9/11 Conspiracy people: Please read!

Probably one of this Maddox's better articles in the past few years. Most of them have been pretty shitty lately.

The overal SIZE of that conspiracy is its biggest debunking point, I would say. More so than all the 'facts' that are heavily debated by professionals on all sides of this event. There just seem to be so many variables that we can't account for.

I believe any government could pull a false flag operation on its people, and it has been done before all over the world. False flags or no false flags, innocent people die at the hands of authoritarian bodies every day in this world, be it at the hands of government or sometimes extreme groups. Often times, death tolls are in the thousands. If you believe that life is of equal value everywhere, from an Iraqi kid playing in the street, to someone working for a business in the WTC-- what's the real difference in losing 3,000 innocent people there versus 3,000 innocent people here? Answer: About a few thousand miles. There is none--innocent life is innocent life. Anyone who views people as 'collateral damage' just because they live between a different set of imaginary borders is sick, and obviously has no respect for life ANYWHERE. This includes life in their own set of imaginary borders, including civillians and especially soldiers. In terms of life being lost, 9/11s happen every day, and it's awful. It needs to stop. The only way its going to stop for America is if we stop trying to run the world empire. period.

But how does an event of this magnitude become a false flag? Could any less than at least a few hundred people be involved? Maybe even 1,000+? How do you get that many people to cooperate on such an idea, without their being serious amounts of whistleblowers, and exposure to it all?

I think, that if it was an 'inside job,' that it was all allowed to happen. The attack was from Al-Queda and was coming anyway. The walls between FBI and the CIA were nothing more than the usual government agencies getting in each others way, and getting in their own way. Pretty much business as usual for them at that point in our history. Our country's jet defense was directed to perform practice operations far enough away from the areas about to be attacked. I think all of this could be accomplished at the command of very few higher-ups, because so LITTLE would have to be done to allow an attack to happen. It's not what you DO that makes something like this easier, it's what you DON'T do.

Still, it's all still really strange. I've heard every explanation in the world about Building 7, and still don't know what to make of it exactly. And why would we ever pull all of our fighter jets far enough away from Washington, of all places? How does the Pentagon get hit by anything ever?

I still have my questions.

Fanch, I would agree that Loose Change is dumb. But one thing you need to know is that there are 9/11 theorists who dismiss much of what Loose Change claims. I am an incessant researcher and from about November of 2001 to let's say early 2004, I researched the fuck out of 9/11, and I still occasionally do. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around all of the opposing theories, but there are at least a few that I haven't written off yet... and those would be the theories that certain elites in government helped the hijackers accomplish their attack, or that these officials knew what they were up to and let it happen on purpose. While 9/11 amateurs like Dylan Avery and blowhards like Alex Jones soak up most of the press on 9/11 conspiracies, there are guys like Michael Ruppert who few know about, and who, I think make some compelling arguments.

But for a few years going now, I mostly just care about sex, food, beer, vacation, music, making more money - because I've thrown in the towel. You can't fight the assholes, but you can avoid them a lot of the time. I'll always bitch about them on the internet though. I mean, it feels good, and it's easy to do.

Kenny Olav wrote:

Fanch, I would agree that Loose Change is dumb. But one thing you need to know is that there are 9/11 theorists who dismiss much of what Loose Change claims. I am an incessant researcher and from about November of 2001 to let's say early 2004, I researched the fuck out of 9/11, and I still occasionally do. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around all of the opposing theories, but there are at least a few that I haven't written off yet... and those would be the theories that certain elites in government helped the hijackers accomplish their attack, or that these officials knew what they were up to and let it happen on purpose. While 9/11 amateurs like Dylan Avery and blowhards like Alex Jones soak up most of the press on 9/11 conspiracies, there are guys like Michael Ruppert who few know about, and who, I think make some compelling arguments.

But for a few years going now, I mostly just care about sex, food, beer, vacation, music, making more money - because I've thrown in the towel. You can't fight the assholes, but you can avoid them a lot of the time. I'll always bitch about them on the internet though. I mean, it feels good, and it's easy to do.

I've researched the hell out of 9/11 as well. From my findings, it seems that the conspiracy was by both administrations to avoid warnings of such men as John O'Neill of the FBI. I don't know if it was intentional or not but it seems that not listening to a man who seemed to know more about terrorism than anyone in the White House was among the significant reasons that it happened.

soulsinging wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

can not hide a Clinton blow job..................but they can hide the deaths of so many people??????

typeless.

This is a typical misreading of history, perpetuated by the media in order to hide the truth, deliberately covered up by the same.

This is addressed quite clearly in the documentary, Behind the Big News: Propaganda and the CFR.

Clinton HAD to be "brought down" by "Cigar-Gate" in order to DISTRACT and COVER UP the fact that information was surfacing that implicated him in a hugely TREASONOUS SCANDAL whereby Clinton allowed CLASSIFIED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY TO BE GIVEN TO THE CHINESE (APPARENTLY IN EXCHANGE FOR ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS).

In light of THAT fact, what do you think they would rather have their man go down for?
Getting his dick sucked (CigarGate),
or an Arms-To-China-For-Campaign-Funds scandal that amounts to treason?
ChinaGate -- read the little article, understand a little more.

Come on, like he'd need a BJ scandal to survive a weapons to China scandal? Why didn't Reagan invent a scandal then to shield himself from Iran-Contra?

I suppose you have all kinds of great proof about Clinton selling stuff to the Chinese for contributions?

I do remember all this talk about Clinton selling nuke secrets to the Chinese for political contributions-- and I really had no interest in politics then (I was 16 or 17 maybe), I'd say I even made attempts to tune it all out. If this is true about Clinton, it is unbelievably fucked up. But what is Clinton most remembered for scandal-wise (and maybe even his presidency in general)? Neither this, nor Whitewater. He will always be best remembered for Lewinsky.

I think 'conspiracy' is simply protocol for all the parties involved at this point. Is there really any need to meet 30 floors below sea-level in a smoke-filled room to discuss these bullshit cat and mouse games the politicians and the media play with us? I think the media knows their role at this point-- it's not like they have to take direct orders from the 'higher-ups' everytime some new scandal comes to light. They know that the place for the REAL news, the stuff that is supposed to concern us is on page 34 in the lower left hand corner of the newspaper, or in a 30 second news brief, or not mentioned at all. It's a beautiful system. If there's nothing happening in the news, there's always a constant stream of bullshit coming out of Hollywood to exploit for weeks at a time, if need be. A great recent example: Anna Nicole Smith's death.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

As far as Reagan goes, who the fuck knows.
He was the ONLY president since FDR who hasn't been a Council on Foreign Relations member, they forced him to take on CIA super-spook GW Bush as his VP, and then he almost died from an assassin's bullet. I'm pretty sure Reagan wasn't truly welcome on the inside. All his stated policy aims from his campaign were rendered inert by the other members of his administration, and his intentions were completely undermined by the establishment. If you listen to some of Reagan's early speeches it is CRYSTAL CLEAR why "they" didn't like him. He wanted to severely reduce the size of government, eliminate the department of education, shrink taxes, get rid of government subisidation programs, and follow the constitution more closely. Who on the inside was going to cover up for HIM?
???

I don't get your reasoning here.Would'nt this give them more reason to create some sort of scandal and have him impeached?

soulsinging wrote:

This is where I part ways with you all. Is real news "buried" due to orders from the shadowy evil conspirators on top controlling the entire universe? Or is it that news like that is on page 34 because most people don't care and the masses are stupid and sex scandals sell more newspapers? I think the latter. Quality news is not down because of some unified effort to keep things suppressed. Quality news is down because it doesn't sell well and the papers are just about turning a profit.

Well, there was at least ONE congressman in our great American history who STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH YOU.

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
[...]
An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
--U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

???

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

Kenny Olav wrote:

Fanch, I would agree that Loose Change is dumb. But one thing you need to know is that there are 9/11 theorists who dismiss much of what Loose Change claims. I am an incessant researcher and from about November of 2001 to let's say early 2004, I researched the fuck out of 9/11, and I still occasionally do. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around all of the opposing theories, but there are at least a few that I haven't written off yet... and those would be the theories that certain elites in government helped the hijackers accomplish their attack, or that these officials knew what they were up to and let it happen on purpose. While 9/11 amateurs like Dylan Avery and blowhards like Alex Jones soak up most of the press on 9/11 conspiracies, there are guys like Michael Ruppert who few know about, and who, I think make some compelling arguments.

But for a few years going now, I mostly just care about sex, food, beer, vacation, music, making more money - because I've thrown in the towel. You can't fight the assholes, but you can avoid them a lot of the time. I'll always bitch about them on the internet though. I mean, it feels good, and it's easy to do.

I've researched the hell out of 9/11 as well. From my findings, it seems that the conspiracy was by both administrations to avoid warnings of such men as John O'Neill of the FBI. I don't know if it was intentional or not but it seems that not listening to a man who seemed to know more about terrorism than anyone in the White House was among the significant reasons that it happened.

Yes, the story of John O'Neil is a massive red flag. The fact that he was assigned a job at the WTC just a week or two before Sept 11, and that he died on that day definitely is a very strange coincidence.