As time allows, am reading the link I got late last night -
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I won't keep posting about it as I read, or I'll try not to! As it's not at all my intention to do what's called "bumping" the thread i.e. getting it back to the top. I'm just genuinely astounded. I myself didn't know a fraction of this!
And to think people are calling this a "fringe" group of hysterics! It's almost half the US population, but the link above includes the names and testimony from many of:
- over 220 senior military and law-enforcement agents who believe the towers were demolished and the Pentagon not hit by a plane (where is that plane?).
- over 1200 engineers and architects who believe the towers were demolished by munitions.
- over 250 pilots
- over 400 professors
- over 300 attack survivors and their families
Early this morning I read the testimony on the site of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon, with his enormous experience in aviation. And I read the skeptical testimonies of Major General Albert Stubblebine, retired. In his last post, as he says, he was responsible for ALL US Army counter-intelligence, of all kinds, for the whole world. He says that no way was the pentagon hit by a plane.
I also didn't know, quote:
[COLOR="Blue"]WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.
(My emphasis.)
David Johnson is an internationally-renowned archtect and city regional planner who was involved in planning the WTC buildings. He says:
"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.
So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.
Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.
But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation." http://www.ae911truth.org
V
This will probably be the last thing I say on this subject.
There are rather obvious rebuttals to counter some conspiracy theories. For example, the fake Moon landing theory is easily countered by one simple fact, regardless of all the conspiracy "facts" (shadows, photographs, flags, whatever). The Soviet Union was in a Space Race with the U.S. Each country watched very closely what the other country did. If the U.S. had tried to perpetuate such a hoax, the Soviets would have known it straight away and would have exposed it for what it was without hesitation. No, the Moon landing was very real.
Now, we come to the 9/11 conspiracy. What would have been the motive? The desired outcome? An invasion of Afghanistan? The U.S. got backing from the UN to invade Iraq based on outdated photos presented by General Colin Powell. This photographic "evidence" was quickly "outed" as a fraud. The U.S. still invaded Iraq. If the U.S. desired to invade Afghanistan, it would not have killed thousands of its own people and destroyed a beloved landmark to do so. I know many wacky patriotic Americans who work in the Intelligence Community. The thought of attacking America to further a goal would be repugnant to all of them. I am not so fervently patriotic (which is why I choose to live in the UK), but even *I* find such an idea that the U.S. Government would do such a thing, or even allow it to happen by an enemy, abhorrent. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of such a plot remaining a secret for 9 years within the U.S. Government. The logistics involved alone would have been too monumental to keep secret. We are talking about the controlled demolition of two of the world's tallest buildings, within the setting of a very confused and dangerous environment (e.g. fires and falling debris).
And it is pointless to say "X number of Americans believe it is a conspiracy" when X number of Americans believe the Moon landing was faked...
There are rather obvious rebuttals to counter some conspiracy theories.
Agreed. I can't believe some people don't believe man went to the moon. It's probably a phenomenon of youth - that they've only read about it, were not alive to see it all happening on TV over years. I've actually met a young American businessman who didn't know there was even a claim that Americans went to the moon. I had him sit down and watch a TV documentary all about the landings - which he'd never heard of! I'm afraid in this instance we are dealing with the lack of real education and the narrow media much of American youth are receiving.
But, that's off-topic.
Now, we come to the 9/11 conspiracy. What would have been the motive?
It's pretty important to know the motive. But we don't always know motive for sure even when facts are certain or very strong. The final official investigation into the assassination of JFK concluded that it was "probably" a conspiracy - yet options are open as to motive. (IMHO Oliver Stone's film, JFK, based on fact, probably hits the motive. JFK was moving totally against the military-industrial complex, avoiding a Vietnam War, and had made many enemies quickly.)
Conspiracy is not ruled out, ever, just because we are uncertain as to motive. Not if facts are completely overwhelming. For example, if Mr X can be proven to have shot Mr Y, yet the motive is unclear, he is still charged.
Personally I still think the US public would not have gung-ho supported incursions into the Middle East. A paper published in 2000 said that public support would not occur without what was needed - "another pearl Harbour". What a give-away.
I don't go along with it much, but another suggested motive is that Silverstein, highly connected, was 99-year lease-holder of all the towers. That summer he hugely upped the insurance against terrorist attacks upon the towers. After the attack he was offered a $40 billion pay-out. But he held out, saying, "Hey, it was not one attack and plane but two". So he received an $80 billion pay-out, a fraction of what he paid for the lease. (I find it hard to accept that as motive as who would aid him, and hide him all these years as culprit?)
[Silverstein is also very controversial as he's recorded on video - I can give you the link - saying "I gave the order to pull Tower 7" (whereas "pull" in engineering is a term for demolish). He now says he meant to pull fire-fighters out. Yet there were none in there. In fact, fire-fighters had been told in advance to get away from Tower 7 "because it was going to come down as planned". So they all got away from it.]
You are avoiding all these facts.
But I cite Silverstein simply since there are motives out there. I still go for the huge Middle Eastern one. I remember how after 9/11, instantly the American public were galvanised to "strike back". I do not believe at all that Iraq or Afghanistan could have happened, or could have been sustained like this over years, without 9/11. It was justification to go in and get the oil (from Iraq).
UN backing would never have meant US public backing.
I know many wacky patriotic Americans who work in the Intelligence Community.
Read the biographies and statements - just who these people are and what they say - and then repeat that these are all "wacky". Read it, OK? 🙂
http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Without reading that, you don't know the facts, and without knowing the facts, you cannot usefully comment.
False flag attacks happen and are historically recorded. The USA itself has been responsible for some. Here's one link on false flag attacks: https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=35060&highlight=false+flag
V
One more quote
From http://patriotsquestion911.com/ :
There's an interesting statement from Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski who was on the lawn outside the Pentagon WITHIN MINUTES of the impact upon that building. Her credentials:
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Her statement:
[COLOR="Navy"]There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... (My emphasis - V)
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
Elsewhere on that site, many pilots, including a pilot who had flown the very alleged airliner used, state that the trajectory of the alleged plane is impossible, that even they as trained pilots who actually flew that very plane, could not have done it. They suggest a cruise missile. The alleged terrorist pilots had minimal training in light aircraft and had never flown a large airliner in their lives.
Anyway, there was no plane wreckage outside the Pentagon, not even minutes after impact. CCTV footage from streets and shops around the whole area, which could have shown what flew over, was confiscated by "agents" within minutes and is missing to this day.
P.S. An alleged "black box" from the Pentagon airliner was eventually offered up as evidence. Scores of skeptical pilots have examined the alleged flight-path and find it impossible. Read their statements on my above links. They say even they could not have flown that trajectory, and the plane would have stalled. Further, the alleged flight path has the plane eventually "hitting" the Pentagon at well over 200 feet up. Er, in no place is the Pentagon even higher than 77 feet.
When THOUSANDS of anomalous facts come together, how can anyone say, "It's OK, leave the subject alone"?
V
[QUOTE=
When THOUSANDS of anomalous facts come together, how can anyone say, "It's OK, leave the subject alone"?
V
Venetian, I believe you are as I have said before spot on with your theories, explanations, quotes etc., I also believe that it will be very frustrating for you as it will be like banging your head off a brick wall with lots of people. I despair as to the whole tragic affair especially the horror that it was likely done at the hands of the Americans themselves, but what do we do? I feel you have honestly exhausted yourself on this subject and I just hope one day, the powers that be who caused this mass destruction will get their cumuppance
http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Without reading that, you don't know the facts, and without knowing the facts, you cannot usefully comment.
Insult me all you want. I don't care. But don't insult my friends who I see going off weekly to put themselves in harm's way to try to make a difference in this world gone mad. They make more sense than you do.
And for your information, the criticisms leveled at the 9/11 Commission have to do with covering up incompetencies in the Bush Administration rather than any kind of conspiracy. But conspiracy theorists will jump on any contradiction to support their case, no matter how out of context.
Hi Venetian
The level of detail in your responses is astonishing. I don't know where you find the time or energy, let alone the inclination to focus in this way on 9/11, and the theories surrounding it. There are things I would have the inclination to write at length about; this just isn't one of them.
I also have to say, it leaves me more convinced than ever (that if not Kennedy, if not the Moon Landings ;)), then certainly 9/11 is a conspiracy theory with little grounding in reality, because it seems to have the features of one IMO:
1 it is difficult, or better still, impossible, to understand at first glance.
2 it contains a spaghetti-heap of leads, most of which cannot be followed up. There is always one more lead left to chase.
3 The story speaks to a `wider' truth about our society, through a series of disconnected or unconnected or unfalsifiable propositions.
4 There is be no easy way of verifying it
So, you're correct in your analysis that my definition of conspiracy theory differs from yours. As this thread relates to 9/11, I suppose my points related primarily to this . My original analysis was lumpen (not sure about Illogical, but definitely lumpen), but it seems ironic that while it's OK for 9/11 theories to make sweeping statements & huge assumptions about 'truth' or 'facts', we have somehow to be more discerning when defining our TOR's for conspiracy theories! However, I take your point, and I liked the distinctions made here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
As in Scott's post, I also think it's not possible to cover up something of this scale. How would that be achieved??!!! A point from Wiki "the more wide-ranging and pervasive the conspiracy is alleged to be, the greater the number of people would have to be involved in perpetrating it - is it credible that nobody involved has brought the affair to light?" Well, is it? The things is, you probably will have an answer to that! (I'm not being rude, but on this occasion, don't feel compelled to share!)
OK, I'm going to bow out gracefully now, as I think never the twain shall meet, and there is little point in my trying to convince you, or vice versa, so we'll have to live and let live as they say. It remains my belief that conspiracy theories of this kind (9/11, 7/7) do more harm than good, and do little or nothing to positively change anything. Mostly, they achieve quite the opposite.
You might like this article, as it acknowledges that not all conspiracy theories are false ;), and then moves the subject along........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/03/conspiracy-theories-corroding-society
All best
El
If no one chases down conspiracy theories, and we all just accept what our controlling leaders decide we should believe then what happens to free speach, to our ability to be self determining and our ability to be who we really are?
There is one way to solve this - just as the way to solve the moon shot conspiracy is to turn a telescope onto the moon and photograph the remains of the moon lander, and that is to make everything transparent - a decent inquiry with a group of people from all sides, open the issue up and see what happens.
The problem is that no one wants this - it is dangerous not the least because if there is some truth in the conspiracy theory then the American people would never trust their leaders again, and the contries and peoples accused of the crime would surely seek revenge. Yet the truth is vital, it is the truth.
Until then I will not beleive that this was a terrorist attack - there is enough doubt about it all for me to continue to keep asking questions.
sorry to the patriots that mey be threatened, sorry to the relative who would seek closure, this is important.
chris
Chris,
I agree. 🙂
Scott,
Apologies if you took that as an insult. Wasn't intended that way. It's what I write to anyone, or what I'd expect others to write to me, if discussing and strongly opining (such a word?) on any subject. I'm not a nuclear physicist, for example - if I started getting strongly opinionated on that and disagreeing with nuclear physicists, I'd take the point that I need to truly know the data before I opinionate. Wasn't personal, just (to me) logical.
The level of detail in your responses is astonishing. I don't know where you find the time or energy, let alone the inclination to focus in this way on 9/11, and the theories surrounding it.
It doesn't take so long, and I do it as I think it's an important topic. There are of course websites and forums dedicated to conspiracy theories, but those people are already accepting of these things. Over the years, HP has had roughly a 50-50 divide on 9/11, and this is hardly the first thread on it. I find that divide healthy and interesting.
OK, I'm going to bow out gracefully now, as I think never the twain shall meet, and there is little point in my trying to convince you, or vice versa, so we'll have to live and let live as they say.
That's not only fine but good. Freedom also lies in having a variety of perspectives, in that we are not all robotically the same. 🙂
It remains my belief that conspiracy theories of this kind (9/11, 7/7) do more harm than good, and do little or nothing to positively change anything. Mostly, they achieve quite the opposite.
You've mentioned the time put in on posts like this. Well, I'm not going to do it this time. So I won't spend time tracking down details. Few people on HP may be interested anyway.
Your general perspective seems to be that large conspiracies - almost conspiracies in general - do not exist and don't happen. Off the top of my head, in quick succession, let me just point you in the direction of three.
1. I've mentioned it more than once and no one seems to take it up. IMHO there's overwhelming evidence that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK - and it will have involved many people. Taking the whole case in detail, it actually does look that Oswald was - as he said himself - a patsy: not only was he not a lone gunman, but not a gunman at all. He somehow got spirited into a life in the USSR, then back again, and seems to have had CIA connections.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_hsca.htm
concluded:
[COLOR="Navy"]there was a "probable conspiracy," though it was unable to determine the nature of that conspiracy or its other participants (besides Oswald).
Do you as a skeptic even disagree with the HSCA findings? The findings are clearly stated, mainly based on acoustic evidence (the number of shots fired, and from where).
2. Colonel E. House in the 19-teens, around 1910-1920 especially, was like Aleister Campbell an unelected figure in the White House without official role. He was offered positions but turned them down as he wanted to remain relatively anonymous. Those who know his life-story as you can read on the net, generally agree that he was the real master and decision-maker, pulling the puppet-strings of President Wilson and others. He envisioned a "one-world order" and to this end was instrumental in setting up the League of Nations which transformed into the UN, the World Court, etc, etc. He manipulated presidents by feeding them false information and opinions.
One might think the UN and World Court are good things, but House envisioned them as institutions for control and world domination, including domination of the USA and overthrow of the democratic system. It's so long ago, I did once have the books on him, but there's little online. What's astonishing though is that in the midst of his semi-control of the White House as a shadow-figure, he actually wrote a "novel" "Philip Drew, Administrator", in 1912, subtitled something like "A Story of the Future: 1920-1935". In this "novel" he tells exactly what he's going to do, but his vision included a quick, possibly bloodless, overthrow of the White House, after which "Philip Drew" would be in place as dictator. Everything House did 1920-1935 is contained in that "novel". He just didn't get to become dictator. (He 'merely' helped create the UN and World Court, etc, etc! - but for his own reasons.)
3. Conspiracies don't exist? The idea made me think of the secret society of Cecil Rhodes. This is a bio of Rhodes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
Aged 24, at Oxford, he was initiated into Masonry, but the initiation gave him a sudden vision of creating his OWN secret society to create a British Empire after his own vision, which would control most of the world, and try to even wrest back control of the United States. Rhodes gathered many secret followers. They called themselves internally "the Group". Lord Alfred Milner continued as leader after the death of Rhodes.
To finance this cause, Rhoes gained a world monopoly over diamond production, working in South Africa. He created the state named after him, Rhodesia, after military incursions (now Zimbabwe and Zambia). He created, to build the empire, the Round Table groups in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc, which had a front but the members knew the real secret purpose of world domination. In the USA they created the CFR as a version of the Round Table. He financed the Rhodes Trust to "educate" main members when young. I could go on and on. It was a real secret society, a real conspiracy. Over decades as it didn't achieve its goal, it simply seems to have got watered down. (The organisations still all exist.) When the USA could not be won back, the idea was considered of having the UK become part of the USA, and then to anglicise from within.
Rhodes was a racist, and seems to have considered genocide against other nations. Even Hitler mentioned him as the only Britishman to have had a vision like his own.
Am I making this up? Aged 24 Rhodes wrote a "confession" or Will. His grammar was imperfect, and it remains today, hand-written. Read it! It's astounding, and explains much of the history of the Western world from the 1880s through to about WWII:
http://mailstar.net/rhodes-will.html
Short excerpts:
[COLOR="Navy"]I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.
The idea gleaming and dancing before one's eyes like a will-of-the wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. What a dream, but yet it is probable, it is possible...
think of those countless 000's of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men...
To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.
I contend that there are at the present moment numbers of the ablest men in the world who would devote their whole lives to it.
In short, El, you can look into his life, or read about his successors such as Alfred Milner, and it's a matter of historical record that this secret society was formed, did work for decades to try to accomplish these aims, and the front organisations still exist (I don't know what they now aim for).
Rhodes at 24 planned for a virtually global conspiracy, and the framework of that conspiracy worked for decades. The members were among the intelligencia of Britain and all the Commonwealth, and within the USA. Scores of graduates from Oxford and Cambridge became involved. Lords, and title-holders of that ilk in Britain knew of the Group and aided it. (Best reference on this: "The Anglo-American Establishment" by Dr. Carroll Quigley.)
V
Hi Venetian
Couldn't not respond (so much for bowing out gracefully :o)
I said quite clearly in my post "It remains my belief that conspiracy theories of this kind (9/11, 7/7) (in bold this time for emphasis) do more harm than good etc." I hold to that point, and made it in the context of this post, which is all about 9/11. I'm basically saying that while I don't believe 9/11 happened as a result of a conspiracy, I do concur there is such thing as a conspiracy.
I agreed with you, that my original analysis of conspiracy theories was lumpen. To demonstrate my understanding of how some political & historical conspiracies have greater credibility than and differ from the arguments put forward by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I said, "However, I take your point, and I liked the distinctions made here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory I included this link to be clear this time, that I'm not of the opinion that there are no conspiracies, ever, of any kind, and that the explanations and TOR's included in the link were useful, to me at least, in making that distinction.
There is such a thing as wilful misunderstanding! I really hope that doesn't sound rude, but I don't undertand how my earlier post led to your saying "Your general perspective seems to be that large conspiracies - almost conspiracies in general - do not exist and don't happen" I am not sure how you reached that conclusion from the content included?
The Guardian link included supported the existence of conspiracy theories, attributing their proliferation and popularity to the fact that, yes Government's can & do cover things up. Although the overall tone of the article was that theories - like 9/11, do more harm than good (a p.o.v I agree with) neither it, nor I, said in my last post there is no such thing as a conspiracy per se. What I said, as before, was that I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
It seems strange that you're able to come up with exceptionally complex and intricate details about historical events to prove a point. This is impressive, but you are all the while actually missing the point of what was being said by the person you're responding to. I do love a debate, but think I'm all out on this one now, and will leave the last word to you .....
Just to lighten the mood, am reccomending as a good read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (some very obscure history - some relates to conspiracy theories, and beautifully written).
All best (genuinely)
El
Hi Elodie,
There's also such a thing as non-wilfull misunderstandings. And I also have a habit, I see, of starting out in replying to an individual, and then getting into a more general reply not actually to the individual.
"Lumpen"? Am not familiar with the term, apart from a magazine, and something to do with Marxist ideology, so your point regarding that must have been missed by me.
Again, it's important that people differ. It's important to have skepticism, and you cite links wherein conspiracies are admitted to and cited, yet conspiracy theory overall rather looked down upon. I happen to disagree with that perspective. However, if I were writing a book here, and not 'merely' forum posts, I'd speculate little and research much. I'm all for careful and factually-oriented research. That's "my kind" of conspiracy research, though in forum posts one loosens up a bit.
But I also know that on the other end of the spectrum yes, "conspiracy theory" has come to mean something rather derogatory, it has become a concerning feature in some areas (I don't think we need be too concerned), and so much into the mainstream that there was even a movie named (without much reason, it was just a catchy title) "Conspiracy Theory".
But we'll still have to differ, which is OK.
When long-standing, experienced, and highly-qualified Pentagon personnel either fled out of the Pentagon, or perhaps just walked out to observe, and they attest to there being only a 20-foot diameter hole in the Pentagon wall, with NO plane debris (we've all seen TV footage of what a real air-liner crash looks like, such as Lockerbie) - er, that's the kind of statement which gets my interest. And I frankly fail to comprehend how people can not be interested, intrigued, suspicious, and deeply wanting to know more and to look deeper. It'd be OK if 99% of testimonies and facts agreed with the official version, with the odd red herring. It's not like that at all. The 9/11 story, emanating from a nation with some real history of past false flag attacks, and a series of political assassinations in the 1960s, is just riddled with holes.
I've mentioned some above. The nano-explosives in 9/11 dust, and on, and on. These things deserve attention and further investigation, not ignore-ance. Surely? They are not theories, but factual findings, and personal testimonies from highly-qualified people. So we will indeed have to agree to disagree, as I disagree. The American population appears to be quite divided on the issue generally too. What's the problem in having a deeper and more thorough investigation? (Well, I think I know what the problems are there - the problems are the real facts....)
As I posted earlier then, we all decide which possible conspiracies we disbelieve, and which we find ourselves very open to. Opinion in general seems split on 9/11 - but I betcha, as this is the usual case, that those suspicious of the official story are those who know more of the facts, those accepting of the 'story' will tend to be those who haven't delved.
This other factor turned up on early HP threads about 9/11 - a few years back it seemed clear then that those unwilling to believe in a conspiracy were motivated by psychological fear that the world might not be the kind of ordered and understood place they thought it was. (Not a personal comment to you, but my memory of earlier threads where fear was evident in conspiracy non-believers - an interesting phenomenon, and one to be taken into account I think.)
Thanks for the challenging dialogue. Such is always important.
Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? I can't explain it, as I read or tried to read the book years ago and I forget details of why, but I couldn't get into it. :rolleyes: Maybe 'cos it was fiction?
V
If no one chases down conspiracy theories, and we all just accept what our controlling leaders decide we should believe then what happens to free speach, to our ability to be self determining and our ability to be who we really are?
There is one way to solve this - just as the way to solve the moon shot conspiracy is to turn a telescope onto the moon and photograph the remains of the moon lander, and that is to make everything transparent - a decent inquiry with a group of people from all sides, open the issue up and see what happens.
The problem is that no one wants this - it is dangerous not the least because if there is some truth in the conspiracy theory then the American people would never trust their leaders again, and the contries and peoples accused of the crime would surely seek revenge. Yet the truth is vital, it is the truth.
Until then I will not beleive that this was a terrorist attack - there is enough doubt about it all for me to continue to keep asking questions.
sorry to the patriots that mey be threatened, sorry to the relative who would seek closure, this is important.chris
So true but I just concern myself as to the consequences of people acknowledging the truth
Pentagon hit - videos show no plane
What video footage and testimony shows of the Pentagon attack: NO BOEING, NO PLANE.
CCTV footage which was confiscated, but returned by court order:
TV journalist outside Pentagon: footage only aired once. No plane wreckage at all.
More information on there being no large plane.
Simple maths: the size of the Pentagon hole and impact-damage compared to the size of a Boeing: a Boeing simply does not fit at all, and there is NO evidence of major fire from fuel burning.
In addition, if you search the web or YouTube, you'll find people saying that they did see a large plane. These testimonies were included in a TV documentary a couple of years back. But the situation regarding the Pentagon hit is confusing to say the least.
V
Hi Jeannie,
There are always consequences with these kind of things, this is one of the reasons why so much is cloaked under the 'official secrecy' or anti-terror legislation, or even to some extent just under privacy laws.
The consequences arise because of the overwhelming desire for those in control to continue to control us - this is wrong and we should not stand for it - so if there are consequences from exposing the truth behind the attack then although it may be difficult in the short run it will pay dividends in the medium run.
I support these activiites that are trying to expose the kind of things that many would wish hidden, beit the truth behind 9/11 or other cases like madleine McCann, there is relatively little I personally can do but I will not just shut up and be quiet because someone finds it uncomfortable or thinks it would be better left uninvestigated.
If someone in high places in the US is responsible for 9/11 then they need to be rooted out before they think they can do it all over again - and if as part of that the high up person is 'very high up' then it is even more imperative that they are exposed - for they are the most dangerous of the lot.
edited to add:
found this - 9 years of emergency status - this is the kind of legacy that the use of redical powers can have - is there no end to this reliance on special powers .....
"In a letter issued to the heads of Congress today, President Barack Obama announced yet another one year extension of a State of National Emergency which has been going on in the United States since September 14, 2001. This means that as of Tuesday America will officially be entering its tenth year at an emergency posture them seems destined to last pretty much forever."
[DLMURL] http://911truthnews.com/obama-extends-bush%e2%80%99s-911-state-of-emergency/ [/DLMURL]
chris
So true but I just concern myself as to the consequences of people acknowledging the truth
Hi Chris, and all,
Yes, in looking through posts on other forums online, the "emergency powers status" is also cited as an outcome which may have been desired from 9/11. After all, who before 9/11 would have ever considered theat the USA, the nation where democracy was born, would end up torturing suspects, holding hundreds for years without trial, invading a nation without the usual just cause, and secretly flying unnamed captives around to other nations for them to be tortured there?
Anyway, off-forum it was suggested I have a look around for this and that, and I took a break to do it over lunch.
I was looking into the Pentagon hit. It's complex. The passenger lsits do exist - certainly there was a plane and its passengers are unaccounted for. There are also quite a number of people who say they saw an airliner hit. They read as credible accounts. There are some photos of possible bits of aircraft within the Pentagon. One passenger phoned her husband to describe a hijacking taking place by use of knives. (See, I'm not one-track minded. 🙂 )
But a lot still doesn't add up. The original hole just isn't big enough, there's surely not enough wreckage (there are photos of a few bits), and clearly no wings hit the building at all - there's only a single hole. There's damage to lamposts, yet this is completely away from the stated flight-path of the hit.
Anyway, it's a deep and serious subject, the Pentagon hit and all of 9/11. Here's a forum specialised on it, which from a quick look seems to cater to both views.
[DLMURL] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/911_Conspiracies.php [/DLMURL]
V