russell jones Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&t=0m24s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 He is obviously a misinformation agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This is airing on History now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Noam Chomsky says "Who cares? if 9/11 is an inside job." At least the last time I heard Chomsky talk on the issue it is basically what he had to say. I don't believe Chomsky is a "misinformation agent". I think because of his experience, it leads him to take a more "realistic" approach, which the fact that it was an inside job is irrelevant, the relevant part is that it happened, and the obvious affect it has on public and government policy, that has global impact. But, I wouldn't base if it was an inside job or not on Chomsky's shoulders. Like I've been beating the drum, I would trust someone who was actually in the towers that day, over anyone else. ____________________ This is airing on History now. WuT mOuR UTubE? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Noam Chomsky says "Who cares? if 9/11 is an inside job." At least the last time I heard Chomsky talk on the issue it is basically what he had to say. I don't believe Chomsky is a "misinformation agent". I think because of his experience, it leads him to take a more "realistic" approach, which the fact that it was an inside job is irrelevant, the relevant part is that it happened, and the obvious affect it has on public and government policy, that has global impact. But, I wouldn't base if it was an inside job or not on Chomsky's shoulders. Like I've been beating the drum, I would trust someone who was actually in the towers that day, over anyone else. ! You are missing Chomsky's main point. The point is that a conspiracy to blow up the towers could not happen because it requires too many people to keep a secret, and if the secret gets out, the Republican party would be done. There is no need to appeal to the science of how everything went down. The 9/11 conspiracy theory comes down to how many people are required to pull it off and keep the secret. Anyone with half a brain can see that most of the conspiracy theories require 100's if not 1000's of people to keep their mouths shut about a mass murder committed on their own people for nearly 10 years. That defies logic. Cannot, would not, will not happen, ever, not without the secret immediately leaking. Think about Iran/Contra, the CIA protecting crack dealers in LA, the Bay of Pigs, etc... When could the government keep secrets successfully? They can't. It's a waste of time to speculate about the conspiracy because there are far more important things that can and do happen that people could be spending their energy on. Think about it... really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You are missing Chomsky's main point. The point is that a conspiracy to blow up the towers could not happen because it requires too many people to keep a secret, and if the secret gets out, the Republican party would be done. There is no need to appeal to the science of how everything went down. The 9/11 conspiracy theory comes down to how many people are required to pull it off and keep the secret. Anyone with half a brain can see that most of the conspiracy theories require 100's if not 1000's of people to keep their mouths shut about a mass murder committed on their own people for nearly 10 years. That defies logic. Cannot, would not, will not happen, ever, not without the secret immediately leaking. Think about Iran/Contra, the CIA protecting crack dealers in LA, the Bay of Pigs, etc... When could the government keep secrets successfully? They can't. It's a waste of time to speculate about the conspiracy because there are far more important things that can and do happen that people could be spending their energy on. Think about it... really. But numerous people have come out, they are ignored and pushed to the side. I almost daily at this point out witnesses that have sad things that are not only ignored here in this thread, but in public debate. And all other information pointing to the inconsistencies in the official story are "conspiracy theory" garbage. However, I look at the direction that this country and the world is post 9/11. Most of the decisions that are made are to prevent something like 9/11 ever happening again, if the event was allowed to happen, as opposed to what we are lead to believe I think the dynamic, the road we are taking and the majority of measures that we have taken are incorrect and would not have the support of the people. Think of the legislation, the racism, the overall public affect 9/11 has had on the U.S. and the world. Now think how most people would feel if the veil was lifted, and the truth revealed. Think about that. As to the other things you've brought up, like the CIA and drugs, for YEARS I would say they got away with it, it took years before the truth was revealed to the masses, and to this day people would still fight that our own government brings drugs into the U.S. Or the idea that the Gulf of Tonkin was a set up. Personally, I don't know if we'll ever know the entire truth as to what happened on 9/11. Most people who would speak, and have the access to the information mysteriously died, before shortly after or on the day itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 As to the other things you've brought up, like the CIA and drugs, for YEARS I would say they got away with it, it took years before the truth was revealed to the masses, and to this day people would still fight that our own government brings drugs into the U.S. Or the idea that the Gulf of Tonkin was a set up. Personally, I don't know if we'll ever know the entire truth as to what happened on 9/11. Most people who would speak, and have the access to the information mysteriously died, before shortly after or on the day itself. The CIA crack thing was revealed almost immediately, there was some revealed in the Iran/Contra investigation, and further details were teased out by a Justice Department investigation in 1997. Whatever your opinion on Gulf on Tonkin, the event happend in foreign waters with little in the way of investigation after the fact. 9/11 was investigated by thousands of people and happened live on TV, on American soil, and resulted in more than 2000 Americans being killed in the three simultaneous events. There are no witnesses that have come forward, as far as I know, that have made a claim of pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11 within the government. It is simply not possible to keep a secret among that many people for 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 The CIA crack thing was revealed almost immediately, there was some revealed in the Iran/Contra investigation, and further details were teased out by a Justice Department investigation in 1997. Whatever your opinion on Gulf on Tonkin, the event happend in foreign waters with little in the way of investigation after the fact. 9/11 was investigated by thousands of people and happened live on TV, on American soil, and resulted in more than 2000 Americans being killed in the three simultaneous events. There are no witnesses that have come forward, as far as I know, that have made a claim of pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11 within the government. It is simply not possible to keep a secret among that many people for 10 years. Norman Mineta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Norman Mineta. Norman Mineta what? And the quote above doesn't tell me he knew anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Norman Mineta what? And the quote above doesn't tell me he knew anything. The order was to either a) shoot down the plane or b) not shoot down the plane. Which one do you think Cheney was referring to? Chomsky is also a chumpsky. It wouldn't take very many people to be involved. Not 1,000's as suggested by your lordship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The order was to either a) shoot down the plane or b) not shoot down the plane. Which one do you think Cheney was referring to? . It may not be that simple... How long does it take a plane to cover 50 miles? About 6 minutes. And I don't know what Cheney was referring to. Lack of evidence isn't evidence. And everyone that investigated 9/11 would have to ignore evidence it was an inside job. Hence, 1000's of people would be required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 It may not be that simple... How long does it take a plane to cover 50 miles? About 6 minutes. And I don't know what Cheney was referring to. Lack of evidence isn't evidence. And everyone that investigated 9/11 would have to ignore evidence it was an inside job. Hence, 1000's of people would be required. Evidence was ignored in the 9/11 Commission report. What Cheney was referring to: It was either one thing or the other and we know the plane headed towards the Pentagon was not shot down. "Do the orders still stand" implies exactly what you think it implies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It was one thing or another doesnt mean that its what you say because it cant be proven otherwise. If it was true, why wasnt more done about it? Why was it allowed in the 9/11 commision report "cover-up" if it is contradicting what the "cover-up" report is trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 It was one thing or another doesnt mean that its what you say because it cant be proven otherwise. If it was true, why wasnt more done about it? Why was it allowed in the 9/11 commision report "cover-up" if it is contradicting what the "cover-up" report is trying to make. Well, he didn't mean an order of fries and a milkshake. Mineta's testimony was excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It doesnt mean he meant to stand down either. I imagine there were a lot of orders while our country was under attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Evidence was ignored in the 9/11 Commission report. What Cheney was referring to: It was either one thing or the other and we know the plane headed towards the Pentagon was not shot down. "Do the orders still stand" implies exactly what you think it implies. At least you think it's a plane. I'm no expert on military strategy, but considering that there was only a few minutes to make a decision, and the consequences of that decision could mean hundreds of people getting killed on the ground and in the air, I cannot say what the order would be. I'm sorry but it's not that obvious. To intercept a moving target, with little hint to its destination, in just a few minutes doesn't seem like it would be too easy. That's neither here nor there though. The standard conspiracy theory is that the buildings were brought down by charges? What about the two planes that hit the towers? It was just a coincidence that at the same time the first plane hijacking (crashed in PA) in decades happened on the same day as the inside job? Unless you believe that the witnesses who spoke to their families on the PA plane were lying or brainwashed or in on it? Were the planes remote controlled? How many people did it take to set the charges in the towers? How many people examined physical evidence from the building that couldn't see evidence of a demolition? Dozens? How were these people converted to the cause? How many people were involved in finding evidence on the hijackers? Dozens more? They were all in on it? How about the hijackers all going to flight school? They did that for shits and giggles, or it didn't happen and all of those witnesses and records were manufactured? The airline companies, the eye witnesses at airports, the flight controllers, all of them were duped or in on it? The structural engineers, the fire experts, the materials scientists, all fooled or in on it? The security at the towers? All in on it or fooled? Everyone in the FBI? In on the conspiracy? I could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 At least you think it's a plane. I'm no expert on military strategy, but considering that there was only a few minutes to make a decision, and the consequences of that decision could mean hundreds of people getting killed on the ground and in the air, I cannot say what the order would be. I'm sorry but it's not that obvious. To intercept a moving target, with little hint to its destination, in just a few minutes doesn't seem like it would be too easy. That's neither here nor there though. The standard conspiracy theory is that the buildings were brought down by charges? What about the two planes that hit the towers? It was just a coincidence that at the same time the first plane hijacking (crashed in PA) in decades happened on the same day as the inside job? Unless you believe that the witnesses who spoke to their families on the PA plane were lying or brainwashed or in on it? Were the planes remote controlled? How many people did it take to set the charges in the towers? How many people examined physical evidence from the building that couldn't see evidence of a demolition? Dozens? How were these people converted to the cause? How many people were involved in finding evidence on the hijackers? Dozens more? They were all in on it? How about the hijackers all going to flight school? They did that for shits and giggles, or it didn't happen and all of those witnesses and records were manufactured? The airline companies, the eye witnesses at airports, the flight controllers, all of them were duped or in on it? The structural engineers, the fire experts, the materials scientists, all fooled or in on it? The security at the towers? All in on it or fooled? Everyone in the FBI? In on the conspiracy? I could go on... I'm not so convinced that a large plane hit the Pentagon. What about the cleanup? Did you know a lot of that debris is in Fresh Kill Landfill, covered with concrete and under armed guard 24/7 since 9.11.01? The rest was sold to China and turned into a war ship. Security at the towers was run by Marvin Bush up until the day of, in which his companies contract expired. I can handle the rest of your questions at a later time. For now, research that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I saw planes hit 2 buildings that fell at free fall speed, one that was not hit fall at free fall speed, The Pentagon with a small hole in it, and a plane that was probably shot out of the sky and covered up with some "Let's roll!" bullshit Jessica Lynch feel good story. Here you are saying there was a shoot down, yet are arguing for a stand down order. How do both of those work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think he's talking about the Pentagon, and the plane that fell in Pennsylvania. You know the one where the passenger's "took it down". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The CIA crack thing was revealed almost immediately, there was some revealed in the Iran/Contra investigation, and further details were teased out by a Justice Department investigation in 1997. Whatever your opinion on Gulf on Tonkin, the event happend in foreign waters with little in the way of investigation after the fact. 9/11 was investigated by thousands of people and happened live on TV, on American soil, and resulted in more than 2000 Americans being killed in the three simultaneous events. There are no witnesses that have come forward, as far as I know, that have made a claim of pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11 within the government. It is simply not possible to keep a secret among that many people for 10 years. If you are asking me to research the amount of people that could have had knowledge and some how died mysteriously before, on the day itself or shortly afterwards, I will. The crack thing being almost immediately? I'm pretty sure rumors/reports started, in the late 80's, and weren't fully revealed until the mid to late 90's. Not too sure how "immediate" that is. It was still being denied by CIA official's up until 1996. To also isolate U.S. government drug trafficing to this lone incident is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'm not so convinced that a large plane hit the Pentagon. I can handle the rest of your questions at a later time. For now, research that stuff. I have... and found nothing to convince me otherwise. I guess all the plane parts were planted at the Pentagon? How many people did that take? How about the air traffic controllers who tracked it? All duped? Video evidence? Faked? How many people are we up to now that are in the conspiracy? Seriously, what's your minimum number for how many people it would take to pull the whole conspiracy off? Don't forget to include all the people from the airlines and airports. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I know. He's talking about the first plane that was heading toward the Pentagon, not being shot down, while the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. I don't remember the exact time table for events on that day, but if I remember correctly, the plane in Pennsylvania, went down after the plane crashed into the Pentagon. To me, I'm not sure what happened to that plane in Pennsylvania. Just trying to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If you are asking me to research the amount of people that could have had knowledge and some how died mysteriously before, on the day itself or shortly afterwards, I will. The crack thing being almost immediately? I'm pretty sure rumors/reports started, in the late 80's, and weren't fully revealed until the mid to late 90's. Not too sure how "immediate" that is. It was still being denied by CIA official's up until 1996. To also isolate U.S. government drug trafficing to this lone incident is naive. The rumors started in the late 80's, while it was still going on? Sounds pretty immediate to me. Besides, far fewer people were involved in the CIA protecting drug dealers than would need to be for most of the 9/11 conspiracies, so my point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 He's talking about the first plane that was heading toward the Pentagon, not being shot down, while the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. I don't remember the exact time table for events on that day, but if I remember correctly, the plane in Pennsylvania, went down after the plane crashed into the Pentagon. To me, I'm not sure what happened to that plane in Pennsylvania. Just trying to clarify. The plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43am. The plane in Shanksville hit the ground at 10;03am. Casek is saying that there was a stand down order, but claims Flight 93 was shot down, contradicting that stand down order. Plus the white plane theory have been debunked. It was a corporate jet from Wrangler Jeans on a decent who was asked to locate the crash site of 93. The copilot was Yates Gladwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 The plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43am. The plane in Shanksville hit the ground at 10;03am. Casek is saying that there was a stand down order, but claims Flight 93 was shot down, contradicting that stand down order. Plus the white plane theory have been debunked. It was a corporate jet from Wrangler Jeans on a decent who was asked to locate the crash site of 93. The copilot was Yates Gladwell. I'm saying that they stood down for the Pentagon, and the plane that got blown the fuck up over Shanksville was shot down by someone not following orders. Otherwise, it would have plowed into the Whitehouse. There is testimony concerning this. Lemme go back and answer your other question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I have... and found nothing to convince me otherwise. I guess all the plane parts were planted at the Pentagon? How many people did that take? How about the air traffic controllers who tracked it? All duped? Video evidence? Faked? How many people are we up to now that are in the conspiracy? Seriously, what's your minimum number for how many people it would take to pull the whole conspiracy off? Don't forget to include all the people from the airlines and airports. :) There were barely any plane parts at the Pentagon. The maneuver to crash into it was impossible. Not even well trained fighter pilots could pull it off. What video evidence? I see a fireball at the Pentagon. No plane hitting it. Hard to believe for having over 75 cameras around that particular section. Hard to believe as the Pentagon is one of the most highly protected buildings in the entire world. The people at the airlines and airports wouldn't have to be included. My minimum number guess would probably be a few hundred. Less at the top. The others being told "this is for your country" as most black ops folks have been told. I know a guy who is former black ops. He's no stranger to such commands. He also believes 9/11 was an inside job because of his former career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 The rumors started in the late 80's, while it was still going on? Sounds pretty immediate to me. Besides, far fewer people were involved in the CIA protecting drug dealers than would need to be for most of the 9/11 conspiracies, so my point still stands. Nope. You're wrong. A shit ton of people were involved in the CIA's drug dealing escapades. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/W_plane.html http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/873 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 There were barely any plane parts at the Pentagon. The maneuver to crash into it was impossible. Not even well trained fighter pilots could pull it off. not according the site you posted the other day. "My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you." http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.