Topic: [Vote] Who did 911? - page 18. (Read 63039 times)

Well, I'm really not interested in GENERAL comments.

Repeating again,

It'd sure be nice to have more specifics of how "they" get money and power from doing something like 9/11.

Then you'd actually have some evidence of someone getting money and power from doing something like 9/11.

Money and power always motivate people operating at the lowest level. The people who do the grunt work in any organized project are almost always motivated by some variation of those things.

But the people at the 'top' of anything like that, those who organize the grunts, are usually idealists.

They say
"We are going to make a better world but you have to break eggs to make omelettes". or something like that.

There is no large group, even a terrorist organization, that will survive long by saying "We want to cause harm and kill innocent people just for the fuck of it".

As Freud noted though, there are natural realities that trump objective ideals and "criminals" leave trails to the extent that their subjective ideals do not mesh with larger ideals that they are also aware of.

It'd sure be nice to have more specifics of how "they" get money and power from doing something like 9/11.

Then you'd actually have some evidence of someone getting money and power from doing something like 9/11.

LOL...

For once I agree with you. This is it! Money and power!

It sure would be nice to have more specifics of how they get money and power from doing something like 9/11. But the money and power idea is the ONLY reason something as big and as dastardly as the 9/11 inside job might be done.

Sure, some Muslims and Jews might have wanted some kind of revenge. The revenge might have been for something real, or it might have been for something imaginary. But the bottom line for the inside job is MONEY and POWER.

i know why they done it MONEY AND POWER END OF STORY

More people, including you two, need to watch the full video to understand how 911 really came about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTqYftNZ6js

Actually I feel like this dude-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c5iH_SWTg0

I HAVE BUT YOU WONT TAKE IT IN
PLUS spendy what science classes did you go to because it seems it was for 8 year old school kid..
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE TRUST ME
I think you work for something to do with government work..
OR YOU ARE A RETARD WHICH IS IT

WHAT DID HE SAY his own words
www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A

 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
 1,500+ Engineers and Architects
    250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
    400+ Professors Question 9/11
    300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
    200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
    400+ Medical Professionals
so all these people should be sacked from there jobs because they know nothing WOW so you yanks employ
220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
 1,500+ Engineers and Architects
    250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
all nutters who know nothing about there own jobs YER RIGHT..
so spendy if i was you i would never fly in the USA never walk in a building and don.t call the police..
because according to you these guys are NUTTERS

here is the proof END OF
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

and you do think there nutters because according to you they don.t know what there talking about
av a nice day spendy your wrong on this 1

Any crime has a) acts and b) motives. There are a) events, actions, and there are b) motives.

One, either one, is meaningless without the other.

Specifically with regard to 911, the evidence seems to be that there were
1) Muslims acting on radical motives "We will perform a good deed by blowing up some buildings"
2) Some Americans acting on authoritarian motives "We will do certain things for national security reasons, even though we don't see the full picture"
3) Some Zionists acting on nationalist motives "We will encourage our strategic alliances by helping our allies develop an interest in 'terrorism'"
4) Other groups with other motives etc.

The point is how do you have these unrelated groups "cooperating"? Of course there had to be some individuals with sufficient connections in each of the groups involved to get their cooperation.

911 did not happen in a vacuum. It supposedly was managed from a country run by the Taliban who were set to announce that opium production had been reduced to zero, just as 911 hit.

As for your "irrefutable hypothesis", I don't know what that is.

There is more than sufficient evidence that
1) The actions of the crime were not exactly as portrayed to the mass public.
2) The motives of the crime were not exactly as portrayed to the mass public.

The actions of the crime have been sufficiently questioned. A good summary is http://patriotsquestion911.com/

The motives have been largely ignored. The one possibility that seems most inclusive of the evidence, and which is not contradicted by anything, seems to be that the attacks were orchestrated around the issue of Afghanistan's opium production. It is no secret that very little heroin moves far without someone in D.C. or Moscow getting a few pesos.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/militarysmuggledheroin.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

Although I will disagree with you about this, let us examine what your theory is.

1.  Is it about planes not really hitting towers, towers with pre planted explosives, etc?

2.  OR is it just about the people and motives?

I ask because in this entire thread I have not seen any arguments that were good regarding #1.

Regarding #2 there is the issue of the "irrefutable hypothesis" to be contended with.

The two most respected kinds of evidence are that which is "based" on the word of "authorities" and that which is "based" on the word of experts. A person normally assumes those two groups are the same but in this case it seems to not be so. At any rate there are numerous respected experts who would agree the visible evidence points to several groups.


----


ha ha

Again, the autopsy and the "sufficient" quote. Orwell is different because he hides the solution in a way anyone can find it. The danger is not from people who want more power, they have always had the latest weapons. The danger is from people who want more food. They have them now.

----


Who are "they"? Individuals who act as part of a group should be encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. It makes a great psychological drama but ultimately there are a lot of dead people and a lot of unused execution medicine

It doesn't bother me at all; just thought I'd extend a helping hand. You just said what I was pointing out:



Essentially what I'm suggesting to you is this: move on! For example, check out Larken Rose on YouTube. Or Max Igan. Or Bruce Lipton. Or Bashar. Just to name a few of the most interesting sources of information you may not yet be aware of.




Yes, I know what you mean. What I'm suggesting is that the perpetrators might not actually have cared to the degree that you are imagining, because all they really needed is control over the mainstream information-source filtration system. Consider the number of variables and unknown unknowns involved in the planning stage scenarios of an operation of this scale. It's the centuries-long shaping of the media that allowed them to create all the necessary NLP reversals (such as 'skeptics' becoming 'conspiracy theorists' and pseudoskeptical 'skeptics' defending the "official" story far more effectively than the "government" and media themselves) that would be necessary to entrance the majority of the subject minds and thus the human collective consciousness. It's like a 10,000,000-piece puzzle, and the hundreds or thousands of pieces found by a few independent-of-the-control-system researchers probably didn't bother them... at least until around 2005-2006, when Steven Jones was figuring out some of the major pieces. It is nonetheless possible that "As part of this operation we need to leave a certain kind of trail, we need to leave evidence that points in several different directions and which will draw several conflicting groups into constructing competing theories"... but to me it no longer seems to have been a necessary component. Notice how poorly constructed even the legend (trail) of the Arabs was. I think we underestimate the degree of influence of their main control vector (the media).

BTW, what do you think about this site: http://www.awaker.cn/

If somebody doesn't show any evidence for these things...

You don't need anyone to show you any evidence. The Internet is bubbling over with evidence. You research it, if you are at all interested.

Colossus: The Forbin Project

From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/plotsummary:

This has been your consistent theme.

But you have NEVER in this thread produced any evidence for (B) and (C). 

Not once.

You may be confusing two different issues.

1) There have been a lot of 'terrorist' attacks in a lot of countries.
2) The 911 attacks stand out in that there are numerous pieces of evidence that appear absurd. In other words there is piece after piece that seems to draw 'skeptics' into questioning it. An example is the passport found on the sidewalk near the towers.
3) My question was whether it was possible that these might have been a deliberate part of some other motive. For example might someone have said "As part of this operation we need to leave a certain kind of trail, we need to leave evidence that points in several different directions and which will draw several conflicting groups into constructing competing theories". Was the passport dropped deliberately by someone after the fact? I am not saying that was the case, I was simply asking if the evidence points to that.
4) There is no question that psychological motives drive all sides of the investigation by anyone involved. The "official" investigators are largely motivated by a desire to get professional benefit, to further their job, to satisfy their professional roles etc. Others, in whatever way, will look for ways to get other benefits, either defensive or offensive.
5) The participation of individuals from several seemingly unrelated groups seems evident.
a) There seems to be solid evidence that Saudi individuals motivated by religious or political fervor were involved.
b) There seems to be solid evidence that Americans who were in positions of 'responsibility' were involved.
c) There seems to be solid evidence that Zionists acting on nationalist motives were involved. And others etc

~~~~~~~~

A person is reminded of George Orwell's story about two huge empires, cooperating with each other to create a phony ongoing conflict that 'manages' the population. Basically a group of misguided individuals who have mastered the autopsy and nothing else. They have enough knowledge of things to grab and hold power for a while, but history will sum them up as not having understood the 'religious' quote mentioned earlier, "sufficient ..." etc.

We are in an era in which power no longer rests with governments. They have been subdued by the fact that a group of people is no longer as dangerous as an individual. If a government, its representatives, does not like another government etc, there is a predictable escalation that occurs. At its worst you see a large war using the latest weapons within a specific 'theater of war'. But if an individual does not like some other entity, a group, a govt etc, predictability is gone but the weapons are similar. There are millions of people who are able to construct 'weapons of mass destruction', who have the power to fight a government at a military level.

Mostly you are ignoring important aspects regarding the science of what went on that day. When you look at the complete science of what happened, you will see that most of the fuel boiled or burned off long before it had a chance to launch all those crazy btu's against anything in the buildings.

Go back to your high school engineering.

Ah, the real crazy talk starts.   

How about that.

No, we can't just talk about heat capacity of iron, heat of fusion, btus per gallon of kerosine.

None of those pesky facts matter.

What matters is "THE INSIDE JOB."

The fact that it bothers you so much about how I respond to Spendy makes me ask "Why?" If you were in agreement with him, I could understand it. But since you seem to be "awake" regarding the inside job, why would it bother you that someone is clarifying Spendy's illogical thinking? Are you trying to keep the 9/11 inside job idea from opening up a new drive for truth? Or are you trying to protect me from the powers that be, 'cause they see that I am clarifying the whole thing in ways they want to keep hidden?

That's all. Just curious about your reasons. I understand that this is a forum, and you might simply be playing to get some answers yourself.

Good question. I think it's more about the idea of the degree to which they believed they had control over the filtering of sources of information. There were also major mistakes (perhaps proportionally) in the test-run false flag operations preceeding 9/11 (i.e. 1st WTC bombing, OKC, TWA 800?, EgyptAir 990?, ...), and the older ones like the USS Liberty, which probably made them confident that it was enough to create a credible legend of foreign unknown Arabs for the drones in the law enforcement agencies to follow. The confusion and the magnitude of the event just made it take longer to figure out the crime for independent (agenda-free) investigators (several years).




I mean that he is telling you that he is not interested in anything you have to say. His mind is completely closed (to any ideas not coming from perceived authority figures) and he is happy to stay there, living by other people's beliefs. What makes you imagine I would be in "pain of some kind"? You seem like an ultra-sensitive person... (odd cuz I seem to recall you were a little bit harsh on 'dank')...