I believe that 9/11 was largely orchestrated as an excuse to take out Saddam to appease AIPAC (1) and dupe Americans into going to war with Iraq. “QUIETLY LOBBYING CONGRESS TO APPROVE THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ WAS ONE OF AIPAC’S SUCCESSES OVER THE PAST YEAR.” AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr; N.Y. Sun, Jan. 2003 If we have learned nothing else from 9/11, we can't let Israel's Right Wing extremist government push America to war with Iran. Thanks,
No Bob, really you don't. If that were my objective I would not have made the large post on the preceding page that you are obviously yourself trying to evade and distract from. Now why would that be? Incorrect. The science tells us that all the "911-truth" claims are nonsensical, completely unfeasible and as a collective impossible given the vast numbers needed to implement it. In terms of WTC7, these questions are highly relevant because the actions suggested - controlled demolition - make no sense at any level. Correct, it does however put the "911-truth" claims about WTC7 into the right perspective - that being, illogical, not probable at all, and ultimately fantasy that would have been scrapped at the conception stage. No Bob, really it didn't.
I'm sure that is true, but it is only part of the picture. Using the line from the Meryl Streep comedy years ago, It's Complicated. The US Congress refused to pass legislation approximately equivalent to the Patriot Act in early 2001 because it was viewed as unconstitutional. In April 2001Colin Powell hand-carried a $43 million check to the Taliban for their excellent job of destroying poppy growing and heroin production in that country. After 911, and the intimidation of Congress by way of strategic anthrax distribution, Congress passed the Act in absentia, in the dark of night, first time ever a bill was passed in absentia. Not long after we invaded Afghanistan, it was returned to its #1 spot in world poppy production being shadow run by the CIA. The more things change, the more they remain the same. The goal of Greater Israel was one step closer, and DHS was born along with TSA.
And all of that could have been accomplished by letting the planes crash unhindered with zero US involvement. Oh wait! Off topic, anti-Semitic, batshit.
Skilfully evaded and maneuvered off of the current page. Does anyone want to have a go at it? Or is it "irrelevant" Bob?
" CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER" Re: I'm sure that you've heard of "The Golden Triangle" in S.E. Asia........ ........"The more things change, the more they remain the same" When I think about 9/11 and everything surrounding it, the quote that comes to mind is from "Alice In Wonderland" where things get "curiouser and curiouser". The more I learn about that tragic incident, the more bizarre it seems. Thanks,
What did you learn from my first reply to you and post 30 just above? Did THIS make you think at all?
The agenda is not of course about a government "for The People, by The People and for the benefit of The People". This is what I mean, totally insulting. There is no question it was well thought out. The characterization is that if you haven't bought the official 9/11 fairy tale and don't "think" like the US government and all its propaganda agents and boot lickers, you don't think. You're to accept nonsense from anonymous sites and charlatans who have zero background and standing in lieu of multiple credentialed and verifiable experts who have done extensive research and written peer reviewed papers and your own intuition. If you don't, you are subject to insults.
I never said it's irrelevant, I went through it all myself quite a while back. I invite anyone and everyone to study it and make up their own mind. Everyone should study all arguments. I created an entire thread devoted to and detailing NIST's scam. Do you think charlatans like anonymous sites, Mick West and other self professed "debunkers" who support and defend such an obvious scam are going to change my mind? What is irrelevant in terms of the science and reality about what happened on 9/11 is the who, how and why. That becomes relevant in a criminal investigation sense once the reality of what really happened is understood and accepted as fact.
Thanks for your carefully worded replies, devoid of anything of substance. The first post was not directed at you, but in you come huffing and a puffing doing the same labelling of opponent's rebuttal as you claim is done on yours. Let me clarify something for you Bob. I am not in the least bit interested, at any level, in convincing you of anything. Got that? I do not think you have the capability to find your way out of your firmly entrenched belief system. I don't require or wish you to even respond. From your history, you have been doing the same antagonistic evasion for some considerable time. It may well be true that you "created an entire thread detailing" whatever you claim, but I've seen many times how you "deal" with rebuttal! You ignore it! Please ignore this post it shouldn't be too difficult for you. This mega plan with its off-the-scale complexity and not one single piece of paper or electronic evidence for it, not a single whistle-blower, nobody leaking anything, no word of mouth accounts. A massive secret amongst hundreds. Yeah, right!
What I get is that you're trying your damnedest to convince me that the fairy tale you rabidly defend is reality. Every post of yours oozes of that attempt. There is not one single post you have written that questions anything about the official 9/11 fairy tale. Who do think you're kidding? I don't bother to "rebut" much of your amateur hogwash because what I've posted over the years is self-explanatory and I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. For you there never will be despite the overwhelming evidence and science, including but not limited to whistleblower and eyewitness accounts. There's only "debunker" nonsense in your denial world. Talk about insinuating others don't "think" and only you do. Why do you THINK any time a self described "debunker" posts some stupidity, the vast majority of comments clearly show they're not buying the snake oil being peddled?
Bob, you're not reading too clearly here. I have zero interest in your opinions, why this hogwash is convincing for you, or anything you have to say in your huffing and puffing bloviating posts. Now which part of this bolded below confused you? You quoted it then went into some weird rant. You've turned this into a personal issue and I've read other threads where you have done the same thing. I am not in the least bit interested, at any level, in convincing you of anything. Got that? Stop. That applies to you. You are afraid to debate properly. It's YOU that rabidly defense your conspiracy theory at all costs. It doesn't even concern you that no two "911 claims" are the same, or that some contradict each other.
Yet you respond to every single one of my posts. You can't say you have no interest in my opinions while responding to all of them. That makes no sense. I don't debate, I discuss. A debate is a game where there is a winner and a loser. I'm not here to play games, maybe you are. Would I be "debating properly" if I agreed with your nonsense? It seems to me that's what you're really looking for. I don't have any "conspiracy theory", you're the one who rabidly defends the impossible official 9/11 conspiracy theory and questions none of it. I'm here to challenge it because it's a human rights atrocity that has affected millions of lives, mostly via mass murder and genocide. It still does and always will as long as it's the official party line and enough people are fooled by it. I will always challenge it as long as I can. Besides the fact that it's not true, why would that "concern" me? Why would you ever expect opinions to be the same? Opinions are like anuses, everyone has one.
Thanks Bob. Great commentary, but not a word of it is of any use in this "discussion" and still not of any interest to me. You've turned this into a personal issue as you always seem to do.
That's quite hypocritical. This discussion that I started is about the war games on 9/11 and nothing you posted in this thread has anything to do with that other than some simplistic and nonsensical comment about these war games being "routine" when clearly that's not remotely true. Just another one of your attempts to dismiss any challenge to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. I'm certainly open to discussing the war games on 9/11 but I definitely have no interest in dismissing or defending this obviously deliberate event which helped make 9/11 a resounding success. It's obvious YOU have no interest in that discussion. Clearly Bin Laden and 19 Arabs from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with that.
This is just more absurd meaningless rhetoric. I bumped your thread with clear and pertinent observations and you do what you always do, ignore them! What the hell is your point of the US being "defenseless" if you can't even state what they would have done had they been there!
Yes that's exactly what YOU do. Instead of questioning why the US government scheduled 12 war games on the morning of 9/11 rendering the entire northeastern air corridor completely impotent, you not only falsely dismiss it as "routine" but instead you try to divert the point of the discussion by questioning what I would do under the circumstances. Are you actually asking ME what I think the $multi-trillion US military should do when confronted with 4 hijacked aircraft? Am I the US military? Is anyone paying me $multi-trillion to plan such a defense? Why on earth should I answer questions about circumstances the US military should be fully prepared to defend? Talk about meaningless rhetoric, that's one of the key tactics you employ to try to divert the discussion. It's clear to me you have no interest in questioning anything about the official 9/11 narrative and have every interest in criticizing and insulting those who question anything and everything about it. You also believe you can provide all the answers to every single question using charlatan anonymous and "debunker" sources whose only objective is to defend that nonsensical narrative. That's your entire M.O. in a nutshell.
Yes Bob. Go on be a hero and just speculate! I gave you what I consider the only options. You made the big noise about us being defenseless, what could they have done?
1. EXACTLY how did that facilitate the attacks? 2. Can you list a few more and explain how they too facilitated the attacks?
Absolutely nothing. The US government has a $multi-trillion military/intelligence apparatus second to none on the planet for no reason at all. I'm the one you need to question about the air defense system in the US. It didn't for you, go back to sleep and dream about "trufers". I did, hundreds of issues throughout this section of the forum. But for you there's nothing to see here.
They could have shot the planes down Bob, would you have given the order? That's it. Thank heavens they weren't around huh? You're the one who brought it up! You're the one who failed to elaborate on your claim. That's a nightmare Bob and for the thousandth time, nice dodge. You just don't DO discussion/debate or whatever you want to call it, when the material lays bare the inherent problems with your claims. You are simply incapable of straightforward discourse. To you it's a big game. ANYONE dares question your untouchable claims gets the great big huff and puff from you. You act like absolutely nobody should have an opposing viewpoint to you, nobody can dare challenge you, when you have stumbled upon the biggest government operation in history, all done in complete secrecy with no paper or electronic trails! Since you failed the truly simple request to identify how just this one single issue facilitated the attacks, I am betting that at no stage did you do this with any of your "thousands" of coincidences. This is why nobody hangs around this subform to argue with you! You wear them all out with this evasive, bloviation.
No, a lot of people did way before me, some figured it out on 9/11. It took me about 3 years after 9/11 to discover the evidence even though I intuitively knew there was something unreal about the destruction of the twin towers. Many videos were just not available on the web until much later. I did not know about WTC7 until 3 years later because the MSM was quite silent about it soon after 9/11. The same M.O. seems to have applied in that the prevailing news reports on 9/11 were that the buildings were controlled demolitions and that quickly changed to they "collapsed". https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ought-us-the-twin-towers-explosive-demolition Well I did suggest you go back to sleep if you're tired.
They "figured out" stuff reported a couple of days later? That's some real Pullitzer-prize work. "Intuition" is a little overrated Bob. There's nothing unreal about them, it's just a new thing for nearly everyone on the planet to see. And then came the "911-truther" claims. No Bob, this stuff was widely available you just weren't paying attention. There were books out about it the year after. That's not correct Bob and are you suggesting the news reporters were in on this?
