Not even a mention of 9/11 !

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it.
Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable.
Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know?
If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?

I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?

I don't think it was so much a matter of "gone to lunch" as it was the more obvious "out to lunch".

Since no one took me up on my question about where the f'n secretary of defense was during the attacks, I'll mention it now....
He was out on the lawn of the pentagon running around helping injured people instead of doing the most important job on the planet at that moment. Rummy admitted that he wasn't briefed until all of the events of that day had ended. The entire world knew more than him for the duration of the attacks. Almost like he didn't want to know, right? out to lunch indeed!

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.

Sorry man....but I'm not taking offense to your disagreement. do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned Out said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it.
Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”

Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable.
Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know?
If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?

I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?

I don't think it was so much a matter of "gone to lunch" as it was the more obvious "out to lunch".

Since no one took me up on my question about where the f'n secretary of defense was during the attacks, I'll mention it now....
He was out on the lawn of the pentagon running around helping injured people instead of doing the most important job on the planet at that moment. He admitted that he wasn't briefed until all of the events of that day had ended. Almost like he didn't want to know, right? out to lunch indeed!

Really? You're going to fault a guy for trying to save lives? I think the reason it was not addressed is because that certainly isn't relevant. If you think it is, I can't argue that.

Right.....ol' lifesaver Rumsfeld. What was more important at that moment? Helping a few injured people or doing his job to ensure there wasn't another plane about to kill hundreds or thousands more?
The photos I'm thinking of show him helping carry a stretcher with like six other people, with dozens of responders all around him. He wasn't needed there, he was needed as the defense secretary.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned Out said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.

Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.

I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.

he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.

yes, and the fact that he/you keep saying it's the reason for 9/11.....if the theories are correct, it's only one of many. Here are a few of the motives, and benefactors, off the top of my head:
- Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers.
- SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud.
- Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse
- gain control of global heroin trade
- secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan
- win public support for war in afghanistan
- win public support for war in iraq
- steal gold from WTC vaults
- insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines
- justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?)
Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael....
Your anger is justified man, no worries.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Drowned Out said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned Out said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.

Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.

I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.

he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.

yes, and the fact that he/you keep saying it's the reason for 9/11.....if the theories are correct, it's only one of many. Here are a few of the motives, and benefactors, off the top of my head:
- Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers.
- SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud.
- Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse
- gain control of global heroin trade
- secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan
- win public support for war in afghanistan
- win public support for war in iraq
- steal gold from WTC vaults
- insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines
- justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?)
Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael....
Your anger is justified man, no worries.

my anger? what anger?

I'm just here reading, learning......

I was talking to both of you - addressing Last 12 with that comment. Glad you're observing and not jumping down my throat haha....good to see you back on the train, you're missed here.

mcgruff10 said:

whatever happened with this:
Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse

did they ever find the trillions? speculations on how this was related to 9/11?

I haven't followed up on that, so I'm not sure. Convenient timing is the only relation I can come up with. It could suggest foreknowledge....it was Rummy's announcement.

PJ_Soul said:

Aren't there photos and video of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?? I haven't read everything here, but I thought I remembered seeing footage that made it pretty clear there was a plane crash there.... But I guess I'm wrong, since if that were true this conversation wouldn't be taking place, I assume.

There are a few pics of fuselage that were small enough to be carried by hand. The photo you're likely thinking of looked like a plant, or that it was moved, simply because of the location of the piece - hundreds of feet away from any other wreckage. Looked like a photo op. If it was a drone or something else made to look like the plane, it could have been painted with UA colours. There are also photos of one engine component that theorists believe didn't match the engine in a 757. Rolls Royce and another manufacturer confirmed this. Popular mechanics claim it was a different part altogether. There wasn't anything else left of the plane. The wings folded up and went into the hole in the building apparently, as did the tale, which didnt' damage the outside of the building....same deal with the stabilizers. The whole plane disintegrated into the building. WHich doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the wall was reinforced to be blast proof....you'd think the wings or tail would have at least in some capacity sheared off and dropped outside the building, no? As mentioned....check out the analysis starting around 1:55:00 in the vid I posted. It's only a few minutes.

(the fbi - think it was the fbi - confiscated all cameras; security, handheld, and otherwise, from people and buildings around the site and they've never been released. save for the guard station video, which has it's own issues with allegedly missing/doctored frames).

Drowned Out said:

PJ_Soul said:

Aren't there photos and video of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?? I haven't read everything here, but I thought I remembered seeing footage that made it pretty clear there was a plane crash there.... But I guess I'm wrong, since if that were true this conversation wouldn't be taking place, I assume.

There are a few pics of fuselage that were small enough to be carried by hand. The photo you're likely thinking of looked like a plant, or that it was moved, simply because of the location of the piece - hundreds of feet away from any other wreckage. Looked like a photo op. If it was a drone or something else made to look like the plane, it could have been painted with UA colours. There are also photos of one engine component that theorists believe didn't match the engine in a 757. Rolls Royce and another manufacturer confirmed this. Popular mechanics claim it was a different part altogether. There wasn't anything else left of the plane. The wings folded up and went into the hole in the building apparently, as did the tale, which didnt' damage the outside of the building....same deal with the stabilizers. The whole plane disintegrated into the building. WHich doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the wall was reinforced to be blast proof....you'd think the wings or tail would have at least in some capacity sheared off and dropped outside the building, no? As mentioned....check out the analysis starting around 1:55:00 in the vid I posted. It's only a few minutes.

(the fbi - think it was the fbi - confiscated all cameras; security, handheld, and otherwise, from people and buildings around the site and they've never been released. save for the guard station video, which has it's own issues with allegedly missing/doctored frames).

Yeah. that was no plane that hit the pentagon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U


Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it.
The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy.
There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit