1994
CONTINENTAL AIR DEFENSE - A
DEDICATED FORCE IS NO LONGER
NEEDED
GAO/NSIAD-94-76
[…]
The continental air defense evolved during the Cold War to detect and
intercept Soviet bombers attacking North America via the North Pole.
GAO concludes that such an air defense is no longer needed and could be
disbanded at an annual savings of as much as $370 million.
[…]
By 1960, NORAD maintained approximately 1,200 interceptors dedicated to
countering Soviet bombers.
[…]
The effectiveness of NORAD’s air defense system was first questioned
in the early 1960s, when the Soviets shifted reliance from manned
bombers to ballistic missiles. The Secretary of Defense at that time
believed that current air defenses would limit damage only marginally
in a nuclear attack by long-range ballistic and submarine-launched
missiles. In his opinion, the existing interceptor force was
excessive in relation to the diminished bomber threat. On the basis
of this change in threat and on budget considerations, the Department
of Defense (DOD) reduced the number of NORAD interceptors to
approximately 300 aircraft by the mid-1970s.
With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the
Warsaw Pact in 1991, the military threat upon which NORAD had based
its core structure had again changed significantly. Likewise, the
Cuban threat was declining, and other military threats did not
approach that of the Soviets during the Cold War.
[…]
NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental
United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day
peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two
fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to
scramble within 5 minutes.
Got that people? 1,200 fighters in 1960, 300 in mid 1970s, 28 (that’s twenty-eight for all of North America) in 1994. As far as I know, not even 28 were ready to scramble by Sep. 2001, and certainly no enormous force was ready to shoot down hoards of Soviet bombers. Yah, maybe those 28 did go up to escort the occasional guy whose radio wasn’t working. How well do you think that prepared them for commercial jets used as guided missiles?
David Ray Griffin’s book is excellent. It makes clear that the official story doesn’t make a lot of sense.
You can get a copy of the book online - there are links on the wikipedia page
For a list of David Ray Griffin’s smoking guns go here -
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/New_Pearl_Harbor.html
scroll down to -
p132
The Evidence for Official Complicity A Summary
He also wrote - New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-up and the Exposé,
Sure, but the 9/11 Commission Report blames the FAA for failing to report quickly, not the military for lack of preparedness. How prepared NORAD were is rendered irrelevant to this revised official story; the issue is about FAA standard operating procedures, and how long it supposedly took to notify NORAD.
In NORAD’s own timeline released shortly after the event, the notifications from the FAA came much earlier. For almost three years, 9/11 skeptics pointed out that if NORAD really learned of the hijackings when they said they did, and scrambled fighters when they said they scrambled them, the fighters must have been flying remarkably slowly. But the 9/11 Commission Report changed the timeline completely, absolving the military of this embarrassment and placing all the blame on the FAA.
Have a look at the Complete 9/11 Timeline for the events relating to the flights. The facts appear very different to the story in the 9/11 Commission Report.
As for military preparedness, remember that what we’re talking about here is simply the response time to an errant plane. The fighters apparently never even got close to the planes, so it doesn’t matter that this was an unusual kind of hijacking. The quotes I provided above show that the system was in place to respond quickly to errant planes, which is the point.
Political Movement Psychology
I will ignore your attempt at baiting here, and not notify moderators[:)], simply because I completely understand your reaction - it was/is expected, almost inevitable, in fact, given the psychology more or less automatically induced when one joins, or strongly identifies with a group, in your own case “Loose Change”, I would assume.
So no hard feelings from my end.
Let me try to explain.
This [your] type of response to my post(s) is atypical of persons within all movements, particularly those with political ambition/goals, whether that movement labels itself as “the 911 truth movement” , “Loose Change”, “The 911 no planer movement”, “The Libertarian Party” “The Austrian movement” , “The Ron Paul Movement” , or something far more mainstream such as “The Republican Party” , “Democratic Party” or whatever.
Persons within movements are scared of contrary opinion from outsiders like myself who are seen as a threat as they supposedly, as you say: " divert(s) … energies away from core issues", and “discourage(s)people from researching the subject”.
Why else do “movement” people like yourself feel threatened?
Because, as you also say so well :
"The mainstream media love talking about theories like these, so they can knock them down and say ‘nothing to see here - move on’. "
In other words, such views are claimed to threaten the larger public image of the " movement" concerned , and its growth potential [ie to attrct new members/converts with cash donations and available free time to spread the word etc.], and therefor threaten the groups imagined larger political ends [ie to expose “the truth” as the group sees it to the maximum number of persons in order to cause a political change that will supposedly improve the world].
Become An Outsider!
My [I’m sure, unwanted] free advice to yourself and any/ all persons within any/all “movements” listed above, as well as others :
If you really wish to start to increase you own personal freedom now, you can make a good start by getting out of any/all movements and starting to think independently and for yourself, instead of safely following the herd opinion enforced within that movement and ending up feeling threatened by “outsiders” with “wacky” theories, such as myself.
Instead of feeling threatened by outsiders, I say to you [and anyone else] : become one! [:)].
Will that make you a “no -planer”? I really don’t know or care.
I will be happy to help you [or anyone else] start that process.[ towards increased personal freedom]
P.S. if you would like to discuss our 911 agreements/differences in detail, please private message me [remember- no baiting please![:D] ]
Regards, onebornfree.
I have watched a few a few “9/11 truther” videos, including Loose Change and Truth Rising out of curiosity. I have still not made up my mind about what happened because I cannot trust that either the 9/11 Commission Report (which I have also read) or the conspiracy theories have all the facts available.
What I get nervous about are some “truthers” who are hell-bent on getting everyone to believe that 9/11 must be an “inside job.” Some treat this as the litmus test of being truly libertarian and anti-establishment and see anyone who tries to dismiss the question as trying to cover up something. I have even seem some claim that the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are part of the “establishment” and are really lying through their teeth. These people need to know that one does not have to be a “truther” to be truly “on their side.”
Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are not “truthers,” yet many “truthers” support them. However, some of their supporters have treated me and others as if we cannot be true supporters unless we agree with the 9/11 conspiracies. Kind of ironic. I fully support Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary and for Chuck Baldwin in the general election. I can sympathize with the plight of those who agree with the conspiracies and understand why they believe them. They should realize, however, that there can be true freedom fighters on their side who are not able to swallow the conspiracies. They should not be ostracized for that.
If I were running for high office, would I “support” a new independent investigation into 9/11? Of course, with “independent” being the key word. If there are questions, then people have the right to try to answer them. However, this does not have to mean that I agree with the conspiracies in the first place.