The smoking gun of 9/11 that can not be disputed?

Cyclo wrote:

With the tiny, tiny extension: this assumes that the intelligence, or the response to the intelligence, was botched in any way. I happen to think that given the nature of those at the top, and what they wanted to accomplish, that it wasn't botched.

In order for a conspiracy to happen, to allow something like 9/11 to happen, what had to be done? The answer of course, is nothing. When information came in that an attack might happen, absolutely nothing had to be done to stop it, if you don't mind it happening. This is also coincidentally what was done. I don't really believe in coincidences like this.

Again, I think this theory is at least plausible. Of course it leaves out the specifics about how much they actually knew.

This is a far cry from the ridiculous theories that the Government actually participated, i.e. they planted explosives and fired missles that did the major damage on 9/11. These theories don't even provide a plausible explanation for what happened.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cyclo wrote:

With the tiny, tiny extension: this assumes that the intelligence, or the response to the intelligence, was botched in any way. I happen to think that given the nature of those at the top, and what they wanted to accomplish, that it wasn't botched.

In order for a conspiracy to happen, to allow something like 9/11 to happen, what had to be done? The answer of course, is nothing. When information came in that an attack might happen, absolutely nothing had to be done to stop it, if you don't mind it happening. This is also coincidentally what was done. I don't really believe in coincidences like this.

This is a far cry from the ridiculous theories that the Government actually participated, i.e. they planted explosives and fired missles that did the major damage on 9/11. These theories don't even provide a plausible explanation for what happened.

I agree completely. I don't think that such theories are necessarily crazy per se, but their proponents have a large burden of evidence which they must overcome to be taken seriously, that have not been overcome. Reminds me a lot of the 'moon landing fake' fellows.

Quote:

Again, I think this theory is at least plausible. Of course it leaves out the specifics about how much they actually knew.

Yeah, I know. But in order to make positive assertions about what they did know, we have to have access to information which is inherently difficult to have access to; you know that you are talking about the things which are most likely to be hidden, there may not even BE any documents to look at at all to show what people knew.

We know that there was some warning given in the Daily Briefing with the 'Bin Laden seeks to attack US using planes' title. Whoever gave that information was absolutely, 100% spot-on, and it was ignored. There isn't even really a question that it was ignored.

That's what it all comes down to, for me - what is the greatest fault of the Bush crew? Incompetence, or Hubris?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Proof Digg's Bury Feature Abused to Suppress Controversial Content

Chris
Information Libertation
Thursday, March 1, 2007

Programmer hacks Digg, gets bury list for a few hours: Bury list is full of shills burying highly significant content

A programmer found a bug at Digg which allowed him to view the Bury feed at Digg. He posted the list on his website and it is eye opening, to say the least.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LIST

Notice how there are tons of obvious shills burying our recent explosive WTC 7 articles as well as many other articles of extreme significance. It's shocking to read the list and see how much significant, documented, and extremely popular content is being buried for obvious ideological reasons. This is completely undemocratic abuse of the Digg system and is proof positive the Bury feature is being abused to suppress content by vindictive Anti-Diggers.

From Pronet Advertising:

We've heard about a purported 'Bury Brigade' on Digg time and again, with sketchy pieces of evidence here and there but no concrete proof. Until now.
...
While that system is supposed to be used to remove superfluous or irrelevant content from Digg, the mechanism is often abused to remove useful and insightful content by malicious users for self-serving and vindictive reasons. My observations are based on data collected by David using a mechanism that he tried to explain to me via email. You can get this data by using the Digg Spy JSON Array:
...
You can see which user did the burying, on what story, and on what basis. By looking at just some of the data, you can get quite conclusive hard evidence that not only does the bury brigade exist, but it is hard at work burying any content that doesn't suit its ideology.

buries-raw-data.html
buries-top-users-with-reasons.html
buries-top-stories-with-reasons.html
buries-top-users.html
buries-top-stories.html
Digg's Bury feature is supposed to be used to bury "stories with bad links, off-topic content, or duplicate entries" in order to remove "spam out of the system." Unfortunately, as many have experienced, the Bury feature is frequently used to suppress content based off ideology. Please encourage Digg to either fix it (perhaps make it similar to Reddit's down voting) or remove it all together. Email Digg here and request they please fix the Bury feature. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307Digg.htm

0 Replies

http://www.911blogger.com/files/pearl-harbor-b4.GIF

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn, I'm sort of thinking along the same lines as you are. I don't trust/believe any of the conspiracy theories, but I also don't fully belive the 'official' report either. The biggest thing that sticks out to me is the lack of any video evidence (other than those 5 frames) that show the 747 going into or even near the Pentagon. I don't really believe the theory about a missile or smaller plane, but I don't understand the secrecy in not releasing those videos. Most of my questions lie around the Pentagon crash. I don't believe the conspiracy theories to be true, but if they were, I wouldn't exactly be surprised either.

Action through inaction is an interesting angle that I hadn't considered.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn, I'm sort of thinking along the same lines as you are. I don't trust/believe any of the conspiracy theories, but I also don't fully belive the 'official' report either. The biggest thing that sticks out to me is the lack of any video evidence (other than those 5 frames) that show the 747 going into or even near the Pentagon. I don't really believe the theory about a missile or smaller plane, but I don't understand the secrecy in not releasing those videos. Most of my questions lie around the Pentagon crash. I don't believe the conspiracy theories to be true, but if they were, I wouldn't exactly be surprised either.

Action through inaction is an interesting angle that I hadn't considered.

It is by far the easiest to believe, b/c it is the simplest; occam's razor and all that.

In order to take 'action by inaction,' all that was needed to do is for a few people at the top to decide that there is no downside to 9/11. There was no downside to 9/11 for Bush. The death of thousands of Americans was a complete and total political victory for him and the Neocons who put him in power.

It doesn't involve any huge conspiracy, or dozens of people all lying about what went on; just a few people who believe that you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hanlon's Razor.

Quote:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

0 Replies

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed just confessed to planning 9/11 here:

CNN

I guess he was just covering for the real culprit, President Bush, right?

0 Replies

while I certainly don't want to sound like a conspiracist or a blame america first guy, I find anything that shows up in an "edited" text and a confession from someone who has been locked up in Guantanamo where they can and probably do use any methods they feel like against "detainees" suspect.

I would not have had these feelings of distrust during the reign of any US leader in my lifetime, republican or democrat, and I'm 57.

bush has destroyed my trust and confidence in my own countries government that successfully.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed just confessed to planning 9/11 here:

CNN

I guess he was just covering for the real culprit, President Bush, right?

He was on Bush's payroll ! :wink:

0 Replies

Among the other terror plots he confessed to during the waterboarding was the shooting of Abraham Lincoln, the downing of the Hindenburg, both space shuttles, the Great Chicago Fire, and the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.

Who said anal probes wern't effective ? Very Happy

Basically what he's looking for is a quick one way ticket to hell. He can't wait to meet his friend Saddam.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Among the other terror plots he confessed to during the waterboarding was the shooting of Abraham Lincoln, the downing of the Hindenburg, both space shuttles, the Great Chicago Fire, and the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.

Who said anal probes wern't effective ?

Basically what he's looking for is a quick one way ticket to hell. He can't wait to meet his friend Saddam.

No, he didn't confess to any of those other things, but he did confess to planning 9/11.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Zippo wrote:
Among the other terror plots he confessed to during the waterboarding was the shooting of Abraham Lincoln, the downing of the Hindenburg, both space shuttles, the Great Chicago Fire, and the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.

Who said anal probes wern't effective ?

Basically what he's looking for is a quick one way ticket to hell. He can't wait to meet his friend Saddam.

No, he didn't confess to any of those other things, but he did confess to planning 9/11.

He had ALREADY confessed that long ago.

What you are seeing is the opening salvo in Operation 'keep Gonzales off of the front page.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

His building wasn't 'rigged' with explosives. It wasn't planned by the gov't. [..]

The FDNY was concerned that the fires in WTC7 would get out of control, and perhaps spread further. After so many firefighters had died that day, and without any avaliable to actually go in the building to stop the fires, it wasn't even an extreme decision to drop the building.

This is consistent with pictures of the building's collapse - you couldn't ask for a better controlled demolition.

Here's the part of Cyclo's argument that I dont understand.

How could the FDNY have possibly been able to apply a "controlled demolition" of this building to "drop it", if it hadnt been rigged with explosives beforehand, and at the time itself they werent even able "to actually go in the building to stop the fires" - let alone put the explosives in place to do a controlled demolition?

0 Replies

Yeah, that's what I was thinkin.

0 Replies

The smoking gun of 9/11 that can not be disputed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know