Conspiracies: Are they real?

[Walsingham]

taks may be right. I mean look at Kevin Bacon.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Im just not sure about that. The media may lie sometimes but how can you be sure when. How can you be sure that the "witnesses" aren't lying?

 

I say that the media is lying when there is evidence of it. As I showed Nightmare, Dan Rather stated that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy's head being pushed forward with 'considerable violence'. Anyone who has watched the Zap film knows that this isn't the case. Rather is either lying about watching the film or lying about it's contents. We also know the media is a propaganda tool because of the hundreds of hit pieces it puts out against conspiracy theories relating to 9-11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the JFK/RFK assassinations, and other black ops carried out by covert factions of the US Military-Intelligence complex.

 

Here are some witnesses that support the 'shot from the front' theory. Judge for yourself:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHyFZuzGH4

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gLd3O-Tch6o

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=b-IXYfge2Ys

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5VaJQgLmeTg

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iJE9XQZvis8

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=55jY6RUvxAI (Also watch Part 2)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk

 

Also, consider the fact that the doctors in Dallas unanimously report a large exit wound in the back of the head. Dr. Crenshaw reports an entry in the front. This story is what was reported initially in the New York Times. Acoustics experts hired by congress released their findings, based on a tape of the assassination, and said that with a probability of 95% or better, there was a fourth shot fired from the Grassy Knoll.

 

-Medical evidence

-Eyewitness evidence

-Acoustics evidence

-Initial reports

 

There is clear evidence of a shot from the front. A lot of evidence has come out after 45 long years.

[Aram]

haha. who is this guy?

[Walsingham]

I tell you what, buddy. I have a good friend with a PhD in structural engineering. I asked him about the 9/11 conspiracy theory. He just stared at me in disbelief and said: "They flew. Two passenger jet planes. Into a building. It fell over. Show me that happening and the building DOESN'T fall over, and I'll believe a conspiracy."

[Gfted1]

"They flew. Two passenger jet planes. Into a building. It fell over. Show me that happening and the building DOESN'T fall over, and I'll believe a conspiracy."

 

Not exactly a match to your example but interesting none the less. (scroll down a little)

 

EDIT: And no, I dont belive the twin towers were dropped in a conspiracy.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Gfted1

[taks]

"They flew. Two passenger jet planes. Into a building. It fell over. Show me that happening and the building DOESN'T fall over, and I'll believe a conspiracy."

one of the leading arguments is that steel cannot melt at the temperatures achieved in the fires in the towers. apparently steel just plods along at full strength all the way up to its melting point the BAM! liquid love. all the so-called "experts" that they show on the 9/11 conspiracy films seem to have an additional "ex" in their title, i.e., "ex-explosives expert." fired for incompetence i suppose.

 

taks

[kirottu]

"They flew. Two passenger jet planes. Into a building. It fell over. Show me that happening and the building DOESN'T fall over, and I'll believe a conspiracy."

one of the leading arguments is that steel cannot melt at the temperatures achieved in the fires in the towers. apparently steel just plods along at full strength all the way up to its melting point the BAM! liquid love. all the so-called "experts" that they show on the 9/11 conspiracy films seem to have an additional "ex" in their title, i.e., "ex-explosives expert." fired for incompetence i suppose.

 

taks

 

I actually met a person once who believed in 9/11 conspiracy. He did indeed use that steel melting point argument and I just stood there my mouth slightly open, because I never thought I would meet someone so stupid, so freakishly stupid.

 

I think the best argument against almost any conspiracy theory is their own magnitude, the sheer amount of people who are part of it. Honestly, "Two people can hold a secret if one of them is dead".

[Walsingham]

I like to think I'll consider these things. I was suspicious about the pentagon crash until it was explained to me how much force was involved and in fact how much of the plan was still visible. Plus, having worked in film special effects I was like: "You're saying it was staged? by how many guys?" Even assuming you could keep it secret, the idea that it went off perfectly is literally insane. No plan ever goes off without a hitch of some kind.

 

Which comes to Kirottu's point. We're talking about multi-person teams. Someone would blab, and you can bet your ass someone would use that info as a weapon to get ahead by nailing competitors or opposition. How do you think we know about so many CIA and MI6 black ops?

[taks]

"Two people can hold a secret if one of them is dead".

that's a good one.

 

i'm also curious how all those guys that placed the bombs went unnoticed for the several weeks it took.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

My stepdad believes in all of these conspiracy theories and he gives all these "facts" and "unaltered" documents to support them. I just cant believe anyone can believe these things. Its just silly.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

I tell you what, buddy. I have a good friend with a PhD in structural engineering. I asked him about the 9/11 conspiracy theory. He just stared at me in disbelief and said: "They flew. Two passenger jet planes. Into a building. It fell over. Show me that happening and the building DOESN'T fall over, and I'll believe a conspiracy."

 

Well, here's plenty of licensed structural engineers and relevant architects who say that he's wrong on that: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

 

Also, your friend does not seem to know much about this event. Two passenger planes did not fly into one building. A plane flew into one building. Another plane flew into another building. The planes hit on the higher floors and caused only local damage. The majority of their fuel exploded outside.

 

Also, a third building, Tower 7, fell down. No airplane crashed into it. Two airplanes cannot destroy three skyscrapers. It was further away from the Twin Towers than the Bankers Trust building and fell straight down, nearly symmetrically, almost entirely into it's own footprint, producing large, billowing clouds of fine, pulverized concrete at it's base, as it collapsed. The center of the building appeared to be pulled down into itself. The exterior walls were pulled towards it's center. Eyewitnesses reported loud explosions inside Building 7 immediately prior and during the collapse. All of this is very consistent with controlled demolition but not with a structural failure-induced collapse.

 

Further fortifying the case for demolition:

 

Responders Heard A Countdown Just Before Building 7 Fell

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/fi...o_countdown.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07building7.htm

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc

 

Former NYPD cop Craig Bartmer was a witness to the Building 7 collapse. He saw the hole and didn't think that it was bad enough to cause collapse. He said that he heard no indication that the building would come down. He heard a succession of explosions during the collapse. He is quite sure that they were explosions. He says that the steel beams were hurriedly removed from the site. Bartmer's account is evidence of controlled demolition.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr89c_cra...s-an-insid_news

 

Eyewitness Michael Hess reported an explosion inside Building 7.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64

 

Eyewitness Barry Jennings heard many explosions inside Building 7 and said that the lobby was completely destroyed.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

 

A medical student named Daryl calling into a radio station stated that he witnessed the collapse of Building 7. He stated that before the collapse, there was a 'clap of thunder', a shockwave, and then the bottom floor caved in, followed by the entire building. This 'clap of thunder' is exactly the type that we hear in videos of known controlled demolitions. ["911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)]

 

Reporter Al Jones witnessed the Building 7 collapse and stated that the collapse looked like it was done by a demolition crew and that the building came down because of an 'explosion. ["911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)]

 

Indira Singh, who was a Ground Zero emergency worker, reported that she was told, in relation to Building 7, that "we're going to have to bring it down.".

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78

 

Dan Rather's report on 9-11 was that the building was brought down by dynamite. This, of course, was later 'corrected'.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg

 

Both CNN and BBC reported that Building 7 collapsed before it did, while it stood right behind their on-site reporters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8979366420729478136

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2161960823229817419

 

 

one of the leading arguments is that steel cannot melt at the temperatures achieved in the fires in the towers. apparently steel just plods along at full strength all the way up to its melting point the BAM! liquid love. all the so-called "experts" that they show on the 9/11 conspiracy films seem to have an additional "ex" in their title, i.e., "ex-explosives expert." fired for incompetence i suppose.

 

taks

 

"you suppose"? "so-called"? "Taks", what are your credentials? A former expert could not have been fired because it is a title, not a position. It is a title earned through years of research and experience. For you to say that all of these experts that have spoken out against the official fairytale were "fired for incompetence". Here's a page listing over 640 experts (many of them structural engineers or relevant architects) that disagree with the official version: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

 

As for the fact that steel can't melt with the temperatures that were present in the WTC.. that isn't a 'leading argument'. At least not one of mine. While "melting steel" is not the official explanation, it was brought out by the corporate media at one point. It was an attempt to explain the collapse, but it failed quite miserably.

 

More importantly, the problem now is that there was a number of observations of melted steel at Ground Zero. Since the temperatures of the small fires in the WTC were not hot enough to melt steel, the fires could not have produced what was observed.. so what was it? Only incindiaries could have created such heat. The case for extreme heat is further fortified with the observations of 'partly evaporated' steel, horseshoe-bent steel beams, and reports of fires that burned for weeks after the event.

 

I actually met a person once who believed in 9/11 conspiracy. He did indeed use that steel melting point argument and I just stood there my mouth slightly open, because I never thought I would meet someone so stupid, so freakishly stupid.

 

I think the best argument against almost any conspiracy theory is their own magnitude, the sheer amount of people who are part of it. Honestly, "Two people can hold a secret if one of them is dead"

 

What is stupid about pointing out that the corporate media lied when it told us that the fires created by the plane crashes resulted in the steel supports melting, bringing forth total collapse? Lies like that are evidence of a cover-up.

 

As for the 'magnitude' argument..

 

1. The NSA has thousands of employees but it's a secret agency.

2. The Manhattan Project was kept under wraps.

3. Operation Gladio, an operation involving staged terrorism that was designed to manipulate politics, stayed secret for decades.

4. Whistleblowers who have said that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy and that they were involved (E. Howard Hunt, Chauncey Holt) have simply been marginalized.

5. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been definitively proven to be an 'inside job', yet it remains secret.

6. The Northwoods documents, described as the most corrupt plan ever thought of by the US military, stayed under wraps for 40 years.

 

These guys are masters of keeping secrets and covering things up. They've done it before and they continue to do it (7-7 Bombings, Virginia Tech, North Illinois Shooting, Omaha Mall Shooting, Mumbai attacks).

 

What about the responder who reported that he heard a countdown just before the collapse of Building 7 over radio and has come public with this story?

What about the Ground Zero emergency worker who was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down and has come public with this story?

What about Barry Jennings and Craig Bartmer, who witnessed explosions before and during the collapse of Building 7 and have come public with their story (Barry Jennings is dead now RIP)?

What about April Gallop, who was working inside the Pentagon and said that the explosion had all the characteristics (based on her military training) of a bomb blast, and came public with her story?

What about William Rodriguez, who was working inside the North Tower and heard explosions in the basement shortly before and shortly after the first alleged airplane strike, and came public with his story?

What about this guy, who witnessed the event and saw bombs going off in the first floor shortly after the alleged airplane strike at the top and came public?

What about John Schroeder, the New York firefighter who saw an explosion in the lobby, said there was no fire inside the lobby, but that it just looked like a bomb had gone off and came public with his story?

What about Anthony Saltalamacia, who reported an explosion in the mechanical room before the airplane impact and number of explosions in the basement level that sounded like grenades going off? He came public as well.

 

There are TONS of people who have come forward with personal accounts that provide amazing evidence for the conclusion that there was a conspiracy in relation to the September 11 attacks. The cover-up wasn't successful. It's in shambles after countless people who were there have come forward about what they saw and heard on September 11, 2001.

 

I like to think I'll consider these things. I was suspicious about the pentagon crash until it was explained to me how much force was involved and in fact how much of the plan was still visible. Plus, having worked in film special effects I was like: "You're saying it was staged? by how many guys?" Even assuming you could keep it secret, the idea that it went off perfectly is literally insane. No plan ever goes off without a hitch of some kind.

 

Which comes to Kirottu's point. We're talking about multi-person teams. Someone would blab, and you can bet your ass someone would use that info as a weapon to get ahead by nailing competitors or opposition. How do you think we know about so many CIA and MI6 black ops?

 

On the Pentagon Crash, the minimal amount of damage to the facade and the lack of positively identifiable airplane debris suspicious. What is more conclusive, though, is the fact that, if we are to believe the official version of a jetliner impact, we are to believe that 30 minutes after everyone knew that America was under attack by hijacked jets and other hijackings were reported, no fighter jets were sent to defend the Pentagon, America's military bullseye, despite their being an air force base with combat-ready fighter squadrons only 10 miles away! If an airplane hit the Pentagon, then the fact that it was allowed to hit without interception, and that the Pentagon was given no precautionary defense, is evidence of an inside job.

 

Further, there are now 13 eyewitnesses that all independently confirm that the airplane they saw 'hit' the building flew on the North Side of the CITGO gas station. This flight path, however, is impossible, if it was to have hit the light poles and caused the damage to the building that we all saw. So, we know a plane flew on that flight path, but that it couldn't have hit the building. The answer to this riddle comes in the form of eyewitnesses. Robert Turcios saw the plane 'pull up' just before the explosion and another witness saw a plane flying over the Pentagon after the explosion. It seems quite clear that the plane people saw flew over the building and did not hit it. What caused the explosion, you ask? Pre-planted explosives. Countless eyewitnesses inside the Pentagon reported a shockwave and that they thought bombs had gone off. Now we have the answer to the riddle. An airplane (most likely a remotely guided drone) flew over the building. This overflight was timed with the detonation of explosives that had been planted under the cover of renovation (the area that was hit was the only area of the building that was being renovated).

 

Black ops happen. They have happened and continue to happen. Most are kept secret. There are always whistleblowers, but those whistleblowers, but those whistleblowers are marginalized. Also, it didn't go off perfectly. That's why there are so many problems with the official version.

 

i'm also curious how all those guys that placed the bombs went unnoticed for the several weeks it took.

 

According to Ben Fountain, an occupant of the South Tower:

 

"How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914230312/...74592-5,00.html

 

Also, Scott Forbes, who was in the South Tower, said that a massive power-down happened days before 9-11. He had been working in the WTC for many years, and had never seen anything like it in his time working there. He says that at least the top half of the South Tower was evacuated and that 'engineers' entered the building. During this time, all the security settings were turned off, so these engineers had complete and total access.

 

The fact that the drills were 'unusual' and that the power down was something Forbes had never seen before shows that some very strange, very unusual activities were going on in the WTC in the weeks and days leading up to the attacks. These unusual events could have provided an opportunity for bomb-planting. Witnesses have already talked about construction projects going on in the WTC.

 

So, to answer who was behind all these unusual activities that could have served as the opportunity for explosives, we must look at the WTC's security. In the days and weeks leading up to 9-11, the WTC's security was provided by Kroll Inc., which was known as the CIA of Wall Street because of it's tendency to hire 'former' spooks. Another company that had a more minor role in the security at the WTC was Stratesec, which had links to the Bush family. In fact, George W. Bush's brother Marvin was a director of Securacom until 2000.

 

My stepdad believes in all of these conspiracy theories and he gives all these "facts" and "unaltered" documents to support them. I just cant believe anyone can believe these things. Its just silly.

 

Maybe you should look into the facts and unaltered documents instead of just calling them 'silly' and putting quotation marks around them to imply that their validity is in question. Facts are facts. Documents are documents. Don't automatically dismiss something as 'silly' because of how it sounds or because of it's status as a conspiracy theory without doing further research.

[Trenitay]

There are some theories I am completely against, but there are others that I am not so decisive about. I dont know which way to go on some of these. And how can you know which documents are unaltered or not? Or which statements are facts? In general I do dismiss these things as figments of someone else's imagination, but there are some that I neither believe or disbelieve in. But I guess that's just some wierd form of belief in itself.

[Gorgon]

I could believe that one of the passenger jets was shot down and the action then covered up, for various reasons. I don't, but it's feasible. That the twin towers were destroyed by the military industrial complex is just retarded.

 

Or maybe there is some interesting psychology behind the prevalence of these theories that is worth examining. The symbolic act of terror achieved on Sept. 11, that is to say the whole of the media spectacle and it's impact on American consciousness, as opposed to the disaster in the 'physical world', appears to have been so successful that a whole culture of denial has sprung up in it's wake.

 

Maybe there is a point to be made here that the relates to the Kennedy assassination, when an act of political violence becomes so charged that one cannot separate the physical from the symbolic impact, a mass investigative movement initiates that does not stop until a psychologically acceptable answer has been found, and of course there may be no psychologically acceptable answer, in which case it does on for decades.

 

As regards Sept. 11, one part of it obviously is the love of a good conspiracy, the other, that many (relatively of course) Amerians would rather believe that their own government caused the terrorism, than admit symbolic defeat to Al Kaida.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Oh holy Jebus. Look, if it weren't for the fact that I'm suposed to be using this morning to apply my engineering skills to actually saving lives I'd sit down and run through each of your points. I mean, kudos for taking the trouble to enumerate them clearly, and not treating us like total dolts, but you're just making your case worse!

 

Just one case in point: two airplanes can destroy three skyscrapers when one considers the impact energy of a skyscraper falling out of the sky. Fine pulbverised concrete happens whenever concrete gets smushed, or have you never done any demo work? It's fething awful stuff.

[taks]

"you suppose"? "so-called"? "Taks", what are your credentials? A former expert could not have been fired because it is a title, not a position.

no, the guy was a self-titled "explosions expert" that was no longer working in the field. i'm a phd in engineering, but that is immaterial.

 

It is a title earned through years of research and experience.

no, this guy was just some worker bee that agree to be interviewed. in the interview i saw, this guy clearly did not know what he was talking about. follow-up interviews with real experts pointed out his nonsensical statements. some of the problems with his comments were basic, too, things that most of us learn in grade school.

 

For you to say that all of these experts that have spoken out against the official fairytale were "fired for incompetence".

my comment was incorrect and was meant as a generalization, i.e., we keep hearing from experts that somehow don't really work in the field. "fired for incompetence" was sarcasm relating to this as the nutters that often speak out reveal their readily apparent incompetence.

 

Here's a page listing over 640 experts (many of them structural engineers or relevant architects) that disagree with the official version:

disagreeing with the official version and claiming that there was some conspiracy are two different things. ultimately, your appeal to authority is a bit ridiculous because the "official" review of what happened includes a whole lot more, i.e., they have a bigger appeal to authority than you do. genetics, i suppose.

 

As for the fact that steel can't melt with the temperatures that were present in the WTC.. that isn't a 'leading argument'. At least not one of mine.

i didn't say it was "one of yours," just that it's one of the leading ones i keep hearing. strawman.

 

While "melting steel" is not the official explanation, it was brought out by the corporate media at one point. It was an attempt to explain the collapse, but it failed quite miserably.

it did begin to melt, and the explanation didn't fail. the temperatures that occurred within the towers were sufficient to sap the structural steel of most of its strength.

 

More importantly, the problem now is that there was a number of observations of melted steel at Ground Zero. Since the temperatures of the small fires in the WTC were not hot enough to melt steel, the fires could not have produced what was observed.. so what was it? Only incindiaries could have created such heat. The case for extreme heat is further fortified with the observations of 'partly evaporated' steel, horseshoe-bent steel beams, and reports of fires that burned for weeks after the event.

incendiaries that nobody managed to see getting placed. the burden of proof is on you, or your kind, to prove that they were placed. said incendiaries, btw, leave behind very tell-tale residues that nobody seems to have found.

 

taks

Edited December 17, 2008 by taks

[taks]

1. The NSA has thousands of employees but it's a secret agency.

apparently you've never read the book "deep black." the nsa operations are hardly secret. furthermore, it is apparent you don't know a whole lot about how "secret" organizations keep things secret. the first is a little trick known as compartmentalization. that simply means that any given secret concept is doled out to only a few people that need to know. nobody knows everything, and most employees of the nsa only know enough to do their specific (and i mean specific) jobs. all of the menial things are all public anyway, and mixed in with the second trick called disinformation. it is difficult to piece together a "big picture" of what happens when you can't separate fact from fiction.

 

2. The Manhattan Project was kept under wraps.

very few outside of the actual project itself knew about it. the people working on it were isolated from outside contact. furthermore, this is a bit of a strawman since media coverage in the '40s hardly compares to today.

 

3. Operation Gladio, an operation involving staged terrorism that was designed to manipulate politics, stayed secret for decades.

actually, it was uncovered many times, and "disbanded" only to be reformed. this is another case of compartmentalization, btw.

 

4. Whistleblowers who have said that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy and that they were involved (E. Howard Hunt, Chauncey Holt) have simply been marginalized.

not sure what this has to do with "magnitude" of keeping a secret. if anything, the fact that they blew the whistle undermines your argument, i.e., the secret got out as predicted.

 

5. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been definitively proven to be an 'inside job', yet it remains secret.

uh, not that i've ever heard. you ought to back off terms like "proven" anyway since "proof" is a very, very difficult standard to test your theories. every bit of the evidence you've shown for anything has been circumstantial (and yes, i watched the video).

 

6. The Northwoods documents, described as the most corrupt plan ever thought of by the US military, stayed under wraps for 40 years.

doesn't meet the "magnitude" scope. not many people knew which makes it easier to keep under wraps.

 

most of these things fall into categories that are easily compartmentalized. large operations that require lots of people to know lots of things, i.e., massive coordination efforts, cannot be compartmentalized. it's just not possible.

 

taks

[Enoch]

This thread is comedy gold.

 

 

 

But, then again, I'm a government operative, and not to be trusted.

[Walsingham]

I have an in-law who was one of the lead engineers on fissile material refining, actually in the Manhattan project. According to him the entire working population was physically isolated and monitored 24 hours a day by armed guards. Literally, guys walking around overhead with shotguns. The need for total isolation is huge, as evidenced by its use during the preparation for the glider assault on Eben Emael, and OVERLORD.

 

Hell, you can still get leaks, even with isolation. Look at that Israeli guy who whistleblew their atomic research.

[taks]

exactly. openly public operations are impossible to cover up. they need the element of behind the scenes action, then massive efforts to keep things quiet. i'd be willing to bet those manhattan project guards didn't even know why they were guarding everyone, btw.

 

taks

Edited December 17, 2008 by taks

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

There are some theories I am completely against, but there are others that I am not so decisive about. I dont know which way to go on some of these. And how can you know which documents are unaltered or not? Or which statements are facts? In general I do dismiss these things as figments of someone else's imagination, but there are some that I neither believe or disbelieve in. But I guess that's just some wierd form of belief in itself.

 

When it comes to whether documents are authentic or not, just get them from the source. I can provide you with unaltered documents from 1962 that detail how the US military wanted to carry out attacks on US targets inside and outside of the US, stage terrorism campaigns in DC and Florida, stage shoot-downs of commercial airplanes, and frame Cuba for the attacks so they could have a war. How do I know these documents, entitled "Northwoods", are unaltered? Because they are straight from the National Security Archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

 

It all depends on the source. You need to do research to learn what's factual and what isn't. I never dismiss things, no matter how crazy they sound. The trick is to always do the research and find the sources. Doing that will, in the end, let you know about a statement's validity or lack of thereof.

 

===============

 

Taks, you talk a lot about compartmentalization. This is how 9-11 and military black operations are carried out in general. The operation is run on a 'need-to-know' basis. Only 10s of people necessarily were aware of and had access to the full 9-11 plan. Other people were left in the dark. The FBI agents who came to the gas station minutes after the Pentagon strike to confiscate the security footage were not necessarily involved. Based on the structure of the FBI as an organization, it is more than likely that they were simply told to do that by a superior, who could have been told to issue that order by another superior, and so on.. leaving only a select amount of people who are 'key perps'.

 

You are correct in saying that large operations require more perps. This, however, is not a problem, since the people involved in government black operations are completely ruthless. Governments stage terrorism. History has shown this fact. It is not out of the realm of possibilities.

 

As for Oklahoma City, please watch this video:

 

17:14-45:9

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+...l=en&emb=0#

 

Experts, Eyewitnesses, and initial reports all confirm that bombs were planted on the inside of the Alfred P. Murrah building. We have tons of initial news reports saying that it is confirmed that bomb squads are carrying two explosive devices out of the building to diffuse them. Eyewitnesses heard secondary explosions and saw the ATF carrying bombs away from the building. Benton K. Partin, a retired Brigadier General and an explosives expert wrote a report that scientifically proves the existence of other bombs in the Murrah building. Any one of these facts (Witnesses, Reports, Experts) would be proof enough for me, but all of them combined should be proof enough for anyone. It is a fact that bombs were inside the building.

 

Terry Nichols swore in an affidavit that the bombing was directed by the FBI:

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/trentadue-ni...claration-1.pdf

 

Photographs show that a yellow Ryder Truck (The exact same kind of truck McVeigh used) was in a military base (Very 'out of place') in Northern Oklahoma days before the Oklahoma City Bombing.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLIT...RUCK/truck.html

 

A video shows McVeigh in military uniform, in a military base that specializes in explosives and demolition training, one year AFTER he supposedly left the Army.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/okc_bo...icial_story.htm

 

It was reported on MAINSTREAM NEWS that the ATF wasn't in the building when it was bombed because they had been warned not to come in that day.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl9tI8TiKfQ

 

It's also been proven irrefutably through multiple eyewitnesses that there was a second man in the OKC truck. Officials deny this. The surveillance cameras would end this debate.. but guess what? They won't release the surveillance cameras.

 

But wait, there's more! The FBI's Counter-Terrorism chief was Danny Coulson, and WorldNetDaily obtained a receipt proving that Coulson had checked into a hotel near the Murrah building the night before the blast. In Coulson's book, "No Heroes: Inside the FBI's Secret Counter-Terror Force,", he states that he was in Fort Worth when he heard about the bombing, and that he rushed to Oklahoma by car. So, Danny Coulson, the chief Counter-Terrorism agent in the FBI, checked into a nearby hotel the night before and later lied about it in his own book. You couldn't ask for more powerful evidence that Coulson was a perp.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26115

 

And, circumstantial evidence??? Sorry, 80% of the evidence I've shown is not circumstantial. As for JFK II, I don't see how the doctors in Dallas unanimously stating that there was an exit hole in the back of Kennedy's head is circumstantial. That's hard, corroborated testimony that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kennedy was shot from the front.

 

This thread is comedy gold.

 

 

 

But, then again, I'm a government operative, and not to be trusted.

 

Comedy gold? I'm providing facts. Facts that aren't too funny, I'm afraid. If you could debunk them, you could laugh, but when one laughs at what he simply disagrees with, providing no evidence of his/her own, then they are simply trolling.

 

Hell, you can still get leaks, even with isolation. Look at that Israeli guy who whistleblew their atomic research.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the idea of 'conspiracy' based on the fact that "people will leak". Many government black ops go on behind the scenes and they do not get leaked. History shows us that government stages terror. The end. So, let's get to the evidence instead of continuing circular arguments on whether it would have leaked or not.

[taks]

Taks, you talk a lot about compartmentalization. This is how 9-11 and military black operations are carried out in general. The operation is run on a 'need-to-know' basis. Only 10s of people necessarily were aware of and had access to the full 9-11 plan. Other people were left in the dark. The FBI agents who came to the gas station minutes after the Pentagon strike to confiscate the security footage were not necessarily involved. Based on the structure of the FBI as an organization, it is more than likely that they were simply told to do that by a superior, who could have been told to issue that order by another superior, and so on.. leaving only a select amount of people who are 'key perps'.

nonsense. compartmentalization only works with things that do not require massive coordination. that's why the basics of nsa operation, for example, are rather easy to figure out with a little research.

 

It is not out of the realm of possibilities.

not out of the realm of possibility is a far cry from "it happened."

 

Sorry, 80% of the evidence I've shown is not circumstantial.

you saying so don't make it so.

 

As for JFK II, I don't see how the doctors in Dallas unanimously stating that there was an exit hole in the back of Kennedy's head is circumstantial. That's hard, corroborated testimony that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kennedy was shot from the front.

i don't disagree that there is more to the story and the forensics seem to indicate as such. but when you take the forensics as evidence that there was a conspiracy that is indeed circumstantial.

 

So, let's get to the evidence instead of continuing circular arguments on whether it would have leaked or not.

the point is that it is not only difficult, but impossible to keep things secret on such a grand scale. the argument isn't circular at all.

 

taks

[Aram]

This thread makes me want to take a dump.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Taks, you talk a lot about compartmentalization. This is how 9-11 and military black operations are carried out in general. The operation is run on a 'need-to-know' basis. Only 10s of people necessarily were aware of and had access to the full 9-11 plan. Other people were left in the dark. The FBI agents who came to the gas station minutes after the Pentagon strike to confiscate the security footage were not necessarily involved. Based on the structure of the FBI as an organization, it is more than likely that they were simply told to do that by a superior, who could have been told to issue that order by another superior, and so on.. leaving only a select amount of people who are 'key perps'.

nonsense. compartmentalization only works with things that do not require massive coordination. that's why the basics of nsa operation, for example, are rather easy to figure out with a little research.

 

It is not out of the realm of possibilities.

not out of the realm of possibility is a far cry from "it happened."

 

Sorry, 80% of the evidence I've shown is not circumstantial.

you saying so don't make it so.

 

As for JFK II, I don't see how the doctors in Dallas unanimously stating that there was an exit hole in the back of Kennedy's head is circumstantial. That's hard, corroborated testimony that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kennedy was shot from the front.

i don't disagree that there is more to the story and the forensics seem to indicate as such. but when you take the forensics as evidence that there was a conspiracy that is indeed circumstantial.

 

So, let's get to the evidence instead of continuing circular arguments on whether it would have leaked or not.

the point is that it is not only difficult, but impossible to keep things secret on such a grand scale. the argument isn't circular at all.

 

taks

 

nonsense. compartmentalization only works with things that do not require massive coordination. that's why the basics of nsa operation, for example, are rather easy to figure out with a little research.

 

Still, with the 'need to know' basis of the US government and the general compartmentalization in MILDEC (Military Deception) operations, there would not need to be thousands of 911 perpetrators in the 'conspiracy' scenario. There just needs to be the 'top level', 'black ops' parts of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, Pentagon, DOD, etc. I don't deny that hundreds would know, but my argument is that these same hundreds have been behind other horrible events in history and haven't lost a night's sleep. These are ruthless individuals. As for the more 'minor' perps, the Milgram Experiment and the Holocaust taught us about people. There are many, many people who will do horrible things just because a superior orders them to do it. Just ask the Israeli fighter pilots who bombed the USS Liberty or the British intelligence agents posing as Islamic terrorists in Basra.

 

not out of the realm of possibility is a far cry from "it happened."

 

Exactly. My point is that since it is not uncommon for governments to stage terror for political motives, we should stop questioning the logic of such a scenario and discuss the evidence.

 

i don't disagree that there is more to the story and the forensics seem to indicate as such. but when you take the forensics as evidence that there was a conspiracy that is indeed circumstantial.

 

Think about the implications, though. The forensics evidence proves a shot from the front. The shot from the front proves that there was a second rifleman. Now, ask yourself why there was such a cover-up of this information. Ask yourself why the autopsy photos were forged to cover this up. Ask yourself why Grassy Knoll witnesses were intimidated. Ask yourself why JFK's security was stripped from him that day.

 

you saying so don't make it so.

 

Please, then, explain how all of my arguments were circumstantial.

[taks]

Still, with the 'need to know' basis of the US government and the general compartmentalization in MILDEC (Military Deception) operations, there would not need to be thousands of 911 perpetrators in the 'conspiracy' scenario. <snip rest>

this is the point at which you get into pure conjecture. you don't know anything about how the black world works (not directly at least) except from what you read on conspiracy sites. you draw one weak link after another then use the final point to "prove" everything you've said. it's all conjecture.

 

Exactly. My point is that since it is not uncommon for governments to stage terror for political motives, we should stop questioning the logic of such a scenario and discuss the evidence.

since they can they must be. sheesh.

 

The shot from the front proves that there was a second rifleman. Now, ask yourself why there was such a cover-up of this information. Ask yourself why the autopsy photos were forged to cover this up. Ask yourself why Grassy Knoll witnesses were intimidated. Ask yourself why JFK's security was stripped from him that day.

 

Please, then, explain how all of my arguments were circumstantial.

the quote immediately above this is a perfect example. "ask yourself this" and "why" are nothing but conjecture in which you start off with an answer then phrase your questions to support that answer.

 

when you extend your physical evidence to come to a conclusion which is only one of many possibilities said physical evidence becomes circumstantial. you've provided a bunch of points of evidence (you confuse the terms evidence and proof rather often) then filled in the gaps between these points with your own pre-conceived notions. that is all circumstantial.

 

taks

Edited December 17, 2008 by taks

[taks]

This thread makes me want to take a dump.

just did. i think it helped.

 

taks