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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9vD9kRULsc
viresh amin: Any opinions on this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhMcii8smxk&feature=player_embedded#
What about your opinion of it - assuming you have one ?
Regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "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.
viresh amin: 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 , 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?
viresh amin: Anyone know if those Airplane black box's were found?
Which/what "airplane"(s)?
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.
viresh amin: 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.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=20020830&id=r4Y1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=56IFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1395,8514253
viresh amin: 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. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=20020830&id=r4Y1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=56IFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1395,8514253
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
viresh amin: 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
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
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.
There is no single libertarian stance. Like the population in general, there are three main categories when it comes to 9/11:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/blackboxes.html
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
viresh amin: 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
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 .
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 .[ 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.
Kakugo:US citizens have a right to know why a system which was supposed to protect them from fleets of Soviet bombers didn't work.
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.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: 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"
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.
tfr000: Kakugo:US citizens have a right to know why a system which was supposed to protect them from fleets of Soviet bombers didn't work. Because there is no such system, hasn't been since maybe the 60s or 70s.
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)
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.
Joe: 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.
Mtn Dew:I think it's asinine to say that people that don't believe it was an inside job haven't looked at the evidence.
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.
Mtn Dew: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.
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.
Joe: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.
I agree. That's strong evidence against the use of a missile.
Joe: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.
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?
viresh amin: 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 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 ?
corleonebrother: Joe: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. I agree. That's strong evidence against the use of a missile. Joe: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. 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?
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.
Joe: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.
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.
Mtn Dew:Not all 9/11 conspiracy people are nuts, but there are certainly some nuts that are 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
I could not agree more.
Mtn Dew: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.
One is a lot more nuts than the other, don't you think?
Mtn Dew: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.
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 ?
Mtn Dew: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.
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.
tfr000: Kakugo:US citizens have a right to know why a system which was supposed to protect them from fleets of Soviet bombers didn't work. 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.
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.
Mtn Dew: 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.
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 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 ].
Nielsio: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: 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" 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.
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.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:on 911, no planes were hijacked, [and none flew into buildings],so there were none to intercept
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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_HarborYou can get a copy of the book online - there are links on the wikipedia pageFor a list of David Ray Griffin's smoking guns go here - http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/New_Pearl_Harbor.htmlscroll down to -p132The Evidence for Official Complicity A SummaryHe also wrote - New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-up and the Exposé,
tfr000:Got that people?
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.
corleonebrother: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:on 911, no planes were hijacked, [and none flew into buildings],so there were none to intercept 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.
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! ]
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.