911 A Proven Fraud

Post Reply New Topic

As you watch these videos we can see how every video was faked.
Watch and be informed. To open as many minds as possible is my goal.
The truth must be known about these elite groups.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... xt_from=PL

Be sure to watch all videos from the list.

I will not tolerate flaming. I come from places that would ban a large percentage of you for your obnoxious flaming.

Even if they video was faked, they still would have to account for the tens of thousands of people who saw it first hand. That's not something you can feasibly cover up.

I personally put the "no planes" conspiracy theorists, in the same boat as the "Jews did it" conspiracy theorist. Even a cursory glance over the evidence as a whole shows that the very idea of it is absurd, although to the "no planes" credit, they at least attempt an analysis (although a heavily biased one) of the evidence, instead of blindly repeating blatant falsehoods.


I think an investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 was certainly warranted. However at this point almost any evidence presented that points to Islamic extremists as the sole source of the attack is immediately dismissed as faked by the conspiracy theorists. 9/11 was simply too big of an event to cover up without the entire conspiracy collapsing within a few months.

People either get the world as it is or they don't, and when they don't it usually takes fanciful theories to explain away what they don't understand. I'd have to count vast conspiracies as being in that category - far too much fame and fortune to be gained by the whistle blower, our government trips over its own feet just trying to walk and chew gum at the same time, that and government can barely do a thing correctly in front of our faces let alone be this vast kabaal secretly sculpting our realities and deliberately creating geopolitical events (or for the *real* black helecopter crowd out there weather events via HAARP, mind control, pacification through flouride in the water, etc.).

We're actually a pretty weak, feable, and limited race. That has its downsides but it also has its perks in that no matter how psychotic and magalomanic someone is, or how much money they have - they can really only do so much to the world around them, regardless of what they tell themselves. To having groups work that far below the radar would take a level of visible coersion that we don't posess in our country. In a totalitarian state like Stalin's Russia yes - you can control a lot by controlling information and of course liquidating your staff of advisors by firing squad or poison if you get a bit nervous, but it takes a lot to make that happen - a lot of control over information, supression of free thought; being free to debate whatever theory you want and having many circulating doesn't really work because the truth will still win more adherance.

Not that I buy the faking of 9-11, but in the faking of the reasons for invading Iraq it is open and clear that whatever the truth may be, it is not always out quickly enough to prevent dismaying results.

The Cucumber - that's such an unenlightened opinion, if you don't mind me saying

I don't subscribe to the no-planes theory either as it goes - or at least I've never found any evidence which was enough to support plausibility to such a theory.

I think it's a psy-ops personally to discredit the 911 truth movement.

Yes, the media faked some of the reports - conflates the issue - it's called misdirection and disinformation *shrugs*

The BBC one where the reporter 'reports' that WTC9 has just collapsed is laughable - considering it was a live shot and you can still see it standing in the background. Oh, of course that's not suspicious - those 'conspiracy theorists' just talk pure rubbish haha

Has the states just deployed more troops to Afghanistan by any chance? It's a sad thing to see people getting killed in conflicts waged for sangfroid profiteering corporate a-holes - that's the only reason the troops are there.

For the people that actually have spent years sifting through the testimonies and evidence it generally becomes absolutely apparent and clear that the official story of 911 is a complete travesty. In doesn't require anything but disciplined study of the evidence.

As it was also on 7/7 in London. A fake official account. I could tell you so much data - credible data but..

I am not going to go into it to show you why - can't be bothered anymore on this tbh - if people don't get it then that's a shame ..

One cursory factoid I will give though is this - on both the occasions of 911 and 7/7 it is curious that government agencies were running 'mock' exercises modelled on the relatively exact scenarios that transpired. Not one - both of them - both governments running 'mock drills' on the exact same days as both attacks on models of exactly the same attacks that actually transpired. BOTH of them.

Quite a blooming coincedence, don't you think? In fact - you can check out the actual statistical probability of this on the internet if you have a look

...I'll give you a clue to the rough number amount - the statistical probablity of what happened is as odds on ( X amount to the ratio of 1) number with over 60 or so zeros after it.

ie It is a FANTASY to suggest that this was a coincedence. These were false flag attacks - history is littered with them - it is only the contemporary ones that it is taboo to talk about - the others are simply accepted as historical fact *shrugs*

It is funny how often people talk about conspiracy theorists as delusional fools when they themselves speak in such a ill informed and pejorative manner - don't talk about things you don't know anything about like you know something about them would be my advice.

mmstick - your poll is a bit restrictive..not even a 'don't know' option?

Last edited by Concenik on 29 Mar 2009, 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

9/11 was certainly not fake, however the US was quick to take advantage of the attack to make some stupid war on terrorism.

Hmm, well at least ONE of the TWO passports said to be Mohammed Atta's ( they were both in his name - fact ) which apparently survived the inferno intact was definitely a FAKE

I think both were personally. What are the chances his passport would survive intact as evidence? Can anyone seriously say they believe that a paper document survived from one of those planes? and keep a straight face..gimme a break. The unknown parties that orchestrated that operation screwed up by planting two thinking that only one would be recorded as found. They are not that clever even though they seem to have successfully tricked quite a lot of people *shrugs*

If you want to see a mainstream documentary that was banned about how he and the other couldn't even fly a single engine propeller airplane properly then have a look for:

Mohammed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus. It's very sober and very good mainstream investigative journalism.

911 was a classic false flag attack - it's pointless to just say 'no it wasn't, no, it wasn't' unless you can actually substantiate what your saying - I can, I've looked into it for years now.

Yes, it was a ruse to then prosecute a war in the middle east .

peace

Concenik: Most of the "evidence" I have seen brought forth in favor of the various conspiracy theories around 9/11 consists of attacks on one aspect or another of the so-called "official story." After seemingly discrediting this story, conspiracy theorists will then advance all sorts of outlandish claims with no evidence for them whatsoever, and claim that they are proven to be true by all the alleged flaws in the official story.

Now, the problem with this approach is that it establishes a false dichotomy. It is quite plausible that the official story is wrong on a number of points without necessitating some grand, overarching conspiracy by the US government, the Jews, the Masons, or your preferred evil cabal.

Have you seen the motion picture -Wag the Dog-?

ruveyn

If only that were true. The FBI agent that had spent a great deal of time investigating the Oklahoma bombing - it is documented that he had come to the conclusion that there was a degree of complicity by a rogue element in the intelligence services in regards to that event - anyway, he was taken off the case and reassigned as one of the heads of security at the WTC - his first day at work was 911 - he didn't make it out alive.. hmm, just another coincidence, I guess. If you care to read some of the intel digests that exist on the web - not conspiracy theorists; intel people - there is a rumour that he knew too much about something concerning Oklahoma and the reassignment was a message to potential whistleblowers who may come across improprieties in the future - of course this is just a rumour.. consider it an anecdote, if you will.

I wouldn't be do quick to suggest that the meglomaniacs that do hold great power are simpletons at all - they hold the power, after all

As far as secret societies go - well, it's not a fantasy! LOL such things DO exist and they are often malign - sorry about that. for example, take skull and bones .. please take them! we don't need them thanks!! j/k

I think Iraq unlike Afghanistan was much more geopolitical. We've likely had plenty of countries infracting on treaties as much as Saddam did where we didn't find it worth our while to go in, then again the debate always comes down to whether Colin Powell was really serving cooked information - the impression I'd gotten was that the U.N. was hearing things that they already knew believed, but just said so what - everyone believed he had WMD's with our without Powell but the real issue was that most countries didn't think Iraq was a worthwhile endeavor (or at least those who disagreed who weren't trading behind the embargo or receiving all kinds of oil-for-food money).

a false flag attack doesn't have to necessitate 'a grand over arching conspiracy' it can be a simple orchestrated event and an ensuing cover up.. take the recently released Gulf of Tonkin report for example - which was released at precisely the same time that the NIST report came out contradicting the BUsh administration about Iran's nuclear potentials.. what you have to understand is that there is a struggle happening right now in the American intelligence community. One of the fromer chiefs of staff has actually stated this for you to know about it..

Perhaps you haven't seen as much of the ecvidence and heard as many testimonies as you think, in formulating your opinion?

For me, this is something I am immersed in practically all the time and I pride myself as being rational and not prone to flights of fancy, no matter how many people react to the data and claim otherwise - after all 'conspiracy theorists' are always branded as such.

We didn't even coin that phrase - it was a detracting phrase constructed by one of the media moguls, as it goes - funny how it subtlely demonises the idea of 'conspiracy' in and of itself, don't you think? like JFK and Watergate never happened LOL they were conspiracies after all, weren't they?

Maybe you need to keep looking into it with an open and critical mind( to ALL the 'evidence' irrespective of whether it is officially sanctioned as 'the facts' or not) . 911 is beyond the pale when you actually look deeply into the whole surrounding data.

I assume you are aware of the massive jump in value in American Airline shares just days prior to it happening - that is PROOF that some traders had foreknowledge. Go figure.

Saddam was originally a CIA asset - that's just documented fact in mainstream investigative journalism..as was Osama Bin Laden - again mainstream knowledge and documented..

The proto geo-political theory - in fact the theory for which the very term was 'coined' is The Heartland Theory by MacKinder - if you follow the 'geopolitical moves that have been and are being made over the last few years. eg War in South Ossetia, Afghanistan etc. you will realise (hopefully) that a script is being played out that adheres more or less exactly to the premises cited by MacKinder as to how a powerful state could theoretically secure global territorial dominance - there are many parties involved, from my perspective - I see warring factions and not a unified grand over arching theory - but it is a nonsense to suggest there is no conspiracy! by very definition of the word there clearly IS !

What do you think of the GIVE act that the senate has just approved?

You have to understand - I got so sick and tired of idiots calling me tinfoil hatter or what . that I became very serious about this stuff. I have done the study and continue to do so. I am not some ill informed person that will slink away after the first volley of stereotypical insults are launched against 'conspiracy theorists'- ( from now on I will use the term 'researcher' - that is how we are politely referred to - CT is tantamount to an insult/flame imo) - ...on the contrary, I trained to be an academic, a lecturer - however I do not wish to engage in some massive debate to try and open your eyes to the fact that you were tricked - I suggest if you have strong opinions about the subject you should do the research so you can source and verify them with more than just personal opinion and conjecture - not to mention the creeping ad homs that are there in your derision of researchers

peace

Something of the magnitude of 9/11 would require a pretty elaborate conspiracy, moreso than simply having a naval misunderstanding off the coast of Vietnam. If there were a struggle in the US intel community, then wouldn't one side have a nice little trump card in going public with "the truth?"


Do you have a more accurate term to suggest?


Honestly, if you want to convince me of some fringe view, you can't say "go and spend hundreds of hours of your time researching it" because frankly I have better things to do with my time than study every crackpot theory I run across. You have to spoon-feed me the evidence, and it must be well documented and from legitimate sources. (I'm not listening to crap from David Icke or Alex Jones)


It's only "proof" that someone that AA would start doing badly. It could be taken as an indicator that someone connected with whoever planned the attacks was looking to make some easy money off of it. It tells us nothing about who is responsible for the attacks.

We picked Iraq's side in the war against Iran. OK? We tend to take sides in wars even when neither side is really someone to be proud of supporting. Look at WWI. Or WWII, even. We gave some support to Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. Again, we'd help just about anyone who was against the Commie. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... for now.


Sorry, but that's not good enough. It's a cop-out.